HomeMy WebLinkAboutCU-18-12 - Supplemental - 0030 Myers Court (10)From:Paul J Washburn
To:Paul J Washburn; Dalila Hall; Paul Conner
Cc:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: Question on Recommendation
Date:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:50:11 AM
Paul:
This morning I reviewed the DRB video from 29 JAN 19. At approximately 2:58:00, it is acknowledged by the
board that a depth is required in addition to the slope. The board mentions 12 or 18", however the state
recommendation, per the CCE report, is 5' or 60". Earlier I sent a depiction of this overlayed on the CCE field notes
which I will present tonight. I am requesting the 4' grade adjustment (or 1.4' above current grade). Based on this, the
building will measure 15' in height when measured from the revised grade, AND be 1' shorter than a 15' building
built at the minimum state recommended sewer depth.
It was also requested that the engineer be at the meeting at approximately 2:59:00.
Paul
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 3/18/19, Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> wrote:
Subject: RE: Question on Recommendation
To: "Paul J Washburn" <pauljwashburn@yahoo.com>, "Dalila Hall" <dhall@sburl.com>
Cc: "Marla Keene" <mkeene@sburl.com>
Date: Monday, March 18, 2019, 12:10 PM
Hi Paul:
Marla is indeed out today and tomorrow.
I've copied her on our response so that she remains in
the loop.
The
recommendation to the Board is that the ultimate height of
the building would need to be lowered from its present
condition, based on the Board's feedback and our
understanding of the technical review. The Board had
verbally that the grade adjustment could only be made up to
the minimum necessary to achieve positive gravity flow.
Based on that, and 15' above that, our calculation is
that the building is presently 1' 5 3/4" too
tall.
I did just speak with
Jeff Olesky. He is going to be providing us with a
clarification on the meaning of his review. If anything from
that clarification affects the review, we'll certainly
keep you in the loop.
Sincerely,
Paul
Paul
Conner, AICP
Director of Planning &
Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South
Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act,
all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of
documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning
City business, concerning a City official or staff, or
containing information relating to City business are likely
to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by
any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential
by law. If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your
cooperation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J Washburn <pauljwashburn@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:57 AM
To: Dalila Hall <dhall@sburl.com>;
Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: Fw: Question on Recommendation
Paul/Delilah:
I sent this to Marla, and
received her out of office. Perhaps it is how the
recommendation in the packet is worded (CU-18-12).
It states 'The result of
such a condition would be that the applicant must reduce the
height of the building by 1’ 5 ¾”." I presume this
would be based on the original application ask of
12.75'? If so, in addition to the grade adjustment we
would ask for a building height of 15', which would then
bring everything into compliance.
Paul
--- On
Mon, 3/18/19, Paul J Washburn <pauljwashburn@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> From: Paul J
Washburn <pauljwashburn@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Question on Recommendation
> To: "Marla Keene" <mkeene@sburl.com>
> Date: Monday, March 18, 2019, 10:46 AM
Hello Marla:
>
>
I'm a little confused on the
>
recommendation that requires reducing the building
height.
> Perhaps its just how it is
worded.
>
> The
report indicates that the sewer
> enters
the building 3.63' below grade. This is the grade at the
front
> of the building, under the
porch, where we filled to the top of the
> foundation. This is because the insulation
could not be placed under
> the
foundation, so there is a short area that has no insulation
above
> it and it was backfilled as much
as possible. In other words, based on
>
the state recommended 5' of overfill, the approvable
grade, without
> the insulation measures
we took, would be 5' or 1.37' (16 3/4") higher
> than the building currently sits.
>
> The current grade,
based on the 2
> reports, would be about
30" above existing, rather than the 60" the
> report indicates would be recommended by
the state.
>
>
> Paul
>
>