Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 07_SP-22-007_916 Shelburne Rd_DS Realty_SC_2022-03-02
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP-22-007_916 Shelburne Rd_DS Realty_SC_2022-03-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 23, 2022 Plans received: February 14, 2022 916 Shelburne Road Site Plan Application #SP-22-007 Meeting date: March 2, 2022 Owner/Applicant DS Realty, LLC 3050 Fuller Mountain Road North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 Engineer Engineering Ventures, Inc. 208 Flynn Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-00916 Commercial 1-R15 Zoning District, R4 Zoning District, Traffic Overlay District Zone 1, Transit Overlay District, Urban Design Overlay District Location Map #SP-22-007 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Site plan application #SP-22-007 of DS Realty, LLC to amend a previously approved site plan for an artist production studio and restaurant. The amendment consists of constructing an accessory structure for licensed non-residential daycare use, expanding the parking area, and changing the mix of uses, 916 Shelburne Road. CONTEXT The Board reviewed a sketch plan for this project on January 18, 2022. This project is subject to Site Plan Review Standards, Urban Design Overlay District standards, Transit Overlay District, Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. The property contains an existing main building and an existing carriage house containing two residential units. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing carriage house (1,268 SF) and construct a new carriage house (1,594 SF with 298 SF loft) situated approximately three (3) feet to the west. Other site improvements consist of adding additional parking, removing trees, removing existing wooden stage, platform, and walkway, and replacing a path between the main building and the carriage house. COMMENTS City Planner Kelsey Peterson and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Planning Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 02/14/2022 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s attention are indicated in red. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 71,059 sf Max. Building Coverage 40% 7.9% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 33.8% Min. Front Setback (Urban Design Overlay District) 20 ft. ft. Max Front Setback Coverage 30% 1.5% Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. n/a Building Height (accessory structure) 15 ft. 15 ft. Meets requirement 3.07E Accessory Structures in All Districts (1) Accessory structures shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, . . . .” The proposed Carriage House consists of one story plus a central mezzanine loft under a dormer. Architectural elevations provided show a height to 20’-7” with average height of 14’-9 ½” and the dormer being less than 50% of the horizontal width and are not more than five (5) feet above the average height. Staff considers this criterion met. #SP-22-007 3 Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District The purpose of the Commercial 1 Zoning District is to encourage the location of higher density residential, retail, office and vertically mixed uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers may be permitted. Warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Urban design supporting a transition for these areas from a suburban environment to compact centers is encouraged. 10.01 Traffic Overlay District This property is located in Traffic Overlay District Zone 1 which allows 15 trips per 40,000 sf of land area without provision of additional mitigation measures. The parcel is 71,059 SF, making the traffic budget 26.64 trips per hour during PM peak hour. The Applicant stated that the total PM peak hour trips is 22.92 trips per hour, based on using ITE designation #530 – Private School (K-8) and #930 – Fast Casual Restaurant. However, the Applicant also states that the bakery, which is the “Fast Casual Restaurant” has “no accommodations to consume the pies or other food on-site” and all pick-up by customers is done at an “off-site location in Burlington”. Staff considers using “Fast Casual Restaurant” as the land-use category for a bakery with no on-site customers to be illogical. The Applicant includes 2.38 trips per hour in its calculation for this use. Without that use, the proposed trip generation is 20.54 trips per hour. BFJ Planning, the traffic reviewer on this project in the absence of a permanent Director of Public Works, reviewed this project on 2/16/2022 and offers the following comments. BFJ recommends that the PM Peak Hour trip generation for the new childcare facility should be based on ITE #565 Day Care Center. Lamoureux & Dickinson’s utilization of ITE Land-Use #530 (Private School, K-8) results in an estimated PM peak hour generation of 6.24 trips as shown in Table 1 of the technical memo. However, when utilizing ITE #565 Day Care Center, this increases the PM peak hour generation to 21 trips for the childcare facility. Changing this ITE land-use category for the proposed childcare facility would result in a total of 38 trips during the PM peak hour, exceeding the traffic budget for this site. The traffic budget would be exceeded even if the applicant had chosen the ITE Private School K-12 land use category for the Art Studio. 1. Staff recommends the applicant be required to update their traffic study. If the trips exceed the budget of 26.64 trips per hour during PM peak hour, the DRB should require the applicant to provide mitigation as provided in LDR Appendix B. 10.05D Urban Design Overlay District Standards While a portion of the property does fall within the boundaries of the Urban Design Overlay District, the proposed building does not. Therefore, standards under 10.05D do not apply to the proposed Carriage House. No changes to the principal building are proposed. #SP-22-007 4 B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Transitions are discussed under 14.06(C) below. Adequacy of planting and pedestrian movement are discussed elsewhere in this document. Staff considers the quantity of parking areas to be adequate. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. Existing parking is to the front of the principal building. There are no changes proposed to the non-conforming parking. The additional parking is proposed to be to the side of the building. Staff considers this criterion met. (c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the side of buildings shall not exceed the building width along any street frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. As viewed from Shelburne Road, the width of parking is not proposed to change. As viewed from Lindenwood Drive, this criterion is met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The footprint of the building is similar to the footprint of the existing building to be removed. It is proposed to be one story with a mezzanine loft in a dormer. It will be shorter than the main building on the site, but appears to include related architectural elements. The proposed Carriage House is located approximately 10 feet from the property line with a residential use. The residential use to the east is a single-family home with outbuilding, both of which appear to be similar in scale to the proposed Carriage House and the same or taller in height. Staff considers the proposed Carriage House to be compatible with the height and scale of this residential use. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), #SP-22-007 5 landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant has provided renderings of the proposed building’s exterior elevations. The Davis Studio main building appears to be Victorian in style. The proposed Carriage House building is designed in a less ornate style but with consistent architectural features like shed dormers and pitched rooves over doors. The two buildings will not be identical in style, but use similar materials and with similar enough architectural interest to meet this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards. None of the resources identified in Article 12 exist on the site. B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations. These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below. C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation standards of Section 15.A.14. Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this application. The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow. 15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service of “D” or better at full buildout. As noted above, the number of vehicle trips added by the proposed Carriage House is disputed between the Applicant and the independent reviewer. Based on the independent reviewer’s report, this project proposes to exceed the allowed trips during PM peak hour. Access to the site is only from Shelburne Road/Route 7 which, at the point of access, is a five-lane road including a bi-directional left turn lane. There is no further information provided by the Applicant about any discussions with VTrans about impact to Shelburne Road/Route 7 from generated trips. #SP-22-007 6 2. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to communicate with VTrans to determine if mitigation is required. 15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to: (1)-(6) not applicable (7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-accident locations. 3. Though the site meets the requirement to have a direct connection to the sidewalk on Shelburne Road, it appears there is no continuous connection between the proposed Carriage House and Shelburne Road. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to require the sidewalk that connects the Carriage House to the main building and parking to continue to Shelburne Road to provide connectivity for users who may arrive by means other than motor vehicle. Staff considers the elements of this criterion pertaining to sight distance, access separation distances and accommodations for high-accident locations to be met. (8) Align access point with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible. The applicant is not proposing to change the access point to Shelburne Road. Staff considers this criterion met. (9) Minimize vehicular access point (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along pedestrian oriented street frontage; and provide, where feasible, shared vehicular access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes, shared driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels. The applicant is not proposing to change the access point to Shelburne Road. Staff considers this criterion met. D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved] E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards contained therein. This criterion does not apply as no overlay or related districts apply to the location of the proposed Carriage House. #SP-22-007 7 F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.15(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations. Staff considers no improvements to Shelburne Road to be needed. F. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. See 13.02F below for discussion of access. G. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met. The City of South Burlington Water District reviewed the proposed plans on 2/14/2022 and offered the following comments regarding public water service to the property. 1. The water service line to the existing Carriage House is ¾” copper at the curb stop. 2. Upon request, the SBWD will shut the water off on the service line to the Carriage House so that the tee to the A-Frame can be removed and tied back together, and the water meter can be removed when the carriage house is demolished and renovated. 3. ¾” copper will be required for the service line. If a larger service is required, then the existing service will be shut off at the corporation, and the service line disconnected from the main. Tapping fees shall be applied if a new service line is required. 4. As this project includes a change of use, a Water Allocation Application, found on the South Burlington Water Department website must be completed and submitted to the SBWD. All fees must be paid prior to restoring the water meter and water service to the new building. The South Burlington Department of Public Works also reviewed the proposed plans on 2/16/2022 and offers the following comments. 1. The plans do not show a grease trap for the previously approved restaurant. The application will need to prepare and submit a Grease, Oil and Sand Interceptor Permit as part of this application. 2. If the property has not already obtained a wastewater allocation for the change in use, they will need to submit that application. DPW does not require a new wastewater #SP-22-007 8 connection application as the connection to the City system is remaining the same. 4. Staff recommends that the DRB require the applicant to obtain a preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to closing the hearing and obtain a grease interceptor permit prior to issuance of a zoning permit. H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant includes an area labeled “dumpsters” surrounded by a wooden fence on the submitted Site Plan. No further detail is included about the fence, including height, opacity, access to the dumpsters, or how the enclosure is secured. 5. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to provide further information regarding the dumpsters and associated fence before closing the hearing. C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. LDR 13.02F requires all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots to provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. It goes on to state that if the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. 6. The only abutting commercial property is located to the south and Staff considers this criterion is not met for that property. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide on the plans and record a 20-foot cross-lot easement to the east of the stormwater treatment area on this site to the benefit of the adjacent property to the south, Parcel ID 1540-00930. If such a connection were appropriate in the future, it would require reconfiguration of the parking spaces proposed in that location. G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping #SP-22-007 9 (1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-2 and Figure 13-1, Section 13.04, Landscaping , Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. The applicant is proposing parking angled at 90° as measured in Table 13-2 and Figure 13-1. The required dimensions are as follows. Requirement Provided Parking Angle 90° 90° Curb Length 9.0 ft. 9.0 ft. Stall Depth 18 ft. 18 ft. Aisle Width 24 ft. 26 ft. The applicant is proposing to make the parking stalls exactly the minimum width and length required. It meets the aisle width by exceeding it by two feet. If the applicant were to meet the specific requirement, there would be 2-ft less pavement on the site, which would move the parking area two feet farther from abutters to the south. 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss reducing the width of the aisle to increase distance from the abutters and reducing total impervious surface. Parking lot landscaping is further discussed under 13.04 below. (2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and existing traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency vehicles. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 2/23/2022 and indicated “They have met all of the IBC, NFPA 1 Chpt 18 & all applicable city ordinances regarding FD access.“ Staff considers this criterion met. (4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths. Staff’s comments pertaining to pedestrian circulation, and particularly to pedestrian connectivity between the street and the site, is discussed under 14.07C above. (5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. See Section 13.03 (6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. Stormwater management is discussed under 13.05 below. #SP-22-007 10 13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage. There appear to be zero bicycle racks provided in the Site Plan. The minimum requirement for bicycle parking is as follows. Required Bike Parking This Site Short Term (Educational - 1 per 20 students of planned capacity 4 required for 79 anticipated students. Long Term (Educational – 1 per 20 employees) 2 required for 25 planned employees Clothes Lockers 1 8. Based on the provided floor plans and proposed uses, the applicant is not meeting the requirements for either short-term or long-term bicycle parking, or for clothes lockers. No showers or changing facilities are required. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide the required bike parking and clothes locker prior to closing the hearing. 13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties. (1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations, it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. (2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking. The applicant has provided for no interior landscaped islands and includes a total of 44 parking spaces. This criterion has not been met. #SP-22-007 11 9. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to provide plans with at least 10% of interior of the parking lot with landscaped islands. This could include landscaping replacing proposed parking spaces, as long as they meet the 10% requirement. Staff recommends the landscape islands be located to preserve existing mature trees. Removal of mature trees is discussed below. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.04(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. The applicant has provided no interior landscaped islands; therefore, this criterion is also not met. (4) Landscaping Requirements The City Arborist reviewed the proposed plans on 2/15/2022 and provided the following comments. 1. Recommend planting Dogwoods and Coneflower further off edge of parking lot to avoid plow damage. 2. Should include more detailed Tree Protection Plan for existing trees. Tree protection limits should be based on tree diameter, generally 8-12 inches per inch of diameter, limits on activity within tree protection zone, etc. 3. Unless landscape credit is being given for preserving existing trees, the landscape value seems high. (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant. 10. Staff recommends the DRB require the plantings of dogwood and coneflower be placed farther from the parking edge. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. The applicant appears to have not met this criterion in the south-east corner of the parking area. Only small shrubs, other plants, and lawn are proposed to border the last thirteen parking spaces. It also appears that no deciduous shade trees are proposed for the north side of the parking area. Thirty-eight (38) parking spaces are proposed in the disturbed portion of the parking lot. 11. Staff recommends the DRB require additional major deciduous shade trees be planted in these areas to comply with this criterion. 12. Distance between the impervious surface of the far eastern end of the parking lot and the existing deciduous tree proposed to be retained should be increased to provide greater protection to that existing tree. #SP-22-007 12 (5) and (6) do not apply, as no planting islands or solar canopies have been proposed. (7) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. Snow storage is only indicated on the proposed landscaping plan (Sheet L-01) and does not indicate a boundary for the storage area. The area appears coincident with the grass swale for stormwater collection labeled C9 on the Site Plan (C2.1) serving much of the southeastern part of the parking lot. Storing snow in a manner that fills the swale could cause issues during snowmelt and impediment of the stormwater system. 13. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to indicate the boundaries of the snow storage area and provide snow storage not coincident with stormwater treatment or conveyance practices. C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a public street. The abutters to the east and south-east are single-family residences. Staff recommends the DRB find that the adjacent sites are dissimilar for that reason and require buffering or screening. See additional discussion of buffering under 3.06I below. (1) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height (minimum of three (3) feet) and opacity to effectively screen the parking or loading area year-round from adjacent public streets. The adjacent public streets are Shelburne Road and Lindenwood Drive. The proposed Carriage House building screens the parking from Lindenwood Drive. From Shelburne Road, the parking is not screened and opportunities for further screening exist. 14. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to provide screening from Shelburne Road which will also address some of the deficit in the landscaping budget discussed below. (2) Screening of a parking or loading shall be provided where headlights from vehicles on site may be visible and project parallel to a public street. Staff considers compliance with this criterion to be unchanged by the proposed project. (3) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height and opacity to effectively screen outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas. Discussed above. (3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of #SP-22-007 13 persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot. The applicant has not provided landscaping of a type, height, and spacing to effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing on adjoining properties. No trees or tall shrubs are proposed to screen the south-east portion of the parking lot or the “play area” from residential properties to the east and south-east. 15. Staff recommends the DRB require additional landscaping near or along the east and south- east boundaries to screen the parking lot and play area from surrounding residential properties. (5)-(7) do not apply to this application. G. (3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. The applicant has stated the cost estimate of this project to be $450,000 and has proposed $12,450 in landscaping. The project is required to have a landscaping budget equal to 3% of the first $250,000 in costs, then 2% of the next $250,000. It is required to have a landscaping budget of $11,500. The applicant cannot count incidental preservation of existing plantings ($3,000) as value in the landscaping budget. Further, the cost of seeding lawn areas ($1,200) and bark mulch ($400) cannot be counted to meet the landscaping budget requirement. 16. Staff recommends the DRB request the applicant to provide a revised landscaping budget that meets the required $11,500 before closing the hearing. 13.05 Stormwater Management Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is proposed to exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on February 22, 2022 and offers the following comment: 1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 13.07 Exterior Lighting Lighting requirements are summarized as follows. #SP-22-007 14 (1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded (2) Illumination must be evenly distributed (3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance (4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish (5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft (6) Poles must be located in safe locations The applicant’s provided plans do not show any exterior lighting exists on the site. It does include a lighting fixture cut sheet, but it is unclear where it will be installed. 17. Staff recommends the DRB clarify with the applicant where the lighting fixture is proposed, and that no exterior lighting exists or is proposed. 13.11 Fences The applicant has not included any additional fences in this Site Plan, so this section does not apply. Staff notes that if the DRB decides to require fencing as part of additional screening from abutting properties, review under this section will be required. 3.06I Setback and Buffer Strip Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries (1) Setback to residential zoning districts. Any new, reconstructed, or expanded principal building located wholly or primarily in a non-residential zoning district shall retain a setback of not less than sixty-five (65) feet from all adjacent residential zoning districts, unless applicable lots are part of a Master Plan or Planned Unit Development. The proposed Carriage house is located in a non-residential zoning district within 65 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district, but the proposal is for an accessory building to the main Davis Studio building. Staff considers that this provision does not apply. (2) Buffer strip. A buffer strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot setback in subsection (1) shall be installed and landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area. Staff considers this section to be not applicable. (3) The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses, structures and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback and/or buffer as set forth in (1) or (2) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB shall find that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise, light and visual impacts of the new non-residential use to #SP-22-007 15 that which would be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above. However in no case may the required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning district in which the non-residential use is located. While (1) above does not apply, (3) does apply to any “new or expanded nonresidential uses, structures and/or parking areas . . . within the setback or buffer as set forth in (1) or (2) above, and [the Board] may approve a modification of the width of the required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above.” Staff notes that this differentiates between the principal structure setback in (1) and approval of other structures and parking areas. 18. Staff recommends the DRB require the lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to “provide equivalent screening of the noise, light and visual impacts of the new non-residential use to that which would be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above.” Staff considers the application to not currently meet this standard, given the lack of buffering landscaping or structures along the east and south boundaries. 3.18 Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.18: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. This now includes provision of a solar-ready roof. 19. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, Kelsey Peterson, City Planner January 26, 2022 VIA EMAIL Dawn Philibert, Chair City of South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Project: Davis Studio – 916 Shelburne Road RE: SKETCH PLAN SUBMISSION Dear Dawn Philibert, and DRB Members: Please find attached combined Prelim/Final Site Plan Review application for Child Care Facility, licensed non-residential use to a new building that replaces an existing accessory building located at 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, Vermont. Project Narrative: The project includes a request to replace an existing accessory structure with a new accessory structure located at 916 Shelburne Road. The existing “Carriage House” accessory structure of 1,268 sf will be removed and replaced with a new building of 1,594 sf footprint. The existing building is non-conforming because it is located within the existing 10ft side yard setback. The new building will be similarly located but moved approximately 3ft West in order for the entire building to conform with the setback requirements. The structure size will increase in footprint approximately 326 sf. Project also includes expansion of the existing parking lot, stormwater improvements, ADA accessibility requirements, site grading, landscaping, walkways and fencing. The subject property is approximately 1.63 acres in total and is formerly split-zoned with a majority (1.34 acres) of the lot zoned Commercial 1 – Residential 15. The remaining portion of the lot along the East side was zoned Residential 4 (0.29 acres). The new Land Development Regulations amend the zoning to remove the sliver of R-4 zoning, therefore expanding the C1- R15 zoning to the East property line. The entire parcel under the amended LDR’s shall be within the C1-R15 zoning district. Owners Narrative: (see attached Owner’s Narrative by Davis Studio) Site Plan Review Fee: Base fee: $275 + $13 digitization + non res sq ft (5,459sf x $0.10) = $ 545.90 Total Fee: 833.90 As required in Appendix E: (Submission Requirements) Please find attached: • Completed application form • One Digital copy of plans • List of the Owner (on application form) • Record of Abutting Property Owners (attached) • Name and address of the owner of record (on application form) • Applicant is same as owner (see application form) • Architect: Freeman French Freeman • Landscape Architect: VIS Construction Consultants • Engineer: Engineering Ventures Permit History: The project is located in the Commercial 1-Residential 15 (C1-R15) zoning district. The draft LDRs, warned November 10, 2021, propose to relocate the boundary of C1- R15 to the property line, eliminating the R4 zoning on the property. This application includes a combined Prelim / Final Site Plan Review. Context: This application is to add Child Care Facility, Licensed non-residential use to the new Carriage House building as a permitted use in C1-R15 district (with amended LDR’s). Waivers Requested: Application requests Waiver for section 13.07 Exterior Lighting. While there are no new light posts proposed in the project, the application includes some minor lighting (wall sconce) at 3 door locations as shown on A200 of the Architectural elevations. Please see attached Spec Sheet for the Home Depot fixture. The fixture specified is dark-sky friendly and fully shielded. We request waiver from section 13.07 exterior lighting because (other than the sconce lighting) there are no new lighting pole fixtures proposed, and no photometric plan provided with this application. (Sea Gull Lighting, Black Outdoor Barn Lantern Wall sconce spec attached). Estimated Project Construction Schedule: To begin immediately upon obtaining permits with Completion in Summer 2022. Any Other Information / Relevant Data: Please find attached memo from Heartwood Landscape and Tree Service by Maxwell Curtiss, Certified Arborist received on December 18, 2021. This memo notes recommended trees for removal as part of the project. It should be noted that this review was done prior to the full civil engineering design work. That said there is one additional tree scheduled for removal (as recommended by the civil engineer), and as shown on sheet C1.1 (this is tree #1 on arborist plan). This additional tree is being removed as necessary for the construction of the parking lot, off-grading, and the needed swale for stormwater improvements. 18.03 Housing Preservation Standards: This application requests exemptions from contributions to the housing trust fund for the former residential units. There was one unit in the demolished A-frame structure and two units in the existing Carriage House building. The A-frame structure was damaged by a fallen tree and deemed unfit for habitation. Evidence of this was provided to the board in a previous sketch hearing in 2021. The applicant asked the board at the time if the evidence provided (photo of tree fallen on A-frame unit) was sufficient enough to deem the A-frame unit unfit for habitation and the board provided guidance that the information, testimony, and photos provided to the board was sufficient to deem this unit; but was only an opinion from board members during that meeting. Even though sufficient information (the photos of damage) was previously provided to deem this the case, there was no action yet taken because the application at the time was a “sketch” hearing not a preliminary or final hearing where a formal decision from the board could be provided that it is actually deemed unfit. Here are the photos again that were provided to the board in 2021 for the damage to the A-frame: The two former units in the existing Carriage House building also qualify for an exemption because this application includes converting the use of this structure to a new licensed, non- residential child care facility as proposed. Under the amended LDR’s, any approval for such conversion, however, shall be accompanied by the following: (a) A calculation of the amount of the contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, as specified in Section 18.03E(3), that would otherwise have applied; and, (b) A condition that any subsequent conversion to another non-residential use will require compliance with the housing replacement requirements of Section 18.03E(3), the contribution amount shall be that calculated pursuant to this subsection 18.07C(7)(a). In support of what is required for the valuation of the two Carriage House residential units, the applicant’s site contractor has received information from the City staff in an email from Dalila Hall, Zoning Administrative Officer on 12/17/2021 supporting 18.03 C.7 (a) for a calculation of $88,567 that would otherwise have applied as a contribution to the trust for the two units. We understand this determination is equal to 25% of (1) the most recent assessed valuation of the premises as modified by the CLA (Common Level of Appraisal). 12/17/2021 Email: Please know the contractor was applying for a demo permit at the time (mid-December 2021) without knowledge of a required determination of value requirement to the trust. We believe this information does provide sufficient information of an assessed & recent calculation for the two Carriage House units. In summary, the applicant requests exemption from 18.03 for the 3 former units as follows: 1 unit (The A-Frame) be exempt per Section 18.03 C. (2) as it be deemed unfit for habitation. 2 units (Existing Carriage House) be exempt per Section 18.03 C.(7) as this application provides conversion of the Carriage House to a “Licensed, non-residential child care facility”. Supporting information has been provided to accompany this application with a calculation of $88,567 that would otherwise have applied for the contribution for the two units. In addition, we understand the board will also condition this approval per Section 18.03 C. (7) part (b) that any subsequent conversion (in the future) to a non-residential use will require compliance with the housing replacement requirements of Section 18.03E. Site Plans: The following site plans include relevant information as required for the Prelim / Final Site Plan Review Appendix E Submission Requirements. This includes the following supporting Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, and Building / Architecture Plans: o C1.1 Existing Conditions Plan o C1.2 EPSC Plan o C2.1 Site Plan o C2.3 Impervious Coverage Summary o C3.1 Site Details o C3.2 Water Details o C3.3 Sewer Details o C3.4 Storm Details o C3.5 EPSC Details o L-01 Landscape Plan o L-02 Landscape Details o G200 Code Plans o A004 Interior Wall Types o A100 Floor Plans o A101 Floor Plans o A110 Reflected Ceiling Plan & Lighting Plan o A200 Exterior Elevations o A300 Building Sections o A301 Building Sections o A310 Wall Sections Sincerely, Paul Simon, VIS Construction Consultants Tel: (603) 643-3400 IPF 1" OD Flush VT 48Metal Playground FenceSewer MH (typ.)UWooden post w/UGP outletUGP Access Cover10" ODWooden PlatformIPF 1" OD Flush VT 48Large Traffic SignpostSpanning Route 7Gas Line inUGP Line inGas Valve (typ.)Wood Fence (typ.)Short Wood Picket Fence (typ.)Sill Elevation218.64'Sill elevation 218.60'Concrete wallsbasement windowsGas Line inHVACWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletRoad sign (typ.)Light for sign (UGP)Bus Stop BuildingRaised BedSandpitWooden walkwayWooden PlatformShedWoodenStageDumpstersBulkheadADA Ramp and PorchPorchRaised Bedand SignSill Elevation216.66'PorchCarriage HouseDavis Studio BuildingA-FrameBuildingUX X X XXXXXXXXXXGas Line inWood Fence (typ.)OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWEEGASGASGASWWGASEWWWWWWWWWWWEE WWWWGASGASGASR-4 ZONING DISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONING DISTRICT(PER 2020 LDR)R-4 ZONINGDISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONINGDISTRICT(PER 2020 LDR)URBAN DESIGNOVERLAY BOUNDARYMAJOR INTERSECTIONOVERLAY BOUNDARYWWWLINDENWOOD DRIVEUS ROUTE 7, SHELBURNE ROAD IPF 1" OD FlushBlasted TopPainted RedPALMER AND HELEN IRISHSPAN: 600-188-13074PARCEL ID: 1050-00007ALI TAHAMISPAN: 600-188-16033PARCEL ID: 1540-00930BREWER PKWY LLCSPAN: 600-188-13371PARCEL ID: 0260-00002SARAH BRUTZMANSPAN: 600-188-10848PARCEL ID: 0260-00004DS REALTY LLCSPAN: 600-188-14911PARCEL ID: 1540-009161.63 ACRES1.26 ACRES IN C-1 R-15 DISTRICT0.37 ACRES IN R-4 DISTRICT(ACREAGE TOTALS PER 2020 LDR)SSSSSSWWSSSSSPARCEL ID: 1540-00794SPAN: 600-188-14211PARCEL ID: 1050-00002SPAN: 600-188-13165PARCEL ID: 1050-00004ANDREA AND PALMER IRISHSPAN: 600-188-12730PARCEL ID: 1050-00006218218 218 2192192 1 9 207208208209209209209209209209210210211211211211212212213213214214214214214 214214214 21 5 215215 216216 216 21 6 217217 2172 1 7 217 217 2182 1 8 218212211215216209SURVEY NOTESDEMOLITION SCHEDULELEGENDGENERAL NOTESEXISTING SURFACE LEGENDZONING INFODAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATIONSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT26 JANUARY 2022C1.1Existing Condition andDemolition Plan XXXXProposed Carriage HouseIPF 1" OD Flush VT 48Metal Playground FenceSewer MH (typ.)UUGP Access Cover10" ODIPF 1" OD Flush VT 48Large Traffic SignpostSpanning Route 7UGP Line inGas Valve (typ.)Wood Fence (typ.)Short Wood Picket Fence (typ.)Concrete wallsbasement windowsGas Line inHVACWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletRoad sign (typ.)Light for sign (UGP)Bus Stop BuildingSandpitShedDumpstersBulkheadRaised Bedand SignSill Elevation216.66'PorchDavis Studio BuildingUX XXWood Fence (typ.)OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWEEGASGASGASWWGASEWWWWWWWWWWWEE WWWWGASGASGASR-4 ZONING DISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONING DISTRICT(PER 2020 LDR)R-4 ZONINGDISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONINGDISTRICT(PER 2020 LDR)URBAN DESIGNOVERLAY BOUNDARYMAJOR INTERSECTIONOVERLAY BOUNDARYWWWLINDENWOOD DRIVEUS ROUTE 7, SHELBURNE ROAD IPF 1" OD FlushBlasted TopPainted RedPALMER AND HELEN IRISHSPAN: 600-188-13074PARCEL ID: 1050-00007ALI TAHAMISPAN: 600-188-16033PARCEL ID: 1540-00930BREWER PKWY LLCSPAN: 600-188-13371PARCEL ID: 0260-00002SARAH BRUTZMANSPAN: 600-188-10848PARCEL ID: 0260-00004DS REALTY LLCSPAN: 600-188-14911PARCEL ID: 1540-009161.63 ACRES1.26 ACRES IN C-1 R-15 DISTRICT0.37 ACRES IN R-4 DISTRICT(ACREAGE TOTALS PER 2020 LDR)SSSSSSWWSSSSSREXBO DEVELOPMENT INCSPAN: 600-188-15257PARCEL ID: 1540-00794TIMOTHY MCKENZIESPAN: 600-188-14211PARCEL ID: 1050-00002RAYMOND A & PATRICIA L JEWETT TRUSTSPAN: 600-188-13165PARCEL ID: 1050-00004ANDREA AND PALMER IRISHSPAN: 600-188-12730PARCEL ID: 1050-00006SKIPCO INCSPAN: 600-188-15742PARCEL ID: 1540-00907MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE INCSPAN: 600-188-16131PARCEL ID: 1540-00919HANNAFORD BROTHERSSPAN: 600-188-12728PARCEL ID: 1540-935-7 218218 218 219219219207208208209209209209209209209210210211211211211212212 213213214214 214214 21421421 4 2 1 4 21 5 215215 216216 216 21 6 217217 2172 1 7 217 217 21821 8 218212211215216209LEGENDPROPOSED SURFACE LEGENDPROPOSED SITE FEATURES SCHEDULEDAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATIONSOUTH BURLINGTON, VTC2.1Proposed Site Plan26 JANUARY 2022ZONING INFO UUGP Access Cover10" ODUGP Line inConcrete wallsbasement windowsGas Line inHVACWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletWooden post w/UGP outletLight for sign (UGP)Wooden PlatformBulkheadRaised Bedand SignSill Elevation216.66'PorchDavis Studio BuildingUX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXGas Line inOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASWE E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEE WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASURBAN DESIGNOVERLAY BOUNDARYMAJOR INTERSECTIONOVERLAY BOUNDARYWWWWWWWWWWWWPALMER AND HELEN IRIS PARCEL ID: 1050-00007SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW218218 218 219208209209209209 210210211211211211212212 213213 21421421 4 2142 1 4 2 1 4 215 216216 217217 2172 1 7 2182 1 8212211215216209 WWWSSSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XX Proposed Carriage HouseIMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEGENDDAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATIONSOUTH BURLINGTON, VTC2.3IMPERVIOUS COVERAGESUMMARY26 JANUARY 2022 X X X X >>>>>Proposed Carriage House IPF 1" OD Flush VT 48 Metal Playground Fence Sewer MH (typ.) U UGP Access Cover 10" OD IPF 1" OD Flush VT 48 Large Traffic Signpost Spanning Route 7 UGP Line in Gas Valve (typ.) Wood Fence (typ.) Short Wood Picket Fence (typ.) Concrete walls basement windows Gas Line in HVAC Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Road sign (typ.) Light for sign (UGP) Bus Stop Building Sandpit Wooden Platform Shed Dumpsters BulkheadRaised Bed and Sign Sill Elevation 216.66'Porch Davis Studio Building U XXXX X X X X X XXXXGas Line in Wood Fence (typ.) OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWEEGASGASGASWWGAS E W W W W W W W W W W W EEWWWWGASGASGASR-4 ZONING DISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONING DISTRICTR-4 ZONINGDISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONINGDISTRICTURBAN DESIGNOVERLAY BOUNDARYMAJOR INTERSECTIONOVERLAY BOUNDARYWWWLINDENWOOD DRIVE US ROUTE 7, SHELBURNE ROADIPF 1" OD Flush Blasted Top Painted Red PALMER AND HELEN IRISH SPAN: 600-188-13074 PARCEL ID: 1050-00007 ALI TAHAMI SPAN: 600-188-16033 PARCEL ID: 1540-00930 BREWER PKWY LLC SPAN: 600-188-13371 PARCEL ID: 0260-00002 SARAH BRUTZMAN SPAN: 600-188-10848 PARCEL ID: 0260-00004 DS REALTY LLC SPAN: 600-188-14911 PARCEL ID: 1540-00916 1.63 ACRES 1.26 ACRES IN C-1 R-15 DISTRICT 0.37 ACRES IN R-4 DISTRICT SSSSSSWWSSSSS REXBO DEVELOPMENT INC SPAN: 600-188-15257 PARCEL ID: 1540-00794 TIMOTHY MCKENZIE SPAN: 600-188-14211 PARCEL ID: 1050-00002 RAYMOND A & PATRICIA L JEWETT TRUST SPAN: 600-188-13165 PARCEL ID: 1050-00004 AND R E A A N D P A L M E R I R I S H SPA N : 6 0 0 - 1 8 8 - 1 2 7 3 0 PAR C E L I D : 1 0 5 0 - 0 0 0 0 6 218218218219219219207208208209209209209209 209209210210211211 211 211 21221221321321 4 214 214214214 214214214 215215215216216216216217 217217217 217217218 218 2 1 8 212211215216209(10) RED TWIG DOGWOOD SHRUBS (10) RED TWIG DOGWOOD SHRUBS SNOW STORAGE AREA (15) DAYLILLY / MULCH BED AREA (2) WITCH HAZEL SHRUBS (2) FORSYTHIA SHRUBS (4) PJM RHODODENDRON (1) PURPLE LILAC LAWN LAWN EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN MULCH BED W/ ±12 LF STEEL EDGE (6) HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY DAMAGED A-FRAME BUILDING REMOVED (SEE CIVIL PANS) (14) PURPLE CONEFLOWER SEED AREA ENTRY ENTRY CONC. PAD TYP. (SEE CIVIL) (2) MUGHO PINE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES TO REMAIN (8) PURPLE CONEFLOWER (1) MUGHO PINE (1) PURPLE LILAC EXISTING GRAVEL PATH TO REMAIN (7) RED TWIG DOGWOOD SHRUBS MULCH BED WITH ±52LF STEEL EDGE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER3FT X 254FT TO REMAIN.± 40FT X 60FT ENCLOSED PLAY AREA WITH 4FT HIGH FENCE (2,400 SF AREA)254.7'CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE ALL EXISTING TREES DESIGNATED TO REMAIN THROUGH ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE ALL EXISTING TREES DESIGNATED TO REMAIN THROUGH ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. (2) 4FT WIDE GATES WITH LATCH AND LOCKING MECHANISM 4FT HIGH BLACK FENCE (STYLE BY OWNER) (1) 4FT WIDE GATE WITH SELF-CLOSING HINGES, LATCH AND LOCKING MECHANISM MAINTAIN ACCESS TO PLAY AREA CONCRETE CURB SEE CIVIL PLANS (14) BLACK EYED SUSAN PAVEMENT MARKINGS SEE CIVIL PLANS SNOW STORAGE (3) PURPLE CONEFLOWER ±64 LF STEEL EDGING (3) PURPLE CONEFLOWER SPADE EDGE ALL MULCH BED AREAS TYPICAL (4) PJM RHODODENDRON (1) 4FT WIDE GATE WITH SELF-CLOSING HINGES, LATCH AND LOCKING MECHANISM DAVIS STUDIO C1-R15R-4NOTE: LDR 2022 AMENDMENT REMOVES R-4 ZONING AND EXTENDS C1-R15 TO EAST PROPERTY LINE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING TREES AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW PARKING LOT DESIGN AND REVISED GRADING (SEE CIVIL PLAN SHEET C1.1) CONCRETE WALK SEE CIVIL PLANS LAWN AREA LAWN AREA NOTE: LAWN AREAS VARY, SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR LAWN SPECIFICATIONS (3) FORSYTHIA SHRUBS (3) FORSYTHIA SHRUBS (8) RED TWIG DOGWOOD EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN LAWN AREA PROVIDE NEW FENCING AND GATE ON NORTH SIDE OF PLAY AREA (3) BLACK-EYED SUSAN MULCH BED MULCH BED AREA LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE NOTE: All plants specified will be of good quality and in compliance with the most recent edition of ANSI Z60.1 American Standard for Nursery Stock published by AmericanHort. PURPLE LILAC RED TWIG DOGWOOD IN WINTER FORSYTHIA WITCHHAZEL RED TWIG DOGWOOD IN SUMMER PJM RHODODENDRON MUGHO PINE SHRUB HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY SHRUB SHRUB PLANTING IMAGES LANDSCAPE PLAN DAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 26 JANUARY 2022 L-01 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE VALUE DRAFT CONCEPT The following table represents the minimum landscape budget requirements per Section 13.04(G). IPF 1" OD Flush VT 48 Metal Playground Fence Sewer MH (typ.) U UGP Access Cover 10" OD IPF 1" OD Flush VT 48 Large Traffic Signpost Spanning Route 7 UGP Line in Gas Valve (typ.) Wood Fence (typ.) Short Wood Picket Fence (typ.) Concrete walls basement windows Gas Line in HVAC Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Wooden post w/ UGP outlet Road sign (typ.) Light for sign (UGP) Bus Stop Building Sandpit Shed Dumpsters BulkheadRaised Bed and Sign Sill Elevation 216.66'Porch Davis Studio Building U XXXX X X X X X XXXXGas Line in Wood Fence (typ.) OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHWOHWEEGASGASGASWWGAS E W W W W W W W W W W W EEWWWWGASGASGASR-4 ZONING DISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONING DISTRICTR-4 ZONINGDISTRICTC-1 R-15 ZONINGDISTRICTURBAN DESIGNOVERLAY BOUNDARYMAJOR INTERSECTIONOVERLAY BOUNDARYWWWLINDENWOOD DRIVE US ROUTE 7, SHELBURNE ROADIPF 1" OD Flush Blasted Top Painted Red PALMER AND HELEN IRISH SPAN: 600-188-13074 PARCEL ID: 1050-00007 ALI TAHAMI SPAN: 600-188-16033 PARCEL ID: 1540-00930 BREWER PKWY LLC SPAN: 600-188-13371 PARCEL ID: 0260-00002 SARAH BRUTZMAN SPAN: 600-188-10848 PARCEL ID: 0260-00004 DS REALTY LLC SPAN: 600-188-14911 PARCEL ID: 1540-00916 1.63 ACRES 1.26 ACRES IN C-1 R-15 DISTRICT 0.37 ACRES IN R-4 DISTRICT SSSSSSWWSSSSS REXBO DEVELOPMENT INC SPAN: 600-188-15257 PARCEL ID: 1540-00794 TIMOTHY MCKENZIE SPAN: 600-188-14211 PARCEL ID: 1050-00002 RAYMOND A & PATRICIA L JEWETT TRUST SPAN: 600-188-13165 PARCEL ID: 1050-00004 AND R E A A N D P A L M E R I R I S H SPA N : 6 0 0 - 1 8 8 - 1 2 7 3 0 PAR C E L I D : 1 0 5 0 - 0 0 0 0 6 218218218219219 219207208208209209209209209 209209210210211211 211 211 21221221321321 4 214 214214214 214 214214 215215215216216216216217 217217217 217217218 218 21 8 21221121521620930" SUGAR MAPLE 32" SUGAR MAPLE 42" MAPLE (OFF PROPERTY) 16" MAPLE 20" MAPLE PINES TO BE REMOVED X X XX X X 14" PINE 24" MAPLE PINES TO BE REMOVED 18" MAPLE WHITE CEDARS WHITE CEDARS 16" PINE 10" SPRUCE 20" MAPLE 16" HEMLOCK WHITE CEDARS 24" FIR 12" + 12" CLUMP DOUBLE HEMLOCK 12" HEMLOCK WHITE CEDARS 14" HEMLOCK 18" LARCH 6" CLUMP RIVER BIRCH 6" CLUMP RIVER BIRCH 20" PIN OAK 5" MAPLE4" MAPLE 8" HEMLOCK 16" HEMLOCK 10" CRABAPPLE 8" CRABAPPLE 6" CLUMP CRABAPPLE 6" CLUMP CRABAPPLE WHITE CEDARS WHITE CEDARS 16" MAPLE (OFF PROPERTY) 14" MAPLE 8" BEECH (OFF PROPERTY) 8" MAPLE (OFF PROPERTY) TREE PROTECTION BEGIN / END TREE PROTECTION BEGIN / END TREE PROTECTION BEGIN / END TREE PROTECTION BEGIN / END TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION 29" 32" 31" 30" 28" 25" EXISTING TREE PLAN DAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE RENOVATION SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 26 JANUARY 2022 L-03 EXISTING TREE PLAN DRAFT EXISTING TREE PLAN The following plan represents the current conditions (prior to construction) with identification of type, location, and size of existing trees 6 inches or greater in caliper, Including 6 trees designated for removal. SITE PHOTOS EXISTING TREES North side - White Cedar hedge North side - View East (trees to remain) ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS Please see arborist report (separate attachment). The only trees designated for removal as part of the project are all mature pines (#1, #2, #3, #4, #6 and #7) shown. The canopy of the mature pines begins approximately 18ft to 20ft high (see photo) South side - Existing crabapple and cedarSouth side - Existing Vegetation to remain South side - Trees along property line East side - Trees behind Carriage House FORMER TREE DAMAGE Former Pine Tree damage to A-Frame bldg. Former Pine Tree damage to A-Frame bldg. Former Pine Tree damage to A-Frame bldg. Longevity of White Pines: As White Pines mature branch drop is common in the pine family. Especially when White Pines are grouped closely together, or in a windbreak ,it is common for these competing trees to loose their lower branches as they age. LEVEL 1 0" SITE -1'-0" 1 A300 LOFT 9'-0" D A A 1 A310 2 A311 AA.5BC SILL2'-0"SILL2'-0"OF WINDOW & GABLESNOWGUARDS, SEE ROOF PLAN ROOF VENTS GAS & ELECTRICAL METERS LEVEL 1 0" SITE -1'-0" 2 A300 LOFT 9'-0" F B A C A AA 3 A300 4 A3002 A310 3 A310 12.533.13.44 HOSE BIB, ALIGN W/ INTERIOR PARTITIONSILL2'-0"SILL3'-6"SILL3'-8"SILL2'-0"OF WINDOW, GABLE & DOOR 1'-6"POWER OUTLET (APPROX. LOCATION)POWER OUTLET (APPROX. LOCATION) SNOWGUARDS, SEE ROOF PLAN ROOF VENTS ALIGNALIGN1 A301 B LEVEL 1 0" SITE -1'-0" 2 A300 LOFT 9'-0" ALIGN CENTERED WITH WINDOWS ABOVE AS SHOWN BUILDING-MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE OVER DOORS, TYP. A A A B B F A AVG. ROOF HEIGHT14'-9 1/2"3 A300 4 A30012.5 3 3.1 3.4 4 A511 1 HOSE BIB SILL2'-0"3'-6" SILLCEMENTITIOUS TRIM & LAP SIDING TBD 1'-6"POWER OUTLET (APPROX. LOCATION)5'-9 1/2"5'-9 1/2"KNOXBOX VERTICAL SIDING AT GABLES & AT DORMER, TYP 1 A301 ALIGNALIGNALIGNTOP OF ROOF20'-7"52'-0" DORMER IS <50% OF ELEVATION 25'-11" LEVEL 1 0" SITE -1'-0" 1 A300 LOFT 9'-0"TOP OF RIDGE20'-6"D A C 2 A311 A A.5 B C SILL2'-0"SILL3'-8"SILL2'-0"OF WINDOW & GABLESNOWGUARDS, SEE ROOF PLAN ROOF VENTS ORIGINATION DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: FFF PROJECT NO: ISSUE LOG: SHEET CONTENTS: SHEET NO: 81 Maple Street ▪Burlington VT 05401 802▪864▪6844 ▪www.fffinc.com © 2022 Freeman French Freeman Inc. Architecture ▪Planning ▪Interiors Civil & Structural Engineering 208 Flynn Ave. Burlington, VT 05401 801-863-6225 www.engineeringventures.com Landscape Design 1/4" = 1'-0"1/27/2022 9:50:27 AMA200 1831 12/8/21 CL/NE AH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE 916 Shelburne Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 12/01/2021DRB SET 01/17/2022 01/26/2022 BUILDING PERMIT SET PRELIM/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A200 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A200 3 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A200 1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A200 4 WEST ELEVATION REF. UP N Tm N - PROJECT NORTH T - TRUE NORTH m - MAGNETIC NORTH 0 2' 4' 8' GRAPHIC SCALE 1 A300 A2002 A200 3 A200 1 A200 4 2 A300 364 SF UP TO 10 INFANTS 201 UP TO 20 PRESCHOOL 202 71 SF ENTRY 203 CONCRETE PADS AT DOORS, SEE CIVIL 71 SF OFFICE 204 7'-10 1/16"1'-3"3'-6"1'-6 1/4"NATURAL TREE COLUMN WRAPPED AROUND STRUCT. COLUMNS ENTRY CLOSET / STORAGE. PROVIDE CLOSET ROD AND SHELF ABOVE CUBBIESCUBBIES 8'-3 5/8"9'-4"3 A300 4 A300 1 A310 2 A310 CLEAR WIDTH5'-0" A500 1 AACAA A A A A A A 203X 203A 203B 204 105 SF ENTRY CORR. 205 66 SF KITCHEN 206 74 SF RESTROOM 207 201X 201B 206 202A 202X 207B 207A 201A A C CLOSETEPROVIDE FLOOR TO CEILING SHELVING AT CLOSET. A420 3 5'-11 1/2"5H 3A 3 3A 3 3A 4A 4T 4R1 3A 3A 3T 4T 3A 5H 3'-2" 4'-11" 4'-6 1/2" 6'-2 1/2" 6'-10" 6'-10" 12'-2" 1'-5" 5H 18" WIDE GRAVEL DRIP EDGE AROUND BUILDING PERIMETER. SEE CIVIL PLANS. ENTRY SIDEWALK, SEE CIVIL 8'-5"12'-2"8'-5"5'-3" 6'-1" 4'-6 3/4" 3'-2" 6'-5 1/4" 5'-6" 3'-2"5'-8" 6'-10" 5'-4" 3'-11" 3'-11 11/16" 3 1/2" 1'-9 1/4"3 1/2" 5' WALL-MOUNTED MANTLE CENTER BETWEEN WINDOWS 3 A310 A420 4 EDGE OF ROOF ABOVE HOSE BIB HOSE BIB 1 2.5 3 3.1 3.4 4 A A.5 B C 11'-3"8'-9"1'-0 3/4"13'-3 3/8"17'-7 7/8" 52'-0" 19'-11 1/2"32'-0 1/2"32'-6"28'-6"4'-0"7'-5"10'-8"10'-5"CUBBIESCUBBIESALIGN3 1/2"5'-5 3/4"3 1/2"3'-4 1/4"3 1/2"4'-1"STROLLER PARKING. 4-KID STROLLER APPROX. FOLDED SIZE (41"L x 32.5" W x 22" H) WALL HEIGHT: 4'-6" WALL HEIGHT: 4'-0" A420 5 10 5/8"PROVIDE COAT HOOKS AT SOUTH WALL OF OFFICE SPACE LOFT ABOVE 11 SF BOILER 208 3R1 3R1 KNOXBOX 3'-7 1/2"1'-2" 5 1/2" 8'-1 3/8" 3 1/2"5'-1 3/8"3'-5 1/8"6'-0 3/4" 5H G E GAS AND ELECTRICAL METER ELECTRICAL PANEL AND FIRE ALARM ANNUNCIATOR PANEL 4R1 4A 1 A301 3'-3" WATER AND GAS ENTRANCE W/D 1'-0"1'-0"627 SF ATTIC ABOVE A510 5 Sim A420 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET: FEC-1: SEMI-RECESSED CABINET W/ FE-1 FEC-2: SURFACE MOUNT CABINET W/ FE-1 FIRE EXTINGUISHER ON WALL BRACKET: FE-1: MULTI-PURPOSE DRY CHEM. EXTINGUISHER (TYPE A-B-C) FE-2: KITCHEN/ GREASE EXTINGUISHER (TYPE K) FEC-X FE-X ALSO SEE WALL TYPES SHEET A004 101 Room name 101 150 SF 1i A ROOM NAME ROOM NUMBER ROOM TAG - SEE A900 FOR FINISHES DOOR NUMBER DOOR TAG - SEE SHEET A800 WALL TYPE WALL TAG - SEE SHEET A004 WINDOW TAG SEE SHEET A800 WHERE A WALLTYPE LEADER PASSES THROUGH 2 OR MORE WALLS, ALL OF THOSE WALLS SHALL BE OF THE TYPE INDICATED FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS: ALL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. PLANS ARE TO BE VIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CIVIL, LANDSCAPE, STRUCTURAL, MEP/FP AND ALL OTHER TRADES, AS APPROPRIATE. DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT’S ATTENTION FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 3. ALL NON-ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN HERE IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. 4. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR LIMIT OF WORK. 5. REFER TO G200 LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF SMOKE AND FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE DISTANCE FROM THE HINGE SIDE OF THE DOOR TO THE FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL SHALL BE 6 INCHES (INCLUDING FRAME) UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. ALL VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL PENETRATIONS THROUGH RATED ASSEMBLIES ARE TO BE BE SEALED WITH UL-LISTED FIRESAFING AND/OR SEALANT ASSEMBLIES TO MAINTAIN RATING. 8. KEEP STANDPIPES AND ASSOCIATED ASSEMBLIES CLEAR OF THE REQUIRED PATH OF EGRESS. 9. PROVIDE NECESSARY HOOK-UP FOR OWNER PROVIDED STACKABLE W/D ALSO SEE SYMBOL LEGEND ON COVER SHEET.FLOOR/ BASE CONC CONCRETE CT CERAMIC TILE CTB CERAMIC TILE BASE SC SEALED CONCRETE (EPOXY) RT RUBBER TILE WB WOOD BASE RM RUBBER MAT / WALKOFF WALL CT CERAMIC TILE EPOXY EPOXY PT PAINT CEILING ACT ACOUSTIC CEILING TILE GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD GWB-M GWB MOISTURE RESISTANT GWB-A GWB ABUSE RESISTANT ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN SF STOREFRONT FINISH SCHEDULE LEGEND ORIGINATION DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: FFF PROJECT NO: ISSUE LOG: SHEET CONTENTS: SHEET NO: 81 Maple Street ▪Burlington VT 05401 802▪864▪6844 ▪www.fffinc.com © 2022 Freeman French Freeman Inc. Architecture ▪Planning ▪Interiors Civil & Structural Engineering 208 Flynn Ave. Burlington, VT 05401 801-863-6225 www.engineeringventures.com Landscape Design As indicated 1/27/2022 9:50:21 AMA100 1831 12/08/2021 CL/NE AH FLOOR PLANS DAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE 916 Shelburne Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 12/01/2021DRB SET 01/17/2022 01/26/2022 BUILDING PERMIT SET PRELIM/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A100 1 LEVEL 1 -PROPOSED ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE ROOM # NAME FLOOR BASE WALL FINISH CEILING MILLWORK WAINSCOT CEILING COMMENTSMATERIAL HEIGHT SOFFIT 201 UP TO 10 INFANTS COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO BAMBOO PT1 WD1 202 UP TO 20 PRESCHOOL COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO BAMBOO PT1 WD1 203 ENTRY POLISHED CONCRETE RUBBER PT1 PT2 204 OFFICE LVT LVT PT1 PT2 205 ENTRY CORR. COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO BAMBOO PT1 PT2 206 KITCHEN LVT LVT PT1 PT2 207 RESTROOM CT CTB PT1 PT2 WD2 SEE ELEV. 208 BOILER LVT LVT PT1 PT2 209 MEZZANINE COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO BAMBOO PT1 WD1 210 ATTIC/ STORAGE/ MECH. LVT LVT PT1 UNFINISHED 211 LOFT COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO BAMBOO PT1 WD1 • FLOORING 1. COMMERCIAL GRADE BAMBOO FLOORING, BOD: 2. POLISHED CONCRETE + EPOXI COATING 3. LVT, BOD: 4. CT, BOD: ALESSO DECO MARLA MULTICOLOR 8x8 MATTE PORCELAIN TILE, BY TILEBAR • BASE 1. BAMBOO BASE? 2. LVT BASE? 3. CTB? 4. RUBBER • WALL & CEILING PAINT BOD: SHERWIN WILLIAMS, PROMAR 200 ZERO VOC INTERIOR LATEX 1. PT1: GENERAL INTERIOR WALLS: WHITE, GLOSS LEVEL 4 SATIN 2. PT2: GWB CEILINGS: WHITE, GLOSS LEVEL 2 FLAT 3. PT3 - DOOR FRAMES: WHITE, GLOSS LEVEL 5 SEMI-GLSS • WOOD CEILING 1. WD1 - PINE SHIP LAP/ CATHEDRAL CEILING 2. UNFINISHED - CAN WE LEAVE THE TRUSSES EXPOSED IN THE MEP ROOM? OR SHOULD WE CARRY THE SAME FINISH? • WAISCOT WD2- WHITE-PAINTED WOOD BEADBOARD WAISCOT • MILWORK 1. TBD DN DN N Tm N - PROJECT NORTH T - TRUE NORTH m - MAGNETIC NORTH 0 2' 4' 8' GRAPHIC SCALE 1 A300 A2002 A200 1 A200 4 2 A300 3 A300 4 A300 1 A310 2 A310 B F D D FBB 3 A310 1 2.5 3 3.1 3.4 4 A A.5 B C OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 5'-0" 6'-10" 6'-10" 12'-11 1/2"EQEQEQEQ14'-4 11/16" 3'-2 5/16" 9'-11" ALIGN WINDOWS AT OPOSITE SIDE WINDOW CENTERED AT GABLE END WINDOW CENTERED AT GABLE END LOFT RAILING. SEE 2/A300 A311 1 4A 4A FURNACE ERV SIDE ACCESS PANEL 1 A301 A600 1 A600 2 B 170 SF MEZZANINE 209 64 SF ATTIC/ STORAGE/ MECH. 210 41 SF LOFT 211 210 2'-10"2'-10"9'-4 3/4"2'-10"2'-10"17'-11" 25'-11"7'-1 3/4" FLASHING AT RIDGES AND VALLEYS, TYP. 1 2.5 3 3.1 3.4 4 A A.5 B C 9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12" 9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12" ASPHALT SHINGLES STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF FROM EXT. F.O. STUD, TYP 11 1/2" OVERHANG LINE OF EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD AT DORMER3" / 12"(2) ROWS OF SNOWGUARDS ROOF VENTS 2'-6 3/4"20'-0"32'-0 3/4" FLOOR PLAN LEGEND FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET: FEC-1: SEMI-RECESSED CABINET W/ FE-1 FEC-2: SURFACE MOUNT CABINET W/ FE-1 FIRE EXTINGUISHER ON WALL BRACKET: FE-1: MULTI-PURPOSE DRY CHEM. EXTINGUISHER (TYPE A-B-C) FE-2: KITCHEN/ GREASE EXTINGUISHER (TYPE K) FEC-X FE-X ALSO SEE WALL TYPES SHEET A004 101 Room name 101 150 SF 1i A ROOM NAME ROOM NUMBER ROOM TAG - SEE A900 FOR FINISHES DOOR NUMBER DOOR TAG - SEE SHEET A800 WALL TYPE WALL TAG - SEE SHEET A004 WINDOW TAG SEE SHEET A800 WHERE A WALLTYPE LEADER PASSES THROUGH 2 OR MORE WALLS, ALL OF THOSE WALLS SHALL BE OF THE TYPE INDICATED FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. DIMENSIONS: ALL INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. PLANS ARE TO BE VIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CIVIL, LANDSCAPE, STRUCTURAL, MEP/FP AND ALL OTHER TRADES, AS APPROPRIATE. DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT’S ATTENTION FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. 3. ALL NON-ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN HERE IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. 4. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR LIMIT OF WORK. 5. REFER TO G200 LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF SMOKE AND FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE DISTANCE FROM THE HINGE SIDE OF THE DOOR TO THE FACE OF ADJACENT PERPENDICULAR WALL SHALL BE 6 INCHES (INCLUDING FRAME) UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. ALL VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL PENETRATIONS THROUGH RATED ASSEMBLIES ARE TO BE BE SEALED WITH UL-LISTED FIRESAFING AND/OR SEALANT ASSEMBLIES TO MAINTAIN RATING. 8. KEEP STANDPIPES AND ASSOCIATED ASSEMBLIES CLEAR OF THE REQUIRED PATH OF EGRESS. 9. PROVIDE NECESSARY HOOK-UP FOR OWNER PROVIDED STACKABLE W/D ALSO SEE SYMBOL LEGEND ON COVER SHEET. ORIGINATION DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: FFF PROJECT NO: ISSUE LOG: SHEET CONTENTS: SHEET NO: 81 Maple Street ▪Burlington VT 05401 802▪864▪6844 ▪www.fffinc.com © 2022 Freeman French Freeman Inc. Architecture ▪Planning ▪Interiors Civil & Structural Engineering 208 Flynn Ave. Burlington, VT 05401 801-863-6225 www.engineeringventures.com Landscape Design 1/4" = 1'-0"1/27/2022 9:50:22 AMA101 1831 12/08/2021 CL/NE AH FLOOR PLANS DAVIS STUDIO CARRIAGE HOUSE 916 Shelburne Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 12/01/2021DRB SET 01/17/2022 01/26/2022 BUILDING PERMIT SET PRELIM/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A101 2 LOFT PLAN SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"A101 1 ROOF PLAN ESTIMATE OF LANDSCAPE VALUE Project name: Davis Studio 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington VT Date: January 25, 2022 Required Landscape Budget: $11,500 Min. UNIT COST TOTAL PROPOSED PLANTINGS:-Lawns & Grasses seeding lawn areas 6,000 s.f.0.2$ $1,200.00-Plants7 gallon shrubs 7 ea.125.0$ $875.005 gallon shrubs 57 ea.75.0$ $4,275.00 2 gallon shrubs 45 ea.50.0$ $2,250.00 1 gallon shrubs 15 ea.30.0$ $450.00 3" bark mulch 800 s.f.0.5$ $400.00 EXISTING PLANTING CREDIT:Existing 3ft wide perimeter vegetation to remain as 1 ls 3,000.0$ $3,000.00 buffer along the east property line. 254ft long x 3ft wide Total Value $12,450.00 QTYITEM admin/forms/Cost Estimate.xls Update: 1/27/2022 Page 1 of 1 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Davis Art Studio - 916 Shelburne Road, South Burlington Date: January 26, 2022 From: Roger Dickinson, PE, PTOE Subject: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Introduction The Davis Art Studio proposes to amend the Site Plan for their existing property located at 916 Shelburne Rd. Historically, there have been three buildings on the property; one housing the art studio plus two others housing three residential apartments. The single-unit apartment (A-frame) was recently demolished after experiencing storm damage, and the two-apartment building (i.e. the Carriage House) will be demolished and replaced by a new 1,892 sf childcare facility. The art studio building is also predominantly used to provide educational space. The former 25 seat restaurant/café in the art studio building closed at the start of the COVID pandemic. Although there are no plans to reopen the restaurant/café and its space is presently being used as a bakery (see below), it is retained in the proposed land-uses below. Existing Traffic Budget The existing pm peak hour traffic budget is based on the size of the property and it location in Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. The maximum pm peak hour trip generation rate permitted in Zone 1 equals 15 vehicle trip ends per hour (vte/hr) per 40,000 sf of parcel size. At a parcel size of 71,003 sf, the existing traffic budget equals 26.62 vte/hr. Proposed PM Peak Hour Trips Table 1 on the following page presents the proposed land-uses (as defined in the Land Development Regulations), their proposed gross floor areas and student numbers, the ITE land-use category most applicable to the proposed land-use, the pm peak hour trip rate, and finally the estimated pm peak hour trips generated by each proposed land-use. The ITE land-use categories used in Table 1 were selected as ones best fitting the proposed land-uses. Although the Art Studio provides educational opportunities for high school students and adults in addition to younger students, the ITE Private School (K-8) category has been used in Table 1 in order to provide a more conservative estimate of its pm peak hour trips. Using the ITE Private School (K-12) category would have lowered the pm peak hour trip rate from 0.26 trips/student to 0.17 trips/student. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 1 - Proposed PM Peak Hour Trip Generation1 Proposed Land-Use Gross Floor Area (sf) # Students ITE Land-Use Category Trip Rate Trips (vte/hr) New Childcare Facility 1,892 24 #530 - Private School (K-8) 0.26a 6.24 Art Studio (educational facility) 3,950 55 #530 - Private School (K-8) 0.26a 14.30 Restaurant, Short-Order 190 -- #930 - Fast Casual Restaurant 12.55b 2.38 Total PM Peak Hour Trips 22.92 a vte/hour/student b vte/hour/1,000 sf Additionally, in the case of the proposed short-order restaurant land-use, this is a bakery (Pie Society) which specializes in custom-made pies. Customers pre-order their pies on-line each week, and pick them up at an off-site location in Burlington on Thursdays between 4-6 pm or at 916 Shelburne Rd on Fridays between 4-6 pm. There are no accommodations to consume the pies or other food on-site. 1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition Sea Gull Lighting 1-Light Matte Black Outdoor Barn Lantern Wall Scon... https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sea-Gull-Lighting-1-Light-Matte-Black-... 4 of 17 1/25/2022, 5:18 PM Sea Gull Lighting 1-Light Matte Black Outdoor Barn Lantern Wall Scon... https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sea-Gull-Lighting-1-Light-Matte-Black-... 5 of 17 1/25/2022, 5:18 PM Sea Gull Lighting 1-Light Matte Black Outdoor Barn Lantern Wall Scon... https://www.homedepot.com/p/Sea-Gull-Lighting-1-Light-Matte-Black-... 6 of 17 1/25/2022, 5:18 PM 1 Marla Keene From:sarah brutzman <brutzmansarah@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:04 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Last night's zoning board meeting 1/18/22 Thanks Marla, I was able to review the Davis Studio plans presentation from video of 1/18/22.I am interested in what are the next steps in this process. I am quite concerned about the quality of life impact that this development will have our part of the neighborhood. Can zoning respond to the questions around numbers of people in relation to the buildings, and types of usages happening simultaneously and within time frames. Currently “standard restaurant “ is functioning as once a week take out, however will that be the model going forward? Can it revert back to breakfast and lunch operations 7days a week? The proposed daycare for infants and toddlers hours?, numbers? K - 12 after school program, adult program numbers? Is this business group operating 6am- 9:30 pm 7 days a week? Can the commercial road front of Davis Studio be more efficiently utilized for the desired additional parking to minimize the increased exhaust impact on the residential side of their business. This would also allow the destruction of large trees to be left out of the” conformance “ of asphalt. The night lighting is a concern now as well, from second story and extended parking area. Please let me know if there is somewhere I need to direct my attention to address these concerns. Thanks again Sarah Brutzman Sent from my iPad > On Jan 19, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, they started around 9:07 I think and went until 9:24. Here's a link to where the recording will be posted. When it's posted, there will be links to go right to that item. https://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/south- burlington-development-review-board-268 They usually get it posted by Friday. > > Marla Keene, PE > Development Review Planner > City of South Burlington > (802) 846-4106 > > -----Original Message----- > From: sarah brutzman <brutzmansarah@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:55 AM > To: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> > Subject: EXTERNAL: Last night's zoning board meeting 1/18/22 > > > > This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. > > > Greetings Marla, thank you for passing my concerns on to the board regarding developments at Davis Studios on Shelburne Rd. I did tune into the meeting last night but unfortunately I fell asleep around 9 and missed the discussion on Davis Studios. Can you direct me to any pertinent information regarding the proposals with property and developments. Much Thanks for all you do, SarahB 1 Marla Keene From:Betty Ellis <bellis4666@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 27, 2022 12:41 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: redirected email below This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Davis Proposal To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Betty Ellis <bellis4666@gmail.com> to marlakeene To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Ms. Keene: I just viewed the proposed site plan for the Davis Studio Reinvention as I was just made aware of it. I am a resident who has lived on Brewer Parkway for the past 13 years. I just celebrated the new traffic light on the corner of Brewer Parkway and Shelburne Road. Putting it in perspective with the proposed Davis Reinvention means installing a traffic light was all done for naught if 42 cars will be exiting onto Shelburne Road. I see this reinvention of a commercial space as completely out of character with its location as it is between two residential streets and therefore should keep within a much smaller, much less obtrusive plan for any proposed changes. I believe none of the residents on either residential streets on either side would appreciate waiting for 42 cars to exit the Davis complex at children pick-up time for starters. Secondly, our view would be of a huge asphalt parking lot, treatment facility, dumpster, sand pit play area? Think of the noise factor as well. Many people use these streets as walking areas, and who would want to listen to the sound effects of all these children whooping it up on the other side of a wooden fence? Think about it. Trees would be removed to make way for the above? This is not a better use of a space for anyone involved. As you probably know, as do all the people involved with this "Reinvention" of the Davis Center, trees mitigate unsightly views, as well as act as a sound barrier (not even considering their environmental benefits with reducing CO2 from the air. No trees should be removed. On the contrary, more should be added whenever a site comes up for reuse. Who really believes a combination of an art center, restaurant, apartments (or whatever else the newly proposed building will be used for, shouldn't that be specified at this time by the way), and most importantly daycare facility would not be intrusive stuck between two quiet, residential streets, but 2 streets with a significant number of houses on them that would be inconvenienced forever with the change? This HUGE facility does not belong here in a residential area. It is not realistic at all. Thanking you, Betty Ellis 20 Brewer Parkway 1 Marla Keene From:sarah brutzman <brutzmansarah@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:49 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Fwd: Eastern White Pines This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. My neighbor gave me permission to forward this to be shared with board as well. Best SarahB Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Betty Ellis <bellis4666@gmail.com> Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:33:10 AM EST To: sarah brutzman <brutzmansarah@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Eastern White Pines ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Betty Ellis <bellis4666@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:31 AM Subject: Eastern White Pines To: Teresa Davis <tdavis@davisstudiovt.com> Hi Teresa, I looked up my branch sample in the Bible of all plant books, "Manual of All Landscape Plants", by Michael A. Dirr, the God of all tree information for the last 50 years, and I concur you have Eastern White Pines all down the side of your property. I would also like to inform you of what Mr Dirr had to say about their landscape value:" A very handsome and ornamental specimen; valuable for parks, estates and large properties; also makes a beautiful sheared hedge; one of our MOST BEAUTIFUL native pines; a well-grown, mature Whitie Pine IS WITHOUT EQUAL AMONG THE FIRS, SPRUCES AND OTHER PINES." I would like to add my own observation to his comments. The reason I wanted to double check the sample was because the trees were so healthy and strong looking, and well-limbed up so very properly to their location, unlike some on my neighbor's property that have lost branches to wind and snow load. That your pines are so very healthy can be attributed to the soil type, light conditions, moisture content of the soil,lack of pollutants in the area, etc., all being ideal for these trees. 2 My recommendation is not to cut them down, but to enjoy them as assets to your property as well as to the birds and wildlife that also enjoy them. Not even considering the enjoyment they bring to neighboring property owners. If you are still worried about limb breakage, an annual check up for weak branching could be performed by an arborist with recommended measures then taken by you if needed. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Betty Ellis cc: Sarah Brutzman 1 Marla Keene From:Hadley Abernathy <hadley_abernathy@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 22, 2022 5:27 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Support for Davis Studio This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Hello - I am writing as a neighbor on Lindenwood Drive, to express my support for Davis Studio. They have been nothing but an asset to our neighborhood. I watch the children walk up and down the street every day and they are very respectful. My son attended preschool there about four years ago and I know how difficult it is to find childcare/preschool. Davis Studio has represented quality in all that I have seen. Thank you, Hadley Bunting Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 Marla Keene From:sarah brutzman <brutzmansarah@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:03 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:EXTERNAL: Upcoming board meeting share from SarahB Attachments:IMG_3287.JPG; ATT00001.txt; IMG_3300.JPG; ATT00002.txt; IMG_3302.JPG; ATT00003.txt; IMG_3310.JPG; ATT00004.txt This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Thanks for getting back with some info Marla, Please share all my inquiries with the board. Thanks. So the additional parking spaces for the new non-residential child care building cannot go in front of building but can go in rear and side. There is already a paved drive leading between Davis and “Carriage House” to a flat, compact, open area that had contained A-frame and play house. It would be effectively suitable for newly needed parking. It could act specifically for employee parking to keep vehicle activity low. There is still ample area for outside art class work, recreation and stroller pathway to Lindenwood. It is my belief our neighborhood was built atop multiple underground streamlets that begin above us and empty into Champlain. Our very large trees such as the six slated for removal go as deeply into the soil bed as they have height. The radiating root structure provides deep soil stability as well as water absorption. The loss of these majestic trees will not only effect surface water but deep stream bed erosion will take place over time. Many water loving plants can assist in surface water absorption but cannot take the role of deep soil stability in our area. I have included pictures of the six trees; the paved drive facing south; the flat area on north side of “Carriage House”; and flooding on Lindenwood rd. I am hoping for best outcome for all. Thanks again SarahB