The North Kingstown Planning Commission met on May 21, 2024, at 7:00 PM in Town Hall to conduct a lengthy agenda including two public hearings on the same project, two pre-application discussions, and a hazard mitigation plan update. Key topics included a 77-unit apartment development requiring a stormwater recharge variance, a 56-unit comprehensive permit project, a proposed McDonald's restaurant, and the five-year update to the town's Hazard Mitigation Plan.
uh addition of the North Kingstown Planning Commission. Uh pretty exciting agenda tonight. So we'll uh get right into it. Um and actually the first the first two um items are on the same application. However as as I understand it, the zoning portion we need to totally go through and vote on. You can open both public hearings at the same time and we can have really one discussion but when you go to vote on it you need to vote on the zoning first. But as I didn't I read that the um zoning had to be decided before we could consider no you can just you just have to make your decision on it before that isn't that true James you can discuss it together as long as the decision for the zoning comes first. Okay. Then we'll uh handle the first two items uh together the first being item 3A public hearing unified development review for a zoning variance application of AR building company for post road apartments a 77 unit major land development located off post road at uh assessors plat 136 lot nine and 21 zone post road and item three b a public hearing uh for the say for the um land development of the same uh two lots uh and with that we'll turn it over to staff yep uh so are we gonna open the public hearing after Becky talks or I think normally the normal process is we have staff uh say their piece then we have the applicant come and and provide their presentation after which we open the public hearing for the pu to take the public unless you think we should be doing it differently I should make sure we just uh for the record read off the entire paragraphs for 3A and 3B when we open the public hearing okay the each one okay I was trying to speed things up thank you okay so um again the commission will be familiar with this application for the most part um it's now at the preliminary stage of review and what is different this time is that um it is being processed as a unified development um application so with the recent change in state law there is an allowance for an application such as this land development project which is also requiring um a variance from the zoning ordinance to be reviewed by the planning commission and as Pat said um the zoning board the zoning variance decision has to have a condition that the land development project be approved so that has to come first and then you would make your decision on the land development project. As you're all familiar um with the site um at this preliminary stage uh the intent is really to provide the commission with a more detailed development intentions rather than the master plan concept review that you've already approved um the uh property as you know zoned post road district it's surrounded by lots that are also zoned post road district it's within our urban services boundary it is not in the groundwater protection area um and it does have frontage on post road in and two locations one where the driveway access is proposed and another where there's a uh uh walking path um frontage um to the frontage of post road there's a shared driveway and access easement between the subject law and lot twenty one um as presented with those 77 units um it is 9.9 units per acre in with an allowance of 10 units per acre for density um in the post road district so they're they're meeting that requirement um it has to have a 20 percent affordable component which it does with 16 units um being deed restricted as low and moderate income forty six of the units are two bedroom 31 or one bedroom and that equals 123 bedrooms um which averages out to 1.6 bedrooms for the site again meeting the 2.25 bedrooms um per unit in the post road district um regarding the zoning uh variants it's related to um the there's a section in the post road district for stormwater recharge and actually the applicant um once they uh obviously got into the design for the stormwater and they did the calculation and I will let Brandon um their engineer speak more intelligently about this item when he comes up um but basically there's um the the site has to have the same recharge pre and post development and there's a certain calculation that you have to perform based on the soil type and the hydrologic soil group and when they did that calculation their initial design for the stormwater showed that they could not meet that recharge rate however um they have submitted their wetlands permit to DEM and as part of the DEM review they're gonna be remodeling the stonewater design and that is likely to result in more recharge um for the site and they're probably not going to need the variance at the final stage however what you have before you tonight does not meet that requirement so they do need that variance. But again I will um I think there's a condition in there um that you know they may not or they may not need the variance at the final stage but it's dependent on what comes out of DEM. But again, Brandon Carr, their engineer will speak to that when he comes up. Let's see. So when you're reviewing the zoning variants, you're acting as if you are the zoning board. You're still using the same criteria. So there's a set of standards I put in the staff report that you will be reviewing that variance request upon, and you have to find findings positively or not as to whether or not they meet those standards. So those are outlined in your staff report. They're also seeking three waivers. So they have to do with the slope of the driveway and also the points of access for the property. The planning staff and the town engineer met with the applicant's engineer on site. They had presented a couple of alternatives to try to mitigate some of the waiver requests that were submitted. And after looking on site with those alternatives, it was determined that as presented was the best option, and the town engineer is comfortable with the waivers that are being requested. It is not in the flood zone. There are no wetlands on the subject property, but it is within the 200 foot riverbank wetland to the westernmost portion of the property where it abuts the land conservancy property. They will need a physical alteration permit. Um the state law has changed that they don't need it at this stage anymore. The same goes for their wetlands permit, so they're both in process. As you know, this was um subject of a previous application schooner landing, um, and they already received a PAP and their wetlands permits for those applications, but obviously this is a different project, so they have to submit new applications to them. In terms of connectivity, um, as I mentioned, there's sidewalks throughout the site. There's a gravel walking path to the land conservancy property property to the west. Um, there's a walking path on the northernmost um frontage, and there's sidewalks interconnected throughout the site. They have more than enough parking, there's 123 spaces required, they have 124 spaces. Um a traffic study was um performed, and I took some snippets from the staff um the traffic impact assessment and put it in the staff report. Um, and I think they have um there are professionals here to speak to that tonight as well. Regarding lighting, um, as you know, in the post-road corridor, we have uh a little bit higher standard for the design of of the lighting, but it is meeting the height requirement of 15 feet, it is downcast lighting, they're meeting the foot candles at the perimeter of the property, which is the most important to not cast light onto a abutting properties. The fixture they submitted is not really um in keeping with the post-road design. Um, we look for a more decorative fixture. Um, the applicant is aware of this, they're already addressing that, and I think they have some options that they'll present um tonight to have an all alternate design in that fixture. And um, as you saw in your packet, there was a landscape plan submitted, there's extensive plantings proposed, they meet our shade tree requirements. Um I spoke about the stormwater a little bit, and I'm sure um their prof Brandon um will address it as well. Um they're gonna be um hooked up to the town's sewer system, and they did release receive an approval from our department of public works for a sewer capacity, and they got their water main extension from the council earlier this year. I already addressed a few of the TRC comments, but um for the most part fire they've worked closely with the fire department, they're satisfied they've addressed their concerns that have to do with the hydrants in the fire department connection and um the truck turning radius. The engineering department again um was you know wanted to learn a little bit more about the waivers, but she's comfortable with them now for the road design and the slope. And um obviously she mentioned the need for a PAP at some point. So with that, I think that covers most of it again. As you know, at preliminary, you're just you're there's um several uh land development project um standards that you have to make findings on when you're going to make your decision. Any members have questions for staff I guess I have I have one quick question. Um I don't think you mentioned the request from the water department to have no in-round irrigation. Is that was that for this one? Town council approval of it.