HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10A_SP-19-07_284 Meadowland Dr_SBRC_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐07_284 Meadowland Dr_SBRC_2019‐05‐07.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 3, 2019
Plans received: April 9, 2019
284 Meadowland Drive
Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐07
Meeting date: May 7, 2019
Owner/Applicant
SBRC Properties, LLC
PO Box 2204
South Burlington, VT 05407‐2204
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1155‐00284
Industrial Open Space Zoning District; Hinesburg Road North View Protection District
5.84 acres
Location Map
#SP‐19‐07
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Site plan application #SP‐19‐07 of SBRC Properties, LLC to construct a 25,560 sf, 31 ft high warehouse
building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284
Meadowland Drive.
CONTEXT
The applicant has concurrently applied for final plat review of the project under #SD‐19‐12. The
majority of the property is located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District. There is a
200‐foot open space buffer along the south side of the property.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 4/9/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Industrial Open Space
Zoning District
Required Proposed Lot
1G
Min. Lot Size 3 ac. 6.2 ac.
Max. Building Coverage 30% 9.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 50% 36.6%
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 230 ft.
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30% 0%
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 70 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. 265 ft.
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft. 31 ft. plus 5.25
ft for roof
equipment*
*Applicant represents that roof equipment will consist of air handling equipment. Staff considers
air handling equipment qualifies as a minor rooftop apparatus under the definition of “height”,
which is excluded from the calculation of height. Therefore the building height meets the required
maximum.
1. Staff notes the applicant has shown a “future building addition and future parking spaces and future
edge of pavement” on their plan. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval
specifically stating these future features are neither reviewed nor approved as part of this
application.
Industrial‐Open Space District (IO)
The purpose of the Industrial‐Open Space District is as follows.
To provide suitable locations for high‐quality, large‐lot office, light industrial and research
#SP‐19‐07
3
uses in areas of the City with access to major 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.
The subject property is proposed to house Booska Worldwide Movers. The applicant has presented that
this business falls under the category of “Processing and Storage.” At sketch, the Board was divided on
whether they considered the applicant’s categorization of the use appropriate. The alternative category
that may be appropriate is “Motor Freight Terminal,” which is not permitted in this District. See the two
definitions below:
Motor freight terminal. A building, structure, or area in which trucks, including tractor or trailer
units, are parked, stored, or serviced, including the transfer, loading, or unloading of goods. A
terminal may include facilities for the temporary storage of loads prior to trans‐shipment.
Processing and storage. The storage of materials in a facility where such materials may be
combined, broken down, or aggregated for trans‐shipment or storage purposes where the original
material is not chemically or physically changed. Processing and storage is a single term and
refers essentially to a storage and shipment place as opposed to a manufacturing establishment,
distribution center, or truck terminal. Processing and storage shall not include the storage,
maintenance or repair of trucks on a site as a principal or accessory use.
2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether there is any additional information they wish to
request from the applicant in order to make a determination on the applicant’s requested use
category. The applicant has provided an interior floor plan layout supporting their requested
classification. As discussed at the Sketch Plan hearing, Staff reminds the Board that they are
considering whether to approve a use, and not a specific tenant, and any future change in tenant
that fit the same use may not conduct their operations in the same way. Staff considers this decision
to be precedent setting as there are not yet similar uses within South Burlington.
Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site plan or PUD review required.
The applicant has requested site plan review under application #SP‐19‐07. Staff considers the
Board may not allow this application for subdivision final plat to be finalized without also
approving the associated site plan.
B. Multiple Structures and uses permitted.
Only one structure containing one use is proposed.
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation
The applicant has proposed 31 standard parking spaces and 22 large spaces for commercial
vehicle parking.
(1) N/A
#SP‐19‐07
4
(2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum
number of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
One curb cut is proposed. The applicant has provided a truck turning movement plan to
demonstrate that the provided pavement is appropriate for efficient internal circulation. The
overall lot coverage is under the minimum.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The applicant has proposed a 24‐ft wide location for future connection to the adjacent
undeveloped lot to the west. This connection is discussed in greater detail under Subdivision
Standard #3 below.
Hinesburg Road North View Protection Overlay District
(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.
(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 applicant has provided a calculation which states that the highest point of the building will be at
elevation 385.0 and the ceiling of the view protection overlay district at the nearest point of the
structure to the baseline is 402 feet. The base of the structure is elevation 348. The tallest trees the
applicant has proposed as part of their landscaping plan have a mature height between 30 and 70
feet. Staff considers this criterion met.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
As discussed in the staff notes for #SD‐19‐12, the applicant has submitted a site plan application for Lot 1
which will be reviewed on July 2.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
A discussion of the Project’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is included in the staff notes
for #SD‐19‐12. Further information related to the Comprehensive Plan is addressed below under A.3
Noise Standards.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
#SP‐19‐07
5
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas.
The purpose of the Industrial‐Open Space District is as follows.
To provide suitable locations for high‐quality, large‐lot office, light industrial and research
uses in areas of the City with access to major 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.
The applicant has provided architectural renderings in support of their application. The building is
proposed to have nine 6’ wide by 4.5’ high windows along the north elevation, two windows along
the east elevation, and two windows along the south elevation. The east elevation will face the
adjacent multi‐tenant building and will be screened by a 4‐foot high cedar fence and a short row of
arborvitae south of the fence. The south elevation will be screened by a berm. The west elevation
will face a future development lot. No siding materials are indicated. Four semi‐dwarf crabapple
trees are proposed along the north façade.
3. Staff recommends the Board review the provided building elevation in considering whether the
proposed building architecture and landscaping meets the purpose of the district including high‐
quality space and enhanced visual quality. Staff considers that the building does not meet the
visual quality required by the purpose of the zoning district as discussed above.
(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.
Proposed parking is located to the rear and sides of the building. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(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 criterion met.
C. 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),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
#SP‐19‐07
6
In general, there is little landscaping proposed between this property and adjacent properties
on Meadowland Drive. There are four lilacs and a handful of shrubs proposed between the
building and the street. There is a row of four honeylocust proposed along the western
property boundary. Along the east side of the property, there is a retaining wall with a four‐foot
high cedar fence which the applicant has selected at the request of the adjoining property to the
east.
4. Staff is less concerned about transitions east to west because of changes in grade, but
recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide additional visual
interruptions or enhanced architectural quality to create an attractive street presence.
5. The applicant has not provided dimensions but it appears the retaining wall is approximately 5’
from the property line. Staff recommends the Board include a condition noting that the wall
must be 5’ from the property line.
(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.
6. Staff considers that the building scale and height meets this criterion. Visual quality is discussed
above under Site Plan Review Standard A.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. 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.
As discussed in the staff notes for #SD‐19‐12, the applicant has provided a driveway apron for the use of
the adjacent lot 1 on the shared driveway, and also proposed a 24‐ft wide location for future connection
to the adjacent lot 1. A discussion of that connection is provided in those staff notes.
B. 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 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Utility connections are proposed to be underground. A discussion of utility screening is provided under
Site Plan Review Standard D below.
C. 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).
#SP‐19‐07
7
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 applicant has a provided a detail for dumpster screening and has shown the proposed location of
the dumpster on the plans. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
The minimum required landscape value for the Project, based on an estimated building construction
cost of $2.05 million is $28,000. The applicant has revised their landscaping plan since their original
submission but has not provided an updated schedule of landscape values. Prior to the changes, the
applicant was proposing $31,300 worth of landscaping on site in the form of trees and shrubs.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update their schedule of landscaping values
prior to closing the hearing.
The City Arborist reviewed the landscaping plan on May 12, 2019 and did not have any problems with
the proposed plantings.
Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
All off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be
curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers
as approved by the Development Review Board.
(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.
Though perimeter screening is limited, based on topography and setbacks, Staff
considers this criterion adequately 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.
The applicant is proposing 31 standard parking spaces and 22 parking spaces for
commercial vehicles. There is only one proposed loading dock so it appears the
commercial vehicle spaces are intended for parking and not for operational purposes.
#SP‐19‐07
8
The purpose of interior landscaping is to provide shade, reduce heat islands and glare.
The landscape islands should be configured to meet these purposes.
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate whether the 10% interior
landscaping requirement is met.
(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 13.06(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.
9. The applicant has verbally represented that interior planting areas are protected by curbing. The
plans do not reflect the location of curbed vs. uncurbed areas through the use of symbology or
callouts. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a plan showing proposed
curbing in order to evaluate whether this criterion is met. Since the purpose of curbing is
protection of planting, Staff considers curbing is particularly important where landscaping is
proposed adjacent to parking spaces.
(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.
(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.
The applicant has provided some trees around the perimeter of the parking lot. Of
these trees, two are semi‐dwarf crabapples, and 11 are shademaster honeylocust.
There must be at least 11 shade trees based on a total of 53 parking spaces. Staff
considers this criterion met.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility improvements
such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to
protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The
landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development
Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing on
adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the approved
plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review
Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
#SP‐19‐07
9
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review
Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or
increasing the requirements.
As discussed above, though perimeter screening is limited, based on topography and setbacks, Staff
considers parking to be adequately screened.
10. The applicant is proposing to screen a large utility cabinet to the front of the site with four
arborvitae. Staff considers the proposed tree locations will not provide screening from the street
and recommends the Board require the applicant to fully screen the cabinet from the street.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review
Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure
less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land
development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing
condition exceeds the applicable limit.
No modification of standards has been requested. Staff considers no modification of standards is
necessary.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is
required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The applicant has provided an EPSC plan and stabilization notes. The project disturbs greater than one
acre and will therefore be required to obtain either and Individual or General Permit for Construction.
11. Staff notes a minor error in the EPSC site plan was made by not overlapping the sections of silt fence
near the southern portion of the eastern lot line, and recommends the Board require this to be
corrected as a condition of approval. Otherwise Staff considers this criterion met.
The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the amended application materials on several
dates, most recently June 14. The remaining comments from the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent
are as follows.
The Stormwater Section (City) has reviewed the “Booska Commercial LLC – 410 Meadowland Drive” site
plan prepared by Civil Engineering Associates (CEA), dated 3/21/2019 and last updated on 5/20/19. We
would like to provide the following comments:
1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed.
#SP‐19‐07
10
2. The applicant has revised the culvert sizing under the driveway to account for upstream drainage.
A HydroCAD model has been provided, but plans have not been provided showing the change to
the pipe(s) as well as the Dry Pond Emergency Overflow elevation.
a. The driveway culvert and Dry Pond were only reviewed for conformance with §12.03.E.(2)
of the City’s Land Development Regulations. New development or redevelopment in the
contributing drainage area that has not been previously approved will need to conform
with all other requirements of §12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations.
3. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
12. The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent requests the Board require the applicant to address the second
comment prior to closing the hearing, and incorporate the other comments as a condition of approval.
Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing until the concerns of the Assistant Stormwater
Superintendent are addressed.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on April 19, 2019.
The project’s proposed entry does not include any pedestrian accommodations. A sidewalk along
the entry would be of added benefit for the property in its current configuration and any future
uses. The large trucks that will come and go on a regular basis make it more important to give
peds a separated, safe means of access to the property.
The applicant has addressed this comment.
The applicant has submitted a traffic study which attempts to evaluate the impacts the proposed project will
have on adjacent intersections. The traffic study concluded no change in levels of service and levels of
service would remain above LOS C in the future build condition. Staff recommends that, assuming the
Board grants the applicants request to classify the use as Processing and Storage, that the Board consider
whether the applicant has correctly estimated the peak number of trips generated by the project. The project
is proposed to be a 25,560 sf building. The applicant has used the “warehousing” land use category from the
ITE trip generation manual, which is described by the ITE as follows.
A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but it may also include office and
maintenance areas.
The average size of a warehouse studied by ITE is 400,000 sq. ft. Because of the high variability between
trip generation in the studied warehouses, the applicant represented that they used only the trip
generation for warehouses less than 30,000 sq ft. While Staff understands the logic behind this approach,
the applicant has made no representation that this is an approved ITE methodology and therefore Staff
cannot recommend the Board accept it.
13. Staff recommends the Board use the fitted curve trip generation of 31 VTEs as allowed under LDR
#SP‐19‐07
11
Appendix B, or alternatively recommends the Board refer the traffic study to a technical reviewer for
their input. Staff notes they do not anticipate a revised trip generation will have a significant impact on
the conclusions of the intersection capacity analysis performed by the applicant, but they consider that
the traffic impact fees paid by the project should reflect the actual number of trips proposed to be
generated.
The landscaping of parking areas is discussed above. Connections to adjacent parcels are discussed in
staff notes for application #SD‐19‐12.
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
Lighting
The applicant is proposing 16 building mounted lights (including three door lights, seven wall lights and
six canopy lights), and two pole mounted lights mounted at a height of 22 ft. (20 ft. poles on a 2 ft. base).
The pole lights are located along the entrance drive. Operationally, they propose to leave all outdoor
lighting on at 100% levels from dusk until midnight, and to reduce wall and parking lot lighting to 50%
level from midnight until dawn. The following standard applies to lighting in parking areas.
13.07B Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following:
(2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from
becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent
properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a
hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling
public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to
drivers on adjacent streets.
14. Though spill‐over is limited, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed light operation
schedule meets these standards particularly as it pertains to glare and visibility of the light fixtures
from adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed a 4‐foot high opaque fence between the
proposed project and the adjoining multi‐tenant building to the east. The adjacent multi‐tenant
building has an umbrella approval for a variety of uses.
Bicycle Parking
The proposed 25,560 sf. building will require two short term and two long term bicycle parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing two inverted U type bicycle racks near the main entrance, and two long term
spaces inside the building under the stairs, with one clothes locker next to the long term spaces. Staff
considers this criterion met.
A.3 Noise Performance Standards
The entire Industrial‐Open Space District is located within the Northeast Quadrant. The comprehensive
plan addresses the issue of warehousing in the Northeast Quadrant as follows.
Warehousing. Recently, there have been significant concerns about the suitability of this
#SP‐19‐07
12
quadrant for warehousing, particularly in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
While this area is close to the Airport and the contemplated highway interchange at Route 116
and I‐89, the noise and visual impacts associated with truck traffic are potentially very disruptive
to residential neighborhoods. This issue has been discussed during the SEQ Concept Plan; among
the ideas evaluated was the creation of a warehousing sub‐district adjacent to the Interstate. In
any case, there was strong consensus that the zoning regulations for the IO district regarding
warehousing should be reevaluated.
Staff considers that the Board should give consideration to the warehousing concerns of the
Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the IO district and place restrictions on noise and visual impacts
of truck traffic. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment to evaluate anticipated noise impacts
when compared to the performance standards of LDR Appendix A. Appendix A provides the following
limits on noise between midnight and 8:00 AM.
a. 45 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for residential purposes
b. 60 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for commercial purposes.
15. Without having particular expertise on noise analysis, Staff notes the applicant appears to have
modeled backup alarms only on the commercial parking spaces east of the building and not at the
commercial parking spaces to the south, and recommends the Board discuss this omission with the
applicant.
The applicant’s provided noise contours show that greater than 60 dBA is anticipated at the adjoining
commercial property line to the east, and between 40 and 45 dbA is anticipated at the adjoining
residential property line to the southeast. It appears the provided berm has resulted in sound
mitigation for the residential properties directly to the south but does not go far enough to mitigate
sound on properties to the southeast.
The applicant has shared the results of the noise analysis with the owner of the adjoining multi‐tenant
building to the east, who has not expressed any concerns.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the proposed berm or otherwise
augment noise mitigation to reduce the projected noise at adjacent residential property boundaries.
Alternatively, the Board may impose conditions on the hours of operation of the facility to limit noise
between midnight and 8:00 AM.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
#SP‐19‐07
13
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner