Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-020 - Supplemental - 0039 Bowdoin Street (35)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP-22-020_39 Bowdoin Street_neagleychase_SC_2022-06- 21.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 15, 2022 Plans received: April 26, 2022 39 Bowdoin Street Site Plan Application #SP-22-020 Meeting date: June 21, 2022 Owner Northeast Territories 20 South Crest Drive Burlington, VT 05401 Applicant Neagley & Chase Construction 66 Bowdoin Street, PO Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05407-2204 Property Information Tax Parcel ID: 0257-00039 3.4 acres Industrial & Open Space Zoning District, Hinesburg Road North View Protection District, Airport Approach Cones Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map #SP-22-020 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION The warned project description is as follows: Site plan application #SP-22-020 of Neagley & Chase Construction to construct a single story 21,790 sf office building, create 2,160 sf of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements, 39 Bowdoin St. Subsequent to the application being warned, it has come to Staff’s attention that it appears the applicant is proposing a mix of contractor or building trade facility and of office. Staff has incorporated the revised uses into this report. CONTEXT This item was continued from the June 7, 2022 meeting without being discussed. The applicant has prepared responses to some of the comments identified herein, which Staff has incorporated into this report. On September 17, 2019, the Board reviewed sketch plan application #SD-19-25 for a planned unit development consisting of the subject property, the property at 35 Thompson Street, and the undeveloped lot west of 35 Thompson Street. That sketch plan has expired but the current application for the subject property is substantially similar to the plan reviewed by the Board at that time. The application in 2019 was for an expansion of OnLogic, who has since received DRB approval to construct a new manufacturing and office facility on Community Drive. The current application is for an office building for the use of Neagley & Chase. As the application is for a Site Plan, a sketch plan meeting is not required. The project is located in the Industrial-Open Space (IO) zoning district. The purpose of the Industrial & Open Space Zoning District is to provide suitable locations for high-quality, large-lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high-quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. The location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. With the application having been received on April 26, 2022, it is subject to the amendments to the Land Development Regulations warned for public hearing by the City Council on April 14, 2022 pursuant to 24 VSA 4449(d). Those draft amendments were adopted by the City Council on May 2, 2022. COMMENTS Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Planning Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on April 26, 2022 and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are indicated in red. Applicant responses prepared following the initial June 7th Staff notes are shown in green. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The lot is currently undeveloped. #SP-22-020 3 IO Zoning District Required Proposed √ Min. Lot Size, non-residential use 3 acres 3.4 acres √Max. Building Height Flat Roof 40 ft. 33 ft.1 √Max. Building Coverage 30% 12.6% √Max. Overall Coverage 50% 29.6% √ Max. Front Setback Coverage, Shelburne St 30% 4.1 – 23.9% √Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 31 ft. √Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 84 ft. √Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A 1. It appears the applicant’s proposed height is calculated based on the floor to ceiling height of the building, not the height as calculated from the average preconstruction grade of the site. The project involves significant regrading of the site, therefore Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a height measured from average pre-construction grade prior to closing the hearing. 13.06 Airport Approach Cones All applications for development within the Airport Approach Cones, as shown on the Overlay Districts Map, involving new or expanded buildings or structures shall provide documentation that either a Notice to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is not required, or an application for a Determination of No Hazard has been submitted to the FAA. Where an application for Determination of No Hazard has been submitted, no zoning permit for construction shall be issued without demonstration of receipt of an issued Determination. The property is located entirely within an airport approach cone. The applicant has provided a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, issued March 7, 2022. Staff considers this criterion met. 10.02G Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone (1) No part of any structure within the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone shall exceed an elevation of 393.5 feet above mean sea level plus 5.8 feet for each 1000 feet that said part of said structure is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone Base Line shown on the above referenced Scenic View Protection Overlay District Map. Based on the applicant’s testimony that the building is 33 ft in height, and the proposed grade of 348 ft, Staff estimates that the peak elevation of the mostly flat roof is 381 ft. Since this is below the elevation of the baseline, 10.02G(1) is met. (2) Landscaping and other vegetation located within the Hinesburg Road-North View Protection Zone shall be maintained so that it does not exceed an elevation of 393.5 feet above mean sea level plus 5.8 feet for each 1000 feet that said landscaping or vegetation is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road - North View Protection Zone Base Line shown on the above referenced Scenic View Protection Overlay District Map. The nearest trees are located approximately 2,500 ft from the baseline, which results in a maximum allowable tree height of 408 ft. The nearest trees are proposed to be at elevation 344, with a max height of 50 – 60 ft, or 404 ft. Staff considers this criterion met. #SP-22-020 4 B) 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. The DRB shall consider the following: (a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along the street. (b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade. (c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development. (d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability within the area proposed for development. (e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of these regulations. The building is proposed to have two loading docks facing east. The loading dock doors will be at grade with the proposed base of the building, though the ground will be lower. The loading docks are the only openings on the east street-facing side of the building and there is extremely limited landscaping planted along this facade. The south street-facing side of the building contains some windows on the western side. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether either street facing façade should be reconfigured to have more interest and have the principal entry face south Staff also notes that there is presently no entry to the space labelled “tenant space 2” on the architectural plans. Transitions are discussed under 14.06(C) below. Adequacy of planting and pedestrian movement are discussed elsewhere in this document. For the proposed 21,790 sf building, sixty-one (61) parking spaces are provided. Staff considers parking areas to be adequate. (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. This criterion is met. B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), #SP-22-020 5 landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. (3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider: (a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations, position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached building types. (b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style. (c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side and back yard areas through context sensitive design. The applicant has provided elevations of the proposed building. The building is proposed to be clad in metal panels. The adjacent sites in Meadowland Business Park have a similar architectural style, with the exception of the existing Neagley and Chase building which is partially constructed of brick. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8 The project is intended to mimic the abutting streets. In this case as Meadowland Drive passes the property is was constructed in a fill. The proposed fill at the west end of the property is intended to facilitate access to Meadowland Drive 3. Staff understands and appreciates the applicant’s explanation, but continues to recommend the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion met given the installation of a retaining wall with a maximum height of approximately nine (9) feet, occurring at it’s northwestern corner. The building therefore does not particularly conform to existing topography. The Board may wish to request renderings in support of this criterion. C. Site Amenity Requirement (1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities. This section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed by Section 8.08). (2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities: (a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF. (b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures. (c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to residential use. The proposed facility exceeds 5,000 s.f. in size and therefore these standards apply. #SP-22-020 6 (3) The required area shall be: (a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross floor area. (b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as: (i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit; (ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or (iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit. The proposed 21,790 s.f. building requires a minimum of 1,307 s.f. of Site Amenity. The Plans at this time do not include any site amenities. However, there does appear to be space to locate a Site Amenity near the principal entry to the building. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8 We are proposing a knee high stone veneer planter from along the walkway to the front door (+/- 16’). Covering the walkway would be an exposed, wood frame “Trellis” with a wood slatted roof, much like you see in a garden entrance. 4. The Site Amenity must be one of the allowable Site Amenity Types in Article 11B of the Land Development Regulations. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to identify and demonstrate compliance with the applicant’s chosen amenity type and size. 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 wetland, wetland buffer, and river corridor. The river corridor is contained entirely within the wetland and wetland buffer. The applicant is proposing to avoid permanent impacts to the wetland buffer, though the retaining wall is located only 3.5 ft from the wetland buffer. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. The proposed construction of the segmental retaining wall along the west edge of the property avoids the need for a deep excavation typically associated with a traditional frost protected cantilever retaining wall. The construction of the segmental wall can be achieved with generally 1 to 2 feet of disturbance in front of the face of the wall in support of the 12” crushed stone base. The construction of this wall will be one of the first improvements undertaken so the wall itself will control runoff from the site. Staff considers the original comment to have been addressed and this criterion to be met. 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, #SP-22-020 7 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) evaluating the potential impact on adjoining street. BFJ Consulting reviewed the TIA and identified a number of potential concerns. BFJ’s memo is included in the packet for the Board. First, BFJ considers that the trip generation estimated in the TIA is lower than appropriate. However, they conclude that the corrected value would not have a meaningful impact on this criterion. More importantly, the applicant assumes in their TIA that the building consists of a mix of light industrial, warehousing, and general office. There is some uncertainty as to use: the application form and correspondence from the applicant from 4/15/2022 only indicates general office as a use, though it appears based on the plans the proposed use may include a mix of contractor or building trade facility and office. The number of trips generated by general office would be higher than the number of trips predicted by the TIA, or as corrected by BFJ. BFJ anticipates the impact of the building being used entirely as general office would have the following change on the results of the TIA. The LOS for Meadowland DR will probably remain at C - the LD analysis does not seem to take into consideration that there is a left turn and a right turn lane on the Meadowland approach, but the Landon Rd approach may change from a high LOS D to a low LOS E with delays in the range of 35 to 37 seconds, however, given the very low volumes on Landon, this does not justify any mitigation at this stage. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. The intent of the LUC chosen in the TIA was to identify the equivalent of 13,920 SF of Contractor’s Yard use and 7,870 SF of office use. 5. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the proposed use of the building, and, if it is proposed to be entirely office, update the TIS prior to closing the hearing. The applicant’s provided floor plan seems to indicate some of the spaces are not yet assigned. Staff considers that if the applicant wishes to not designate the entirety of the building at this time, they may permit a portion as vacant, though when the applicant later wishes to assigning a use, it will require an amendment to the site plan with associated TIA update. #SP-22-020 8 6. Staff further recommends the Board establish as part of their decision an approved PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for the purpose of calculating traffic impact fees. In order to do this, the applicant must commit to a distribution of uses. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. The PM Peak Hour Trip end generation of the hybrid uses chosen by the traffic consultant created a PM Peak Hour trip generation of 27 VTE. It is not uncommon for an applicant to amend a site plan to reflect a different mix of uses and make up the difference in traffic impact fees at that time, as long as physical improvements to the exterior of the building or site are not required. 15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to: (1)-(6) not applicable (7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-accident locations. (8) Align access point with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible. Staff considers the pedestrian access to be adequate, and supports the proposed driveway widths. BFJ reviewed the site plan for 39 Bowdoin Street and asks the following questions: Assuming no substantial topographical challenges, could the site’s easterly access driveway that connects to Bowdoin Street be aligned directly with the parking aisle to ease internal circulation and also allowing the trucks to back to the loading docks from the parking lot rather than from the street? The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. When this same plan was presented to Staff as part of the On-Logic campus proposal in 2019, we were asked to consolidate the truck loading and vehicular curb cuts into one. This application reflects the guidance we received at that time. We can resurrect the earliest concept of a direct connection from the east end of the north parking area easterly out to Bowdoin Street to align with the CBA office building driveway across the way. It should be pointed out that the westerly curb cut out on to Meadowland Drive will receive the majority of the turning movements as that is the shortest way for egress from the property to most destination points. Therefore conflicts with CBA traffic movements will be occur on a less frequent basis. #SP-22-020 9 Staff notes the provided plan presents a similar curb cut configuration as the 2019 sketch plan configuration. Staff is unfamiliar with the concept to which the applicant is referring, but BFJ’s comments should not be interpreted to be recommending a second curb cut on Bowdoin St. Staff’s comment is unchanged. 7. BFJ did not have the grading plans available when they made their comment. Staff considers there are no substantial topographical challenges, and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their site plan to align the driveway so that it both aligns with the driveway on the opposite side of Bowdoin Street and with the drive aisle. (9) Minimize vehicular access point (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along pedestrian oriented street frontage; and provide, where feasible, shared vehicular access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes, shared driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels. The street network in this location is such that Bowdoin Street cannot be extended much further due to the location of the interstate, and Meadowland Drive cannot be extended much further due to the location of Muddy Brook and its associated wetland complex. Because of the wetland to the west, no connection to the west may occur. The northern property is occupied by the Department of Homeland Security, and as such no cross lot connection to the north is recommended. Staff considers this criterion met. D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved] E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards contained therein. Not applicable. F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.15(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations. Staff considers Bowdoin St. to be an Industrial Access Road, which requires a 10-ft wide recreation path and street trees. The applicant is proposing street trees. There is an existing 5- ft bituminous walk on the side of the street facing the subject property. Given the nature of the street and it’s limited potential for expansion, Staff considers the existing facility to be sufficient. Staff considers this criterion met. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. The existing infrastructure is consistent with the City approved master plan for the Meadowland Business Park. Lacking any goals of the City to implement supplemental pedestrian ways to the #SP-22-020 10 north of the Business Park, the width of the existing sidewalk, which is consistent with City standards, appears to be adequate without further widening. 8. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to require the applicant to upgrade the existing facility. F. 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. Staff considers no reservation of land to be necessary. G. 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 proposed to be underground. The Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed plan on 6/1/2022 and indicated there were no comments on this application. The South Burlington Water Department Director reviewed the plans on May 27, 2022 and offers the following comments. 1. Plans must include a note stating “All water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the Champlain Water District Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances, current edition.” 2. Record Drawings prepared by a VT licensed Professional Engineer shall be provided to the South Burlington Water Department in pdf. and Auto-CAD format. Drawings shall include ties to all gate valves and curb stops to sub-meter accuracy. 3. Existing line diameter must be confirmed prior to connection. 4. Tee for fire hydrant and sprinkler line shall be an anchor tee. The hydrant isolation valve and sprinkler line valve shall be secured to the tee with Foster Glands. 5. New fire hydrant to include 4” Storz connection and spring- loaded hydrant flag. 6. Fire hydrant shall be considered private since it will be on a fire sprinkler line dedicated to this facility. 7. New in-line valve before hydrant to be installed with restraining glands. 8. Refer to and specify CWD Specifications for C-900 installation requirements including the installation of a tracing wire with independent termination boxes. All ferrous materials incorporated in the installation of the PVC pipe shall be polyethylene encased. Tap proposed for sprinkler line outside of building for an appropriately sized domestic water service to be run independently into building. Provide curb stop and box in Department approved location. Water service material to be copper unless approved otherwise by the SBWD. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. #SP-22-020 11 Most of these items were already included in the specifications portion of the plan set. The same specifications used for the Water Dept. approval of the 105 Swift Street building, which had the exact same comment wording from the Water Dept., was used for this project. The Storts connection requirement was added on Sheet C5.4. 9. In the interest of time, Staff recommends the Board include the comments of the SBWD Director as a condition to be addressed prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Alternatively, if the hearing is continued for other reasons, the applicant may coordinate with the SBWD Director to confirm their satisfaction with the plans prior to closing the hearing. H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The proposed dumpster location is to be screened, but Staff considers insufficient information about the screening is provided to confirm whether this criterion is met. The material is called out as “screen board or other material as per owners request.” Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion as a condition of approval. C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 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. As discussed above, Staff considers cross-lot connections to not be viable. However, in the case of a site plan, the Board only has the authority to waive dimensional requirements. 10. The applicant has proposed a 20-ft wide access easement to the property to the north in accordance with this requirement. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a draft easement document prior to closing the hearing. 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. #SP-22-020 12 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. As noted above, the location of the loading dock requires trucks to reverse in Bowdoin Street. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the driveway to allow trucks to reverse within the site. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 6/1/2022 and provided the following comments. Our Office has had an opportunity to review the sketch plans for the 39 Bowdoin St application. As the building is set back from street we will need to ensure FD Aerial access via the parking lots on North and West sides. The traffic pattern and parking lot infrastructure need to accommodate the apparatus (1990 WB-40 – straight dual rear axle design). The building will need fire sprinkler and standpipe coverage as well. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. The proposed building will be sprinklered. We will provide supplemental information depicting the turning movement around the building as well as the proposed FDC location. 11. Staff has been unable to locate turning movement information in the revised materials provided on 6/8. Staff continues to recommend the Board require the applicant to address those of the Fire Chief’s comments that pertain to site design prior to closing the hearing. (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 appropriate pedestrian accommodations have been provided. (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 #SP-22-020 13 Short Term (1 per 5k sf office, 1 per 20k sf contractor facility, minimum 4) 5* Long Term (50% of short term retail and office, 1 per unit) 3 Clothes Lockers 1 *5 bike parking spaces are required if the use is assumed to be entirely office. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. One additional parking space has been added to the plans. 12. While the applicant’s proposed solution would be adequate, the plans provided on 6/8 continue to reflect two bike racks, therefore Staff continues to recommend the Board require the applicant to provide one additional short term bicycle parking space, unless the outcome of the above discussion regarding uses results in a different use mix being approved. 13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 5/31/2022 and indicated the landscaping plan looks fine. 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. Parking areas are proposed to be curbed. A minimum number of trees are proposed around the perimeter of the parking areas. (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. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. #SP-22-020 14 Prior to the removal of the northeastern 6 spaces for on-site storage, We had developed a plan showing the 10% green spaces compliance. This is attached as Sheet WS-1.0. Going forward we have treated the storage area as parking spaces in case the Contractor’s Yard use is discontinued and the storage area is no longer required in favor of its reversion to sparking spaces. While the applicant’s plan stretches the limit of what is reasonably considered interior parking lot landscaping, Staff considers this criterion to be adequately satisfied. (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. 61 (or 55, see discussion below under outdoor storage) parking spaces are provided, requiring 13 (or 11) shade trees. 11 shade trees are provided, though four are clustered near the driveway entrance. 13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to better distribute the shade trees, and add two additional shade trees, prior to closing the hearing. Staff considers there will opportunities for reconfiguring and adding shade trees when the eastern driveway is modified to align with the driveway on the other side of Bowdoin Street, and there is an opportunity for providing a shade tree along the southern driveway. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. We are now working with Anything Grows, on the development of the supplemental and re-oriented landscaping plan but do not have the updated plan at this time. (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. The applicant has addressed this criterion with their revisions of 6/8. (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. Staff considers this criterion to be met. #SP-22-020 15 (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. (7) 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. 14. Snow storage does not appear to be shown on the plans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show snow storage on the plans, or to direct the Board as to where it is shown. 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. Staff considers the project to be similar to adjacent uses and this criterion to be not applicable. 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). The applicant is proposing a minimum amount of landscaping in the front yards. Both yards include a conveyance swale but not stormwater treatment. 15. Since the applicant has not met the required minimum landscaping budget with trees and shrubs (discussed immediately below), Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to improve compliance with this criterion along Meadowland Drive and in the required site amenity prior to allowing credit for perennials and ornamental grasses. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. We are now working with Anything Grows, on the development of the supplemental and re-oriented landscaping plan. The applicant is showing an area labeled as “entry/sign planting bed TBD”. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to remove the reference to a sign. Signs are reviewed under separate ordinance. 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 #SP-22-020 16 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. 16. The required minimum landscaping budget is $41,750 for an estimated project cost of $3,425,000. Staff notes that landscaping budget is required for the full value of initial fit-up, and recommends the Board clarify with the applicant whether the estimated project cost includes full interior fit up or only the fit-up shown on the provided floor plans. If full fit-up is not included, additional landscaping budget will be required at a later date. Staff notes the applicant may over-landscape now and apply the excess landscaping as value towards future initial fit-up. Otherwise a site plan amendment will be required at the time of fit-up of additional areas. The applicant has provided the following landscaping elements Trees & Shrubs $39,870 Perennials & Grasses $4,200 Entry Sign Plantings $2,000 Total $46,070 The applicant has requested the value of all these elements be applied towards the minimum required landscaping cost. Staff supports the inclusion of some perennials, grasses and entry sign plantings but as noted above, recommends the Board require the applicant to improve plantings in the front yard along Meadowland Drive, even if it means a small reduction in the number of perennials. 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 City Stormwater Section reviewed the proposed plans on 5/31/2022 and offers the following comments. 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. 2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. 3. The cover letter provided with the application indicates that underground detention chambers are proposed for stormwater treatment. While the applicant has considered Tier 1 stormwater treatment practices as infeasible, the applicant is required to consider Tier 2 stormwater treatment practices, in accordance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. 4. The proposed 12” HDPE storm drain from CB#7 is shown connecting into an existing catch basin at elevation 339.9’. The applicant should make sure this pipe has adequate cover. 5. DHM#7 is missing a rim elevation. 6. Silt fence on Sheet C3.0 is called out with “turn-outs”. Applicant should confirm if “j-hook” is a better terminology for what is proposed. The maximum drainage area for overland flow to a silt fence shall not exceed ¼ acre per 100 feet of fence. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. We have addressed Item s 4-6. We ask that the Board defer to the State of Vermont’s technical review of the currently pending operational stormwater permit application. The applicant is acceptable to a #SP-22-020 17 condition of approval that the State GP 3-9050 authorization be produced prior to the issuance of Zoning Permit for the project. 17. Staff has spoken with the Stormwater Director about this request. The Stormwater Director indicated that they would accept the applicant’s proposal to make local approval contingent upon approval of a state stormwater permit. However, they note, based on experience with a similar proposal in a different location, they anticipate the State reviewer may require substantial changes to the system prior to approval, which may necessitate an amendment to the approved site plan. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to accept the applicant’s request. 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. 18. The applicant is proposing a number of wall mounted fixtures that are not in proximity to doors or to areas which will be used for access. While these fixtures are not prohibited, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant why they are proposed, as the City’s lighting standards tend to favor less lighting over more. One of the applicant’s wall-mounted light fixtures does not meet the downcast and shielded requirements. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a replacement fixture with a similar illumination level as a condition of approval. 13.08 Outdoor Storage and Display The applicant is proposing to use the six north eastern most parking spaces as outdoor storage. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update all plans to reflect this area as outdoor storage. This reduces the number of required shade trees and affects the computation of required interior parking lot landscaping. Updates to those landscaping elements should be made simultaneously with updates to reflect the outdoor storage area. The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on this item on 6/8. We have added the proposed outdoor storage area on the plans but have not revised the landscaping and interior parking green space computation as a conservative approach to a future scenario in which #SP-22-020 18 the storage is no longer required and this area reverts to parking spaces. This is consistent with similar guidance provided by Staff in Item 20. 19. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and accepts the applicant’s proposal to retain the landscaping computations but recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the parking space striping from the outdoor storage area as a condition of approval since it is confusing and potentially misleading for future readers of the project’s record. 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. The applicant is proposing to enclose the area with a six to seven foot chain link fence with plastic slats. Staff considers the applicants plan revisions of 6/8 to have addressed this comment. 3.18 Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.18: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. This now includes provision of a solar-ready roof. 20. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the roof will comply with the standard. If the applicant demonstrates satisfactory compliance with this requirement, Staff considers demonstration of it on the plans can be a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner