HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-09 - Supplemental - 0040 Kimball Avenue (5)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-23-09_40 Kimball Ave_Wilking_SK_2024-07-02.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 26, 2024
Application received: May 28, 2024
John Wilking – 510 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-09
Meeting date: July 2, 2024
Owner/Applicant
Kula’aina LLC, c/o Neville Investments
150 Dorset Street, Suite 245, Box 202
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
O’Leary-Burke
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0980-00040
Commercial 1-Limited Residential Zoning District,
Traffic Overlay District Zone 1, Transit Overlay
District, River Corridor Overlay District, Wetland
Advisory Overlay District, Floodplain Overlay District
Location Map
#SD-24-09
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SP-24-09 of John Wilking for construction of a new 5,100 sf, 1-story office
building on an existing 1.88 acre lot, 40 Kimball Avenue.
CONTEXT
This project is eligible to proceed directly to a Site Plan application and does not require a sketch
plan review. However, the applicant has requested sketch plan review in order to gauge the Board’s
attitude towards the proposed front setback reduction. If the Board indicates that the proposed front
setback reduction may be acceptable, the applicant has indicated they will engage a team of
professionals to create more detailed plans for the proposed new construction and proceed to a Site
Plan application at some point soon. If the Board indicates that they do not consider the proposed
front setback reduction to be acceptable, the applicant will revise the provided sketch plan in light
of that feedback.
It is also important to note that this sketch plan is being reviewed under the LDRs effective as of July
2, 2024. However, Staff considers it quite likely that the LDRs will be amended by the time the
applicant is ready to submit a complete Site Plan application. The applicant will be required to
comply with the LDRs in effect at the time of a complete Site Plan application submission –
submission of this sketch plan application does not vest the applicant under the LDRs presently in
effect.
Staff has reviewed the submitted application for compliance with the LDRs presently in effect. In
addition, Staff has flagged a handful of standards that are likely to be amended by the time the
applicant submits a complete Site Plan application and has indicated whether the sketch plan as
submitted is likely to comply with the amended LDRs.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marty Gillies Marla Keene, hereinafter referred to as Staff, have
reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following comments. As this is a Sketch
Plan review, only criteria relevant for review at this stage are addressed. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
C1-LR Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
√ Min. Lot Size, non-residential use 20,000 sf 82,032 sf No Change
√ Max. Building Height (flat roof) 35 feet N/A 1 story
√ Max. Building Coverage 40% N/A 6.2%
√ Max. Overall Coverage 70% 20.9% 25.0%
@ Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% N/A 32.4% 1
@ Min. Front Setback 30 ft. N/A 15 ft. 2
√ Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 65 ft.
√ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 250 ft.
√ = Zoning Compliance
@ = Modification Requested
#SD-24-09
3
1- The applicant has calculated that the various proposed impervious surfaces (sidewalk, parking lot,
building) cover 32.4% of the land within the required 30’ front building setback, which exceeds the
maximum allowed front setback coverage of 30%. The specific regulation of 3.06I states that “not
more than 30% of the area of the required front setback shall be used for driveways and parking
and the balance shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance.” Staff considers
that this computation may be applied to the approved front building setback if the Board grants a
modification, not the standard front building setback for the zoning district. If the Board approves a
reduction of the front building setback to 15’, then the front setback coverage should only be
calculated as the driveway and parking coverage in the reduced 15’ front building setback.
1. Staff recommends that the Board consider Staff’s interpretation of ‘front setback coverage’ and
discuss whether they concur that calculation should be measured with respect to the actual front
building setback, not necessarily the 30’ setback required in the LDRs.
2- The applicant is requesting the Board modify the front setback from 30-ft to 15-ft due to the site
constraints in the rear of the property, including a river corridor and wetland buffer. This
modification request is discussed in various sections of the report below. While the LDRs do allow
the Board to modify dimensional standards if a property is impacted due to physical site limitations,
other standards of the LDRs require consistent building placement and orientation, and the Director
of Public Works noted that the proposed front setback reduction would result in the removal of
several mature trees along that setback, which is required to be “suitably landscaped and
maintained in good appearance”. Staff notes that the proposed 5,100 sf building actually appears to
fit on the site within the existing setbacks with plenty of room to spare; it is the approximately 14,000
sf surface parking lot that appears to create the conflict on this site. Staff considers that since there
are provisions for shared off-site parking and there is ample parking on immediately adjacent sites
that were permitted when parking minimums existed, the proposed parking lot could be reduced in
size or even eliminated without affecting compliance with the LDRs. Staff notes that the applicant
owns both the subject lot and the lot immediately to the northwest, which has nearly 100 vehicle
parking spaces.
Staff understands that the proposed LDR updates will not significantly alter the zoning district or the
relevant dimensional standards for this property. As such, it appears that the conceptual plan meets
all effective and proposed dimensional standards except for front setback. Similarly, the applicant has
testified that the proposed building will be used as a medical office, which appears to be an approved
use at this property under both the existing and proposed Table of Uses.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.04 Authority for Review of Site Plans
A. Authority, Development Review Board (DRB)
The DRB has the authority under these regulations and 24 VSA § 4414 and § 4416 to:
1) Review and approve, approve with modifications or conditions, or disapprove an
application for a site plan under the standards of these Regulations.
2) Hold one or more public meetings or hearings warned in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §
4464, and Section 17.08 of these Regulations as required prior to the recording of a
subdivision plat.
3) Modify a dimensional requirement under this Article or the Table of Dimensional
Standards (Appendix C).
#SD-24-09
4
The applicant is requesting modification of the required minimum front setback.
a. The DRB may modify a dimensional requirement under this Article or the Table of
Dimensional Standards (Appendix C) subject to conditions, if it finds that due to
physical site limitations, including Hazards or Level I Resources, or other legal or
development constraints specific to the land to be subdivided, including the lack of
existing or planned connecting facilities or services adjacent to or in proximity to the
subdivision:
The subject property is limited by the presence of Hazards/Level I Resources, including
a River Corridor, an unclassified Wetland last delineated in 2010, and a 100-year
Floodplain.
i. The requirement is not necessary to ensure public health, safety and welfare;
ii. The proposed modification is demonstrated to better meet the purposes of
this Section, the applicable zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan; and,
iii. The modification or waiver is the minimum necessary to afford relief and
represents the least deviation from the standards and requirements of these
Regulations.
2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how these tests apply to their
proposed request for modification.
The DRB in granting a modification or waiver under this section may impose
conditions which, in its judgment, are necessary and appropriate to mitigate any
adverse effects, and to ensure compliance with the above standards of review.
3. If the Board indicates that a modification of the front setback requirement may be
appropriate in this case, Staff recommends the Board articulate what improvements they
consider to be necessary to mitigate adverse effects of a reduced front setback.
b. Limitations. In granting a modification, in no case shall the DRB permit:
i. the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property
boundary;
The applicant is not proposing any new structures within 5 feet from any property
lines.
ii. land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for
the applicable zoning district in the case of new development;
The applicant is not proposing to increase the total lot coverage beyond the
maximum allowable limit of 70%.
iii. increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit;
The existing lot coverage does not exceed the applicable limit of 70% and is not
proposed to be increased beyond 70% as part of this application.
iv. an increase in residential density above the allowed maximum in the applicable
zoning district, outside of review as Planned Unit Development (Article 15C),
Inclusionary Zoning (Section 18.01) or via a Transfer of Development Rights
(Article 19); or,
#SD-24-09
5
There are no residential units proposed to be constructed as part of this
application.
v. the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (A)(2).
The applicant is proposing to create new surface parking, but the proposed
parking area is in compliance with Section 14.06(A)(2) as described below.
c. All requests for modification must be submitted in conjunction with the
application for site plan. The DRB, in granting a modification under this section,
may impose conditions that in its judgment are necessary and appropriate to meet
the objectives or to mitigate the adverse impacts of any modified or waived
requirement.
B. Authority, Administrative Review.
C. Review Period.
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.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to articulate how the proposed front
setback reduction relates to the front setback, building placement, and orientation of
nearby properties. Such conversation could include a discussion of how landscaping
will be used to mitigate differences. The Board should identify what further information,
if any, they may need to make a formal determination on this criterion at the Site Plan
review phase.
c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale
between existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
The future land use in this area as identified in the City Plan is in an area identified for
balanced mixed residential & commercial high scale or commercial-industrial. The
applicant has proposed a one-story building.
5. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to articulate how they propose to
mitigate and minimize the contrast between the proposed small one story building and
the nearby larger multistory buildings. The Board should identify what further
information, if any, they may need to make a determination on this criterion at the Site
Plan review phase.
d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and
walkability within the area proposed for development.
#SD-24-09
6
Staff considers a strong pedestrian orientation beyond the minimums required in the
LDR, especially in light of the approved O’Brien Eastview development on Old Farm
Road, is a way to mitigate the reduced front setback.
6. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss what they will do to ensure
the proposed building has an active street presence for pedestrians.
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.
Staff notes this requirement will apply to the proposed office building, and the
applicant will be required to install solar in compliance with the Commercial Building
Energy Standards pursuant to Section 3.19.
(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.
The parking is proposed to be located to the rear or side of the building.
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.
The applicant is not proposing parking between the street and the building.
c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the
side of buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site
Amenities along any street frontage. This may be calculated separately or
cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be
exempt from this subsection.
The width of the proposed building along Kimball Avenue is 85’. The width of the
parking area located to the northwest side of the proposed building is
approximately 61’, which does not exceed the width of the building.
d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the
front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily
volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall
be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate.
Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient
landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate.
The subject property is not a through lot.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height
and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated
adjoining buildings.
Staff considers this is addressed by 14.06A above.
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
#SD-24-09
7
detailing), 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.
The applicant has not provided architectural details for the proposed structure other than to
state that it will be one story. At the site plan stage of review, the applicant will be required
to demonstrate that the proposal supports an attractive transition between buildings of
different architectural styles & relates harmoniously to the terrain and existing buildings and
roads in the vicinity.
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).
This project is not within the City Center FBC District.
(2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities:
a. Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF.
The proposed project is a non-residential development over 5,000 square feet in
size – as such, the project is required to provide a Site Amenity.
(3) The required area shall be:
a. For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building
gross floor area.
6% of the building gross floor area for the proposed 5,100 sf building is 306 square
feet. The applicant has proposed a ~1,400 square foot Site Amenity to the north of
the proposed parking lots, which exceeds the minimum size required for this
building. Staff notes that there are specific requirements for the location of a site
amenity depending on the type selected which pertain to proximity and
accessibility from the public way, building, and building entrances, as well as the
functionality of the space, which must be addressed at the site plan level of review.
(4) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site
Amenity area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing
Civic Space or public park that is accessible by the general public and located within
five-hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building on the
lot via a walking route and/or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not
include or require crossing a four-lane road.
The applicant is not requesting credit under the provisions of this criterion, nor does staff
consider there to be an applicable Civic Space in proximity to the project.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards
shall apply:
#SD-24-09
8
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
As noted above, the subject property is impacted by a number of Natural Resources and
Environmental, as regulated by Article 12, including a River Corridor, an unclassified
Wetland last delineated in 2010, and a 100-year Floodplain. The applicant is proposing
grading activity within the wetland buffer shown on the plan. The applicant is also
proposing work within the 100-ft River Corridor, though they have incorrectly showed the
corridor as 50-ft on their plans.
If the applicant considers the South Burlington mapped river corridor is incorrect, there is a
process for modification described in Article 12, which the applicant may submit with their
site plan application. Otherwise, Staff considers the proposed work in the river corridor to
be impermissible.
Regarding the wetland impacts, the applicant must provide a new wetland delineation, and
remove grading except for grading associated with “installation of low-impact
development stormwater practices consistent with wetland functions and plantings,” as
part of the site plan application.
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.
The standards governing open space and placement of buildings have been discussed
above.
Staff notes the applicant will be required to comply with the landscaping standards of
Section 13.04, including minimum landscaping budget, minimum parking lot landscaping
island provision, and minimum parking lot shade tree provision.
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 is not proposed as part of
this application. The applicable section of 15.A.14 is discussed below.
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)-(8) not applicable
(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.
#SD-24-09
9
This property is not proposed to have a vehicle access to Kimball Avenue. Instead,
motorists will access the subject property by driving through the existing parking
lot. Staff considers that this configuration successfully minimizes curb cuts and
successfully provides shared vehicular access to abutting building lots.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
These standards are not in effect at this time, but Staff considers that these standards will
likely be in effect by the time that the applicant submits a complete Site Plan application to
construct the proposed building.
Staff notes that trip generation under the draft regulations will be based on the ITE trip
generation, which for this use will be some form of office. Staff reminds the applicant and
the Board that trip generation is based on the use and not the specific business that
operates out of a location. TDM measures are likely to be required.
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.
There are no supplemental building form standards applicable to the proposed project.
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.
Kimball Ave is approved to be upgraded to have an off-road bike lane on the south side as
part of the adjacent O’Brien Eastview project, which meets the requirements for an
“Industrial Access Road,” the likely applicable street typology. Staff considers therefore
that the streetscape improvements applicable to this project may be limited to the
installation of street trees, though a more thorough review will be undertaken upon receipt
of a complete site plan application.
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.
See 15.A.14(E)(9) above for discussion of access.
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.
The applicant has not yet provided plans identifying how wire-served utilities are proposed
to be connected to the proposed building.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on June 4, 2024 and offered the following
comments.
#SD-24-09
10
1. The project proposes to remove a significant number of mature trees within the
front setback.
2. Stairs at the front of the building must be moved out of the public ROW and onto
private property. This will ensure on-going maintenance responsibility is not
questioned in the future
3. The project must conform to South Burlington's Public Works Standards and
Specifications
4. Future versions of the plan must show wastewater and water information,
including connections.
5. Future versions of the plan must provide more detail on the stormwater treatment
system, including how it will be accessed for maintenance.
6. There appears to be a low point in the parking lot south corner near Kimball
Avenue. The applicant may want to investigate the need for an additional drainage
structure in this location to prevent pooling of water.
Staff recommends the applicant take the Director of Public Works comments under
advisement in preparing their site plan application.
The South Burlington Water Department Director did not yet provide comments on the
plans.
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 with a ‘wire mesh’ of 6’ in height. Staff
notes that all screening must be opaque and at least as tall as dumpster(s) within the
enclosure.
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.
A cross-lot connection is provided to the adjoining parcel to the northwest.
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,
#SD-24-09
11
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.
Comments of the Fire Marshal’s office were not received at the time of publication of this
report. Staff recommends the applicant meet with the Fire Marshal prior to submitting a
site plan application.
(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 has no concerns about the general concept for accommodations at this stage of
review.
(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’s plans do not yet include any bicycle parking. The applicant is required to provide a
minimum of 4 short-term bike parking spaces on the exterior of the building, 2 long-term bike
parking spaces (typically provided inside the building), and 1 clothes locker.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
No landscaping has yet been proposed.
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.
#SD-24-09
12
(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.
The applicant’s plans do not yet include any landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed
parking lot.
(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 is proposing 40 vehicle parking spaces in a contiguous area parking lot therefore
this standard will apply.
7. Staff recommends the Board and applicant briefly discuss compliance with this standard.
(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 on the provided conceptual plans.
(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.
No landscaping is yet proposed.
(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.
40 parking spaces are provided, requiring 8 shade trees.
(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.
As noted above, no trees have yet been proposed.
(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.
As noted above, no trees have yet been proposed.
(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).
#SD-24-09
13
This property is not within the City Center FBC District, so 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.
The applicant’s plans do not yet include any specified snow storage areas.
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 additional screening to be
unnecessary.
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’s plans do not yet include any landscaping in the front yard. As noted by the Director
of Public Works, the applicant is proposing remove a number of mature trees in the frontage along
Kimball Avenue.
8. Staff recommends the Board offer the applicant the opportunity to discuss their concept for
compliance with this standard in light of the request for modification of setbacks discussed
above.
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 applicant has not yet provided a construction cost for the proposed building. This standard
must be met at the next stage of review.
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 June 13, 2024 and offered the following
comments.
1. Where does this gravel wetland outlet? Outlet structure, outlet pipe and emergency
spillway?
#SD-24-09
14
2. I have not reviewed this for natural resource impacts – have you done a thorough
review of all of the typical ones, wetlands (confirm you’re using the correct buffer based
on zoning – either 50’ or 100’), floodplains, river corridor, etc? I see that there is fill being
proposed, so just wanted to make sure you’re not taking up any floodplain storage.
3. I see that the catch basins are in an “offline” configuration – are these deep sump catch
basins? I assume so, as I don’t see any other pretreatment.
4. I see that there is a wall being proposed, so what is the access route to the gravel
wetland for any more significant maintenance in the future?
9. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to address the comments of the City
Stormwater Section as part of their next application for the project.
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
The applicant has not yet provided a photometric drawing or cut sheets for proposed exterior
lighting. This standard must be met at the next stage of review.
3.19 On-Site Solar Photovoltaic Systems
As per the standards of this section, all new buildings that are subject to the CBES are required to
install a solar photovoltaic system or an equivalent renewable energy system. Staff notes that this
requirement is most often met via the construction of a rooftop solar array, but the requirement
can also be met by the provision of solar panels or another renewable energy generation system
elsewhere on the property. This standard must be met at the next stage of review.
Heating and Service Water Heating System Ordinance
The Heating and Service Water Heating System Ordinance requires that all new buildings are
required to utilize a renewable primary heating system and a renewable service water heating
system. Staff notes that this requirement is most often met via the installation of heat pumps, but
the requirement can also be met by the provision of any heating system that is fueled by “electricity,
wood pellets or wood chips; or other renewable fuel used by conventional heating systems”
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
#SD-24-09
15
Respectfully submitted,
Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner