HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-032 - Supplemental - 0119 Tilley Drive (2)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SP-22-032 1795 Shelburne Road
DATE: September 20, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP-22-032 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story 84,006 sf
medical office and outpatient facility with associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on
an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive.
CONTEXT
The Board held a hearing on this application on August 2, 2022. The Board reviewed the application with
the applicant, provided feedback, and continued the hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant to
make necessary modifications to the project for the project to be compliant with the City’s Land
Development Regulations and to continue review of the portions of the staff report that there was
insufficient time to address on August 2.
The applicant provided revised materials on September 6. Review of these revised materials is
incorporated herein; criterion which Staff considers to have been addressed have been removed from
this report.
PERMIT HISTORY
The official map includes two planned roadways in the Tilley Drive area, one extending north from Tilley
Drive on Lot 2 to the O’Brien property to the north and one extending east from the existing cul-de-sac
on Tilley Drive to Community Drive. The DRB recently reviewed projects that addressed each of these
connections, the north connection with the O’Brien Eastview approval (preliminary plat #SD-20-40, final
plat application #SD-22-10) and the east connection with the OnLogic approval (final plat #SD-21-26 &
site plan #SP-21-046). Both of those projects accommodated the planned roadway connections as
required in the LDR. The O’Brien Eastview application is discussed further in this report.
COMMENTS
(1) MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS
15.B.02(A) Required Approval. Master plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to
preliminary subdivision review under Article 15.A, or site plan review under Article 14, as applicable,
for:
(4) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where
there exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an
application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed and potential future development.
At sketch, the applicant indicated they have no intention to further develop the site beyond that
presented in this application. The Board determined master plan is not required if the applicant were to
in some way restrict the remaining lands from development.
1. On August 2, the Board discussed whether additional encumbrance is necessary beyond the recreation
paths and easements proposed for the undeveloped portion of the lot, were inclined that it was not,
but asked to see a plan to aid in their determination. Staff recommends the Board review Sheet C-1.4
and determine whether additional encumbrance is necessary. If so, Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to propose a mechanism for restricting the remaining lands from future growth
at least for the 10-year period that would be represented by a master plan.
(2) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Staff recommends the Board include as a condition of approval that the applicant update the proposed
dimensions (coverages, setbacks, height, etc) prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
(3) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure
to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking
areas.
On August 2, the Board asked the applicant to provide a pavement striping and signage plan. A plan has
been provided and included in this packet. Staff notes providing a stop bar at the downstream end of the
one-way drop off loop is not recommended and the signage does not clearly indicate one-way, though
there are unlabeled signs on the plan; Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the
pavement marking and signage plan, subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works, as a
condition of approval.
The DRB shall consider the following:
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
This criterion is related to criterion 14.07G: Access to Abutting Properties. The project is located
within the Mountain View business park, which includes an existing recreation path along the
north side of Tilley Drive connecting VT 116 to Community Drive. The Board is concurrently
reviewing the O’Brien Eastview development project which directly abuts the subject property.
At sketch, the Board discussed with the applicant the planned connections from the O’Brien
Eastview property. Since that time, the O’Brien Eastview development has evolved somewhat
and is now proposing a realigned recreation path that ends at the northern boundary of the
subject property. On August 2, the applicant indicated a willingness to accommodate connections
from the Eastview property. The applicant has revised the plans to include a right-of-way which
connects to the proposed O’Brien Eastview Barn Road, and to construct a recreation path which
connects between the existing Tilley Drive recreation path and the planned recreation path on
the O’Brien Eastview Plans adjacent to Potash Road.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed plans with Staff on September 13, 2022 and
indicated that the applicant should provide separate irrevocable offers for the recreation path,
for Barn Road extension, and for the pocket park (details of the pocket park are discussed under
14.06C below). He also asked the Board require the applicant to construct the recreation path of
standard asphalt pavement rather than permeable asphalt pavement, since no successful
permeable asphalt has been yet produced by Vermont asphalt plants. If the applicant wishes to
maintain the recreation path, they may include a clause in the irrevocable offer indicating the City
will not accept it unless the applicant fails to maintain it to City standards. Staff considers these
comments may be addressed as conditions of approval.
On August 2, the Bike/Ped Committee Liaison suggested the rec path connect directly to the
development instead of to Tilley Drive. Staff considers it critical that the rec path connect directly
to Tilley Drive because of the importance of regional non-vehicular circulation, in addition to the
presence of a number of other employers on Tilley Drive.
2. However, Staff recommends the Board consider whether they will direct the applicant to require
a short spur from the rec path to the proposed building.
Otherwise, Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public
street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow
for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street
3. The Board determined on 8/2 that the parking to the front relative to Old Farm Road is allowable under
(iii) below but required the applicant to add additional screening. The applicant indicated in their cover
letter that they have done so, but Staff has not been able to find any differences with a side by side
comparison of the landscaping plans. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross
floor area.
The proposed 84,006 s.f. building requires a minimum of 5,040 s.f. of Site Amenity. The applicant has
modified their proposal to include a pocket park on the north east corner of the property, located in
line with the proposed recreation path. Staff considers this an interesting proposal. The proposed
pocket park meets the size and amenity requirements of LDR 11B. However, pocket parks are listed
in 11B as typically fronting on one or two streets. There is no street in the proposed location at this
time, though the street on the official map will be adjacent to the amenity when constructed.
Additionally, Staff finds the idea of moving away from a car-centric design and locating the amenity
on a recreation path to be interesting. It would allow employees of the facility to use the site with
some privacy, and serve as a destination for those taking a walk from this and adjacent buildings
4. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to allow the applicant to use the pocket park amenity
type. It should be noted that alternative amenity options are available to the applicant due to the
relatively open nature of the underlying zoning district.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable
requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
The property contains a Class III wetland greater than 5,000 sf and a Class III wetland less than 5,000 sf.
The smaller wetland is not regulated by the City. The larger wetland has a 50-ft buffer. Development in
a Class III wetland and associated 50-ft buffer is generally prohibited and is required to be left in an
undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. The following activities are permissible.
(a) Restricted Infrastructure encroachment
(b) Temporary impacts
(c) Underground Utilities
On August 2, the Board indicated that they considered the proposed impacts of the driveway on the
regulated wetland to be acceptable.
5. It has come to Staff’s attention that the applicant has proposed to plant a number of trees in the
regulated Class III wetland. LDR 12.06D(2) states that “Development in a Class III wetland (meeting
5,000 square foot threshold), and associated buffer within all zoning districts, is generally prohibited
and shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition.” Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to remove the proposed trees from the undisturbed portion of the wetland and
wetland buffer.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of
buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and
other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below.
C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation
standards of Section 15.A.14.
Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this application.
The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow.
15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized
intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or
better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed
PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major
roadway shall have a level of service of “D” or better at full buildout.
The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) dated May 27, 2022. They estimate a PM
peak hour trip generation of 110 trips and a total of 769 trips per day. However, they conclude
these values using a reduction based on the provision of Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures. The City’s impact fee ordinance provides a methodology for impact fee credit for
TDM measures, but there is not a methodology for reduction in trips for the purpose of road
network analysis. They also estimate trips based on site-specific data and not on ITE approved
values.
On August 2, the Board invoked technical review of the TIA. BFJ’s review is included in the packet
for the Board. In summary, BFJ makes the following recommendations.
Initial trip generation estimates (129 PM peak hour trips) are accurate.
Internal capture should not be applied.
TDM trip reduction is too high.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate BFJ’s recommendations. Since
these modifications will result in a relatively modest adjustment to the number of predicted PM
peak hour trips, Staff considers this can be addressed as a condition of approval.
G. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
On August 2, the Board directed the applicant to provide for connection of the property to the north-
south roadway on the official map. The applicant has done so, but not in the way Staff was expecting.
Instead of providing for direct connection to the official map roadway, the applicant has provided for
connection to the future ROW for Barn Road, which will be extended to meet the roadway on the official
map. The Board on August 2 determined that reserving funds for construction of the connection between
Barn Road and the official map roadway is not the responsibility of the applicant, meaning it will fall on
City taxpayers to fund this connection.
6. Given that Barn Road extension is likely to be built at a later time than construction of the official map
roadway, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide for a direct
connection to the future official map roadway.
The applicant’s plans call out the driveway connection as a right of way. DPW director indicated no right
of way offer should be provided for the proposed driveway connection and it should be indicated instead
on the plans as a reserved area (or similar language), not a right of way. Staff considers this may be
addressed as a condition of approval.
H. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall
be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and
Services, shall also be met.
Wire-served utilities are shown to be underground from the emergency generator to the building.
However it is not indicated how non-emergency power will be served. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to modify the plans to show non-emergency power from the source to the
building, and that this connection be underground, as a condition of approval.
Note: Time did not permit the remainder of this staff report to be reviewed on August 2. Staff has
therefore included all relevant regulations after this point, and invites both the Board and applicant to
raise any concerns they have with Staff’s interpretation, but has updated the Staff comments to reflect
the revised materials submitted on 9/6/2022.
(4) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
In addition to the issues identified herein, Staff noted a number of miscellaneous items on the provided
plans which are not identified.
1. There are several small elements on sheet C-1.7 indicated as a grey box with the letter “B”
in it. What are these elements? They may require screening if they are located above
grade.
2. What is the purpose of the line around the five parking spaces near the northwest corner of
the building on Sheet C-1.7?
3. The property owner is incorrect on Sheet C-1.7
7. These comments have not been addressed. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
modify the plans to provide clarity on these items before closing the hearing.
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and pedestrian
conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required
driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways.
All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant,
office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to
other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the
adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide
an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or
easement should be located where vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
The applicant is sharing a driveway with the property to the west.
There is a future city street located between the subject property and the commercial lot to the
east. As discussed above, Staff recommends the Board make a determination on the layout of the
connection to the future city street.
Also as noted above, the applicant has connected to the recreation path to the north, and to
provided a feasible design and easement for the connection to Barn Road.
G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping
(1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-2 and
Figure 13-1, Section 13.04, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07,
Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited.
Dimensional requirements are met.
Parking lot landscaping and lighting are further discussed below.
(2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and
existing traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.
The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/27/2022 and indicated there were no comments related
to the Board’s authority.
(4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be
separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation,
including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The
pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic
on sidewalks and recreation paths.
Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.03
(6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to
recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged
in the design of any off-street parking or loading area.
Stormwater management is discussed under 13.05 below.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The applicant has provided two bicycle racks, providing parking for four bicycles.
Required Bike Parking Required
Short Term (1 per 5k sf retail,
restaurant, and all other uses,
minimum 4)
17
Long Term (50% of short term) 9
Changing Facility and Unisex
Showers
1
Clothes Lockers 3
The applicant has provided 14 inverted-U type bicycle racks near the main entrance, providing parking for
28 bicycles. Short term requirements are met. The applicant has provided twelve long term bike parking
spaces and has shown where the changing facilities, clothes lockers, and showers will be located. Staff
recommends the Board require demonstration of the applicant having met changing facility, shower, and
locker requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 7/24/2022 and indicated the plan includes too many maples as
maples are an overplanted species, but otherwise had no concerns. This comment has been woven into
Staff review of landscaping criteria below.
B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street
parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped
with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved by the
Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow
stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and
management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the
proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area
and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
(1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for
snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot
from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for
the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the
perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in
parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of
the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
8. The applicant has provided testimony that this criterion is met by providing 13,812 sf of landscape
islands within 84,488 sf of parking area but has not shown the areas they included. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to provide a general diagram showing the areas used in the provided
computation to verify the computation was done correctly. Staff notes such a diagram could be a
simple line hand-drawn on a plan and does not need to be a formal plan.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as
a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.04(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and
shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged.
Curbing is provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or
salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a
minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
9. 270 parking spaces are provided, requiring 54 shade trees. Including trees provided on the far side
of the drive aisle within the drop off area, but otherwise excluding trees which area not directly
adjacent to parking spaces, Staff considers this criterion to be just met. There are eight trees on
the far side of the drive aisle. The applicant has indicated they do not wish to provide shade trees
on the western or northern sides of the parking lot due to neighbor requests to not block views of
the mountains. The applicant has provided a few trees to the north but only low growing shrubs
to the west. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether compliance with this criterion is
adequate.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
This criterion is met.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the
species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the
parking lot and the site.
10. The applicant previously provided an item-by-item breakdown of landscaping costs, which has
been omitted from the revised submission, therefore Staff cannot efficiently evaluate whether as
noted above and based on recommendations of the City arborist, the applicant has reduced the
reliance on maples on the plan. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an
updated item by item breakdown of landscaping costs to evaluate compliance with this and
landscape budget requirements.
(e) Within the City Center FBC District, landscaping required within this section shall not
count towards meeting minimum landscape budget requirements as detailed in Section
13.04(G).
This criterion is not applicable.
(1) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for
erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
Snow storage is provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land
shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two
adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s
appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or
is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a
residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a
public street.
The Board touched upon this criterion on 8/2 and the applicant has made some modifications. Staff
considers this criterion to now be addressed through screening.
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and multi-
family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector
streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration
are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of
sections 13.04(F) and (G).
11. On 8/2, the applicant testified that their intention is to maintain the front yard as meadow. The Board
thought this was an interesting proposal and asked for a rendering showing the applicants proposal.
The applicant has provided an untitled rendering showing the appearance of the building from the
street. Staff recommends the Board review this rendering and the landscaping plans and determine if
they consider this criterion to be met.
G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements,
some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as
long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a
landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first
$250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or
improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000. The landscaping budget shall
be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer.
The total project cost, excluding speciality costs related to the surgery center, is $43,040,903, resulting
in a required minimum landscaping budget of $437,909. The applicant has proposed the following
landscaping elements.
Trees $249,300
Shrubs $123,925
Ornamental Grasses $67,425
Perennials $41,220
Total $481,870
The Board may only allow credit for perennials and grasses if the objectives of the landscaping standards
are otherwise met. The Board finds the proposed landscaping elements shall count towards the
required minimum landscaping budget, except the perennial plantings shall be maintained in perpetuity
on a square footage basis rather than on a plant by plant basis. The perennial beds shall be maintained
in perpetuity with plantings of substantially similar value and quality as that shown on the approved
plans, and such perennial beds shall be considered as a required element of the approved landscaping
plan. The Board finds this criterion met.
13.05 Stormwater Management
Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is proposed to
exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. The project will be subject to State
stormwater management standards. The City Stormwater Director reviewed the project on 7/25/2022,
offered comments which he confirmed on September 16 were addressed by the applicant with the
revised plan.
13.07 Exterior Lighting
Lighting requirements are summarized as follows.
(1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded
(2) Illumination must be evenly distributed
(3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance
(4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural
material, with a decorative surface or finish
(5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft
(6) Poles must be located in safe locations
Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited to 3
foot candles average at ground level. The applicant has provided a photometric drawing indicating this
criterion is met.
Based on Staff comments for the 8/2 hearing, the applicant has revised the lighting plan to provide more
uniform and lower peak illumination levels to prevent lighting from becoming a nuisance. Staff considers
proposed lighting levels to be appropriate.
The applicant has included sign illumination on their plans. Staff notes sign illumination is subject to
separate ordinance and must be removed from the plans.
12. The applicant has highlighted the specifications of each light fixture provided, but the highlighting is
opaque and prevents reading the specifications, therefore compliance with the physical standards
cannot be evaluated. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide revised legible
lighting cut sheets.
13.08 Outdoor Storage and Display
A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and
equipment shall be subject to the following provisions:
(1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed
only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan,
conditional use and/or PUD application.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with
commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise
an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft,
or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels.
This criterion applies to equipment. The applicant has proposed an emergency generator, two chillers, an
“oxygen storage area, a transformer, and an electrical vault. Staff notes under prior LDR, landscaping
standards explicitly required additional screening of equipment, but that standard has been modified in
the latest LDR to be more broad as excerpted in 13.04C above. Staff considers, should the Board find it
appropriate, they may choose to interpret 13.04C to require screening of equipment under the provision
where the Board may require screening where “a property’s appearance should be improved, which
property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped.”
The emergency generation is proposed to be 12-ft high and is proposed to be enclosed by a 8-ft high fence
surrounded by evergreen trees. Previously submitted plans had a 12-ft high fence but this has been
reduced, presumably to avoid the need for the fence to be considered a structure.
The chillers are proposed to be 9-ft high and are proposed to have no enclosure or screening.
The oxygen farm is proposed to have a max height of 15-ft and is proposed to be enclosed by an 8-ft high
fence surrounded by evergreen trees on three sides.
The transformer is proposed to be 6-ft high. It is located near the northeast corner of the building along
with an electrical vault and neither is proposed to be screened.
The applicant has also provided an image of a fuel cell (10-ft high). On previous versions of the plans, the
applicant indicated a “future fuel cell area” immediately south of the proposed oxygen storage area, but
it appears to have been removed.
13. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that no approval is sought for the future fuel
cell.
14. Staff recommends the Board then discuss whether, for all five or six pieces of equipment, they consider
screening to be adequate, taking both this criterion and the requirements of 13.04C into consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner