River Park July 2011 Remaining Items

8/6/2019 River Park July 2011 Remaining Items

1/7

MEMORANDUMTO: Lebanon Planning BoardFROM: David Brooks, Senior Planner

DATE: July 11, 2011

REQUEST

XYZ DAIRY, LLC -Request for Site Plan Review to construct a phased development known asRiver Park, consisting of 8 non-residential or multi-family residential buildings totaling 839,145

square feet and two parking structures, located at North Main Street (Route 10), Tax Map 44, Lots 3& 7, and Tax Map 58, Lot 27, West Lebanon, NH, in the R-3, IND-L, & CBD zones. #PB2010-25-

SPR

XYZ DAIRY, LLC- Request for Final Review of a 22-lot Major Subdivision for a phaseddevelopment known as the River Park, located at North Main Street (Route 10), Tax Map 44,

Lots 3 & 7, Tax Map 58, Lot 27, West Lebanon, NH, in the R-3, IND-L, & CBD zone.#PB2011-01-FMAJ

STAFF COMMENTS

At the end of the June 27th Planning Board meeting concerning the above referenced projects, City

staff indicated that a list of discussion items would be provided to the Board and the applicant as areminder of any issues which had been raised previously, but not resolved by the Board.

To prepare the attached list, the Planning Office reviewed the minutes of every meeting at which the

River Park development has been discussed by the Board. The date of the meeting and reference tothe minutes have been provided to allow the Board to review the context in which comments were

made or topics raised.

In the staffs opinion, the meeting minutes do not reflect that the concerns or issues have beenconclusively resolved. If the Board believes that a topic was sufficiently addressed previously, the

Board should make a statement to that effect for inclusion in the public record.


2/7

River Park- remaining concerns/issues:

- Concern about cut-through traffic, particularly on Maple Street and Crafts Avenue, was

mentioned on October 5, 2010. (10/5/10 minutes, page 3, last paragraph)

- Possibility of creating one-way segments along Maple Street to address cut-through traffic on

that roadway was suggested on October 5, 2010. (10/5/10 minutes, page 4, 2nd paragraph)

- Comment was made to review the staff report in the agenda packet, including the fiscalimpacts and department comments, to determine whether this development will really produce

more income than the expense it will incur. (10/5/10 minutes, page 5, 4th paragraph)

- Comment was made that Police and Fire Department costs reported in the fiscal impact study

include only operational costs. The impact this project will have on the ability of bothdepartments to respond to calls throughout the city should be known. (12/14/10 minutes, page

5, 1st paragraph)

- Comment was made that the applicant should make a contribution toward the purchase of a

new Fire Department ladder truck. (12/14/10 minutes, page 5, 1st paragraph)

- Comment was made about the need to phase traffic mitigation so it can be accelerated or

decelerated as needed based on impacts and there should be consideration of mitigationbeyond what the applicant has proposed, especially disincentives to cutting through

neighborhoods. (12/14/10 minutes, page 6, 4th paragraph)

- Comment was made that discussion of a contribution toward a ladder truck was deferred untilsite plan review. (1/31/11 minutes, page 4, 3rd paragraph)

- Comment was made that Board discussion should include the memo from Hanover and anycomment that comes from Hartford; the integration of a transit hub in the project; fiscal impacts,

especially a potential contribution toward a ladder truck because of the size and shape of thebuildings; and potential impact of traffic in area neighborhoods, along with potential solutions.

(2/8/11 minutes, pages 4, last paragraph)

- Suggestion was made concerning traffic impacts that the Board discuss an interim point wherefurther evaluation could be undertaken. (5/19/11 minutes, page 4, 3rd paragraph)


3/7


4/7


5/7

Site Plan Review Requirements Checklist Checklist

Satisfactory

Not Applicable N/A

Waiver Requested by Applicant W

Article 6 Design and Construction Requirements

6.1 General Requirements Previously Discussed

6.2 Landscaping Standards Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated

6.2.B Perimeter Landscaping W Waivers granted 6/27/2011

6.2.C Additional Buffers W Waivers granted 6/27/2011

6.2.D Landscaping Around Buildings

Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated. Staff to

review revised landscaping adjacent to Garage II.

6.2.E Landscaping of Parking Areas Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated

6.2.F Erosion Control Previously Discussed

6.2.G Protection of Surface Water N/A Not Applicable

6.2.H Maintenance and Materials Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated

6.2.I Existing Plant Material Credit Previously Discussed

6.2.J Prohibition of Sight-Obscuring Landscaping Features

Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated

6.2.K Encroachment on Landscaping Areas N/A Not Applicable

6.2.L Protection of Landscaping Areas Previously Discussed

6.3 Utilities and Fire Protection

Previously Discussed - Water connection approval granted by City

Council 5/18/2011

6.4 Fees and Assessment in Effect at Time of Connection Previously Discussed

6.5 Coordination of Roads, Parking, Loading, Recreation, and

Safety

Previously Discussed - Drawings have been updated

6.5.A Construction Standards Previously Discussed

6.5.B Access and Traffic On 6/27/2011 the Planning Board directed the peer reviewer tocomplete his work based upon the report as submitted. No further

information has been provided by the peer reviewer to date.

6.5.C Parking and Loading Areas Previously Discussed

6.5.D Drainage, Snow Removal, Curbing, and Floodproofing

Previously Discussed

6.5.E Groundwater Protection Previously Discussed

6.5.F Exterior Lighting Previously Discussed

6.6 Off-Site Improvements

Crafts Avenue improvements, together with water and sewer

relacements were acted on by the City Council on 5/18/2011.

Sidewalks are further discussed in the Subdivision checklist under

item 13.136.7 Premature and Scattered Development

On October 4, 2010 the Planning Board determined that the

proposed River Park development was not premature or scattered.

Comments


6/7

Final Subdivision Review Requirements

Checklist

Checklist

Satisfactory

Not Applicable N/A

Waiver Requested by Applicant W

1.4.A.10 Final design of bridges or culverts By vote of the City Council, the City will not accept or maintainRiver Park Drive or the supporting bridges. The applicant has

provided typical bridge details and would prefer to defer the

expense of designing these bridges until approval is secured. As a

condition of approval, the design could be submitted to City staff for

review prior to issuance of a building permit for the first bridge.

2.1 Character of Land Discussed during preliminary subdivision approval

2.2 Open Space and Recreation Area The river front is contained in Lot 6 which more than satisfies theopen space requirement.

2.2 Open Space and Recreation Area (Covenants and Deed

Restrictions)

Work continues with Upper Valley Land Trust on this issue. The

applicant requests that approval by the City Attorney (per 12.2.D) o

the final open space documents and related documents

memorializing maintenance of the open space by the owner's

association be made a condition of approval.

2.3 Statement of Impact and Determination of Whether or not

Premature or Scattered

The Board voted on October 5, 2010 to determine the subdivision

was not premature or scattered.

2.4 Impact Fees No action needed.

2.5 Off-site Improvements (water and sewer) Per City Council vote on 5/18/2011

2.6 Community Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Systems N/A Not Applicable

2.7 Operation and Maintenance of Community Water/Sewer

Facilities

N/A Not Applicable

2.8 Owner's Association Proposed documents submitted

3.3 Lot Layout, Drainage and Driveways In the Feb 1, 2011 memo, staff recommended that Lot 7 access berestricted to Route 10. The applicant feels that such a restriction is

unnecessary, premature and unfairly limits the design of potential

development. When a building permit for applied for, the burden of

proving safe access will be satisfied.

3.4 Lots/Lot Area/On-Site Septic System Requirements N/A Not Applicable, all lots will be served by municipal sewer.

3.5 Streets Drawings have been modified to reflect City comments. On5/18/2011 the City Council declined to accept the street as a public

road. On 6/27/2011 the Planning Board found that River Park Drive

was not a violation of the Ordinance.

3.6 Street Lighting The drawings have been modified to reflect City comments.

3.7 Street Signs No action needed.

3.8 Utilities On 5/18/2011 the City Council voted to approve water and sewerconnections with a stipulated set of infrastructure improvements to

be made. The negotiation and execution of the formal Water and

Sewer Extension Agreement should be made a condition of

approval.

3.9 Storm Drainage All storm drainage is designed to be infiltrated on-site. Thedrawings have been modified to reflect City comments.

3.10 Excavation and Grading No action needed.

3.11 Site Preservation No action needed.

3.12 Fire Protection N/A Not Applicable, the development will be connected to the municipalwater system.

3.13 Pedestrian Walks and Bicycle Paths. 13.14 Development

of Open Space, and 13.15 Parks and Playgrounds

The plans contain an extensive network of sidewalks throughout

the project. Additionally, limited sidewalk improvements are

proposed for sections of Route 10 to facilitate access for residents

on the east side of Route 10. Primary access for residents on the

west side of Route 10 will be via the Crafts Avenue extension. In

the 2/1/2011 memo, staff recommends requiring the sidewalk onRoute 10 to be extended to Beyerle Street. We believe the better

pedestrian pathway is along Crafts Avenue, as designed. Additiona

sidewalk along Route 10 would encroach into existing yards and

necessitate the removal of mature trees, which we are unwilling to

do.

Comments


7/7

The 2/1/2011 staff memo further recommends that paved bike

lane/shoulders should be provided along Route 10 in the areas to

be widened as part of our traffic mitigation. While we support

bicycle use, the limited width of the right of way in this area will not

allow the addition of bicycle lanes without significantly encroaching

on private property. The topography along Route 10, north of River

Park, makes it improbable that a dedicated bike lane will ever be

constructed; it doesn't make any sense to require a bike lane to

nowhere. A better alternative would be for the City to work with

Trans Canada and the adjacent property owners to encourage an

extended river front trail network between the Wilder Dam and the

Westboro Yard.

3.16 Special Flood Hazard Areas No development is proposed below the floodplain elevation.

3.17 Reserve Strips N/A Not Applicable

3.18 Modifications or Waivers of Design Standards N/A None requested

Documents

River Park July 2011 Remaining Items