HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-060 - Supplemental - 0224 0268 Market Street (49)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: The Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SP-22-### 268 Market Street First Round Comments
DATE: December 1, 2022
Revised December 9, 2022
The purpose of this memo is to provide comments on the compliance of the proposed 3-building
development on Market Street Lot B. Comments are based on the plans and materials submitted
November 15 and November 23, 2022. These comments do not yet include a review of Building
Envelope Standards or comments of the South Burlington Water Department; these will be forthcoming
shortly.
The three buildings are referred to as follows:
a. 268 Market Street – “Building B1,” consisting of 73 units and 9,089 sf non-residential space
and located on the southern corner of the lot
b. 224 Market Street – “Building B2,” consisting of 62 units and 9,132 sf non-residential space
and located on the western side of the lot
c. 339 Garden Street – “Building B3,” consisting of 26 residential units and located on the
eastern side of the lot
Comments of Department of Public Works
Overall Site Plan
1. Can the parking lot detectable warning surfaces be relocated to be in the direction of the
crosswalk, not along the radius (unless it is serving 2 perpendicular crosswalks)
Pavement markings & sign plan
1. Please bring all pavement markings to front in black (like crosswalks) on this plan. Fine to be
grey on other sheets
2. Check locations of accessible parking spot signs. Some are in walkways, far from parking space,
blocking bike racks, etc.
3. Eastern most parking area has “K” pointing to wrong space (or that space is missing the
striping?)
4. I’d recommend signs towards street (and maybe towards the parking lot as well) at the
emergency vehicles access be “Do Not Enter” (R5-1) and “Authorized Vehicles Only” (R5-11)
mounted together on single post
Public ROW Comments
1. Confirm where Stop signs are proposed. I do not see any at the Garden / Market intersection,
but I do see stop bars on the Garden Street approaches to Market Street.
2. Please provide a detail for the mountable curb.
3. It is difficult to fully understand the work proposed at the SW approach to Market Street from
the Poon property (the access across from “City Hall / School Driveway Future Public Street”).
My preference is that this intersection get reworked so that the roads are in alignment, but I’d
like to better understand the impacts to the existing infrastructure in the Market St ROW.
4. Please confirm that the existing stormwater pipe under Market St that will receive water from
this development can manage the increased flow of water during the 25 year storm event (City’s
design standard).
5. Garden Street reconfiguration shall be as shown on the below sketch for consistency with
support street typology.
6. Market Street concrete scoring patterns shall be as shown on attached plan. Please also note
the specifications require a 12” crushed stone base under 6” reinforced concrete (grid
throughout & dowels into adjoining jointed sections to preclude shared use path heaving).
7. There is an existing light pole within the 25-ft clear zone of the driveway entrance. This light
pole will need to be relocated.
Comments of Planning Department
1. We would like to schedule a meeting to review the non-residential portion of the building within
the T5 zoning district.
Comments of Stormwater Section
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Please note
that Potash Brook is now classified as a warm water stream.
2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1
acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit from the
Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting
construction.
3. As the project proposes to create more than one-half acre or more of impervious surface, the
project is subject to the requirements of section 13.05 of the LDRs.
4. On the provided soil investigation logs, the VHB TP#4 lists SHWT at 3.5’ below grade, which is
approximately 310.5’. The mulch layer of the bioretention practice is at 313’, which would mean
that the bottom of the practice would be at 311’ as the VSMM requires a 24-48 inch deep
planting bed. The bioretention practice would have ≤0.5’ to SHWT, which is not incompliance
with the VSMM for an infiltration practice. The applicant should propose to line the practice.
5. Sheet D2 – Stormwater Details from VHB
a. The bioretention detail calls out a minimum of 24” from the mulch layer to SHWT. This is
inaccurate – SHWT should be two feet from the bottom of the bioretention soil media
since less than 1 acre of drainage area contributes to the system. The applicant should
revise the bioretention area detail to reflect requirements set by the VSMM.
b. The bioretention detail does not show a layer of bioretention soil media. The callout
says 18” of concrete sand. Per the VSMM, the bioretention planting bed should be 24 to
48 inches.
6. Sheet L-1.1 – Planting Plan
a. Several trees shown on the planting plan are too close in proximity to proposed
stormwater structures and pipes. The applicant should increase the separation between
proposed tree locations and stormwater infrastructure to prevent future damage.
b. There is a shrub proposed <1 ft away from a cleanout to the north of the lower trash
building. The applicant is advised to move this shrub location to prevent difficulty
maintaining the cleanout.
7. Sheet 5: EPSC Plan
a. What will be the phasing of construction regarding construction of buildings, site
grading, construction of stormwater treatment, etc.?
8. The applicant should provide a maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater infrastructure
per Section 13.05B(5). The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly
maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Comments of Fire Marshal’s Office
1. The tree by the NW fire access will need to be moved back toward the property line with the
school. As shown, the aerial and Engines will hit the branches. All FDC shall be kept clear of
landscaping features. Three feet on either side of the FDC and clear to the public way. It is
acknowledged that this is on the school property; we believe we have an easement that includes
maintenance of the referenced tree.
Comments on Landscaping
1. Need a Plant Schedule, Planting Details and Specifications, and Landscaping Cost, affecting:
a. Parking lot perimeter planting compliance
b. Variety of landscaping compliance
c. Tree caliper compliance
d. Landscaping budget compliance
2. The parking lot island computation omits the 13 spaces behind building B3. Please revise.
3. Shade trees are not evenly placed. Please locate shade trees on south end of central parking lot
aisles. Understood that this may replace proposed shrubs.
4. Landscaping adjacent to former dog park may or may not meet screening or buffering
requirements; awaiting revised plans to review.
5. More information is needed about the features that resemble retaining walls between the
building and the street. Provide detail, height, material, update architectural rendering, or if not
present, update plans.
6. Revise plans to indicate locations of snow storage.
Comments on Lighting
1. Lighting levels from fixture type “W” are too high, particularly on Garden Street. Please revise.
Building Comments
1. 224 Market Street is located predominantly within the secondary build-to-zone. 85% of the
building façade must be located within the primary build-to-zone.
2. 268 Market Street is located predominantly within the secondary build-to-zone. 85% of the
building façade must be located within the primary build-to-zone.
3. Rooftop plans have not been provided therefore it is not possible to determine whether rooftop
elements are proposed. If rooftop structures other than the rooftop towers are proposed, such as
elevator towers, their height and area must be provided.
4. Height of rooftop towers must be provided. If they are more than 14 ft above the floor of the
fourth floor, size must also be provided.
5. Provide demonstration of how the project will meet the standards of Appendix CA: – Solar-Ready
Zone of the Commercial Building Energy Standards as prepared and revised by the Vermont
Public Service Department.
General Comments
1. To understand what is included in each phase, for the purpose of landscaping, open space, and
certificate of occupancy issuance, please provide a plan showing each phase cumulatively as
well as a narrative description of what is included in each phase.
2. Qualifying open space areas should be outlined and labeled on the plans. At this time
compliance of open spaces with requirements cannot yet be evaluated.
3. Please quantify Class III wetland and wetland buffer impacts and show on plans.
4. Please provide a future cross-lot access easement between the property and the school
property to the north in the location of the trash enclosure by 339 Garden Street (20-ft wide
driveway easement) and by the sidewalk accessing the bioretention area (15-ft path easement).
No changes to plan are required.
Additional Comments as of 12/9/2022
1. Water/Wastewater allocation request was omitted for commercial uses. Please provide
preliminary requests as a best guess.
2. Sidewalk on Garden Street should carry the grade and concrete through the driveway crossing.
Please provide sufficient grading to make it clear that this is the case.
BES Comments
All Buildings
1. Generally, applicants provide numeric responses to all criteria where the standard is numeric. It
greatly speeds up our review. We’ve proceeded with our own computations in the interest of
time here, but we request that you provide numeric information in the future.
2. As discussed, we are applying standards in aggregate where they are relative to another part of
the building, and for each transect zone where they are measured as individual items. I hope
what standards have been applied will be more clear than I am able to explain here in the
decision.
3. There are some street related requirements in the BES that are not met but will be addressed by
addressing the above comments. These items have not been duplicated below.
4. Percent of frontage buildout within primary and secondary build-to-zones for primary and
secondary facades: As discussed, please provide an exhibit that shows the primary and
secondary zones and a calculation of percent in each.
339 Garden Street
1. Building Breaks – 5 required, 4 provided. Max span without a building break 48’, 49.75’
provided. I suspect the miss here is that material changes must be 20 feet wide and bump outs
must be 2 feet deep to count. For the tiny fraction that our opinion matters, we like the large
dark grey section and would like to see that remain. The deficiency could be addressed by
making the step back 2 feet deep.
2. A minimum of 85% of upper story glazing must be transparent. This standard got cut off in the
current PDF of the LDR, but it can be confirmed that it was not intended to be removed by
reviewing the LDR amendment documents. Please provide information.
224 Market Street
1. T5 primary façade first story glazing 80% of building width: We cannot accept the large column
in the approximate center of the building as part of the glazing, both because of its width and
because it is a horizontal change in plane. We are willing to accept the other columns as
window frames or mullions. Without the column, 80% glazing has not been provided.
2. Building Breaks: Sheet A17 scale is incorrect so we are unable to confirm whether the horizontal
changes in plane are 2 feet or greater.
3. Upper story glazing proximity to building corners: Only storefront or bay windows may be closer
than 30” to building corners. We consider the first story glazing to be storefront glazing but not
the upper story glazing.
268 Market Street
1. Secondary façade entrance spacing: the building elevations don’t match the partial floor plans
provided for the purpose of entrance spacing computations. Please revise in order for us to
evaluate.
2. T5 primary façade first story glazing 80% of building width: We cannot accept the large column
in the approximate center of the building as part of the glazing, both because of its width and
because it is a horizontal change in plane. We are willing to accept the other columns as
window frames or mullions. Without the column, 80% glazing has not been provided.
3. Upper story glazing proximity to building corners: Only storefront or bay windows may be closer
than 30” to building corners. We consider the first story glazing to be storefront glazing but not
the upper story glazing.
Sincerely,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner