Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-020 - Supplemental - 0039 Bowdoin Street (2) CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone: 802-864-2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Fax: 802-864-2271 E-Mail: dmarshall@cea-vt.com November 7, 2022 Mr. Marty Gillies Development Review Planner City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Northeast Territories, Inc. 39 Bowdoin Street SP-22-020 Lot 7 at Meadowland Business Park Site Plan Application for Proposed Office Space and Contractor’s Yard Supplemental Information Dear Mr. Gillies: Thank you for your assistance in the management of this application. To assist in the management of the supplemental information offered with this correspondence, we have inserted the “red” staff recommendations as a starting point in support of the applicant’s responses 1. It appears the applicant’s proposed height is calculated based on the floor to ceiling height of the building, not the height as calculated from the average preconstruction grade of the site. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between the stated height in the application (33 feet) and the height demonstrated in the elevations (roughly 25 feet). Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a height measured from average pre-construction grade prior to closing the hearing. We have attached Sheet HB-1.0 which calculates the average existing grade and compares that with the proposed finish floor elevation and proposed building height yielding a final permitting building height of 31.79 feet. 2. The applicant is proposing to encroach into the front setback by approximately 19.4 feet on the south side of the property and by approximately 8.5 feet on the east side. The applicant has requested a setback waiver to reduce the front yard setbacks to 35 feet, but that will not be sufficient to accommodate the proposed building footprint. As such, Staff recommends the Board instead consider a waiver to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet. We concur with the observations of the proposed building footprint location and concur with this recommendation which was reviewed during the last hearing. 3. The Snippet/Parklet Site Amenity must primarily feature year-round, fixed, high-quality seating. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. We have attached a new landscaping plan, Sheet L1.1, which adopts the features outlined above. 8x11 images of the proposed furniture and landscaping trees are also attached. Mr. Marty Gillies Page 2 of 4 November 7, 2022 4. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify their proposal to connect the proposed project to the existing City sewer line outside of the Class II wetland buffer. The Site Utility Plan (Sheet C2.3) has been revised to no longer utilize the existing sewer stub originally approved by the City nut a new service that runs southerly into Meadowland Drive which will now require an open cut of the roadway surface. Plans also revised to integrate these changes are reflected on the Attached Sheet C2.2 Grading and Drainage plan, C3.0 – EPSC Plan and C4.1 – Utility Details. 5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the trip generation calculations using the updated building square footage and proposed use.. An addendum to the original Traffic Impact Assessment to address the project size has been prepared by Mr. Roger Dickinson, P.E. and recommends that the PM Peak Hour VTE value be set at 16. 6. Staff further recommends the Board establish as part of their decision an approved PM Peak Hour Trip Generation for the purpose of calculating traffic impact fees. Please see above. 7. Staff considers there are no substantial topographical challenges, and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether to modify their site plan to construct the driveway so that it both aligns with the driveway on the opposite side of Bowdoin Street and with the drive aisle, to ease internal circulation and allow the trucks to back to the loading docks from the parking lot rather than from the street. We developed a series of plans which superimpose the design truck on: A. The originally proposed plans (Sheet T1.0) B. The drive-in and back-into the truck loading area through a curb cut located opposite of the CBA Building driveway. a. Compared to the originally proposed configuration this adds 2843 SF (orange hatch) and eliminates 505 SF (Blue hatch) for as net increase of 2337 SF b. Technically this is possible but requires that the cab swing out into the street to accommodate the back-in movement. C. Sheet T1.3 Shows the effort to pull out of the Loading Dock while using the relocated curb cut, the truck would need to drive over the curb and trees on the east side of the Bowdoin Street. D. Sheet T1.2 shows the requirements to pull out of the aligned curb cut, back-in to the CBA driveway to head back south. This too has impacts on the curbing and street trees. a. This option requires the relocation of the solid waste enclosure facility to the west and a reduction in the size of the island (increase in impervious surface. In summary, the alternate driveway curb cut alignment cannot accommodate the turning movements into the site without a large increase in impervious area nor can it Mr. Marty Gillies Page 3 of 4 November 7, 2022 accommodate the egress movements with traveling over curbs and street trees. turning movements. 8. The proposed dumpster location is to be screened, but Staff considers insufficient information about the screening is provided to confirm whether this criterion is met. The material is called out as “screen board or other material as per owners request.” Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion as a condition of approval. Sheet C4.4 was mistakenly left out of the last submission. It is attached with this information which includes the proposed screening detail. 9. The applicant has proposed a 20-ft wide access easement to the property to the north in accordance with this requirement. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a draft easement document prior to closing the hearing. A Draft deed for the future access to the north is attached. 10. Staff has been unable to locate turning movement information in the revised materials provided on 9/21. Staff continues to recommend the Board require the applicant to address the Fire Chief’s comments which pertain to site design prior to closing the hearing. We understand at the last hearing that this issue had been acknowledged by staff as being acceptable. 11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide long-term bicycle parking at the site, noting that 50% of the required long-term bicycle parking requirement can be met by private office space. As such, Staff considers that the applicant must provide one additional long- term bicycle parking space and an associated clothes locker, and recommends that the Board require the applicant to do so prior to closing the hearing. The required locker and storage position has been added to the Floor Plan Sheet A2.0 12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to fully meet this requirement and revise the distribution of the shade trees prior to closing the hearing. We understand at the last hearing that this issue had been acknowledged by staff as being acceptable. 13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to fully meet this requirement by providing a more diverse mix of tree species. The proposed Landscaping Plan Sheet L1.1 depicts the amended proposed tree species mixture for the project. 14. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to clarify where the snow storage areas will be located prior to closing the hearing. The snow storage areas are on Sheet C1.1. These have been removed from Sheet C2.1 to avoid any ambiguity. 15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a project cost and values of each of the landscaping elements included in the landscaping plan before the conclusion of the hearing. 16. One of the lights included in a cut sheet submitted by the applicant does not meet the downcast and shielded requirements. Staff recommends the board include a condition that only the lights specified on the plans, and not all the lights included in the cut sheets, be permitted. This is acceptable Mr. Marty Gillies Page 4 of 4 November 7, 2022 17. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the roof will comply with the standard. If the applicant demonstrates satisfactory compliance with this requirement, Staff considers demonstration of it on the plans can be a condition of approval. A Note has ben added to Sheet A1.0 requiring PV enabling power accommodations. This completes our general summary of the current status of the revisions made for the project application materials. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 864-2323 x310. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer Attachments: Site Plan Application Package Site Plan Application (1 digital copy Plans HB-1.0 – Building Height Calculation A1.0 – Building Elevations A2.0 – Building Floor Plan L1.1 – Landscaping Plan C2.1 – Site Plan C2.2 – Grading and Drain age plan C2.3 - Site Utility Plan C3.0 – EPSC Plan C4.1 – Site Utility Details C4.4 – Misc. Details T1.0 – Traffic Plan T1.1 – Traffic Plan T1.2 – Traffic Plan T1.3 – Traffic Plan 8x11 Materials Proposed Furniture Specimen Tree Graphics TIA Addendum Draft Access Easement Deed cc: (All w/ enclosures, 11x17 plans); M. Neagley CEA File 19145.00 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2019\19145\3-Permitting\1-Local Applications\4-Site Plan\Submittal\Supplemental 22-10-21\0 - Gillies - Lot 7 MBP Site Plan Cover Letter 221107.rtf