Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-006 - Supplemental - 1459 Shelburne Road (33) March 17, 2022 Marla Keene Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: 1459 Shelburne Road – Revisions to Plans and Addressing Staff Comments Dear Marla, Attached with this letter are the revised set of civil site plans and the revised set of architectural plans. Please review and let us know if there are any other revisions we can add before our meeting on April 5, 2022. Below we have outlined the highlighted Staff Comments and how we addressed them in the resubmission. 1. No information is provided regarding whether the proposed glazing is transparent. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant what their intention is regarding transparency, and, if their proposal meets the minimum requirement, include it as a condition of approval. All glazing is transparent, further calculations and notes can be found in the architectural plan set. 2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe, using the language of these two criteria, how these criteria are met. Proposed materials are similar to adjacent preschool building using horizontal clapboard siding & shakes. The aesthetics are also intended to compliment adjacent preschool building being more residential in nature. There are other buildings along Shelburne Rd of this vernacular, examples being the Shearer Acura dealership and the Lakewood Commons buildings which use more residential siding materials & forms. Larger glazed openings and standing seam roof add some modern elements & textures to a more traditional style. 3. Though the site meets the requirement to have a direct connection to the sidewalk on Shelburne Road, there is no connection between the outdoor spaces or the main building entry, and Shelburne Road. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to add a sidewalk along the driveway to provide connectivity for users who may arrive by means other than motor vehicle. We feel the project had good discussions with the Board as well as you on this matter. We feel a sidewalk connection from the front of the building to the rear entrance is unnecessary. Bikers can use the driveway to access the bike parking location. Walking access from the sidewalks on Shelburne Road will enter via the front door of the building, which we have a stone/brick walkway proposed. 4. The proposed one-way signage is not in a location which will be useful to users of the site. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to reconfigure the one-way signage to be useful for people who have already entered the site. Staff considers at least two signs would be appropriate. The project has added a second sign in the location of concern. This was also a comment from Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTAOT). 5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to obtain preliminary water allocation prior to closing the hearing, though the other comments may be addressed as conditions of approval. We have addressed all comments from the South Burlington Water Department. Further we have reduced the water supply scope and the project no longer requires sprinklers. This allows the project to reduce the service to 1” k-copper line which will tap the existing 8” waterline located on the project side of Shelburne Road. All revisions were discussed with Jay Nadeau and the project has received preliminary water allocation. The Project has also submitted the State of Vermont Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit (WW Permit) on March 18, 2022. Updated to the plans and details are shown in the updated civil plan set. 6. Staff considers this criterion is not met for the property to the west. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide on the plans and record a cross-lot easement to the benefit of the adjacent property to the west at the southwest portion of the site. If such a connection were appropriate in the future, it would require reconfiguration of the parking spaces proposed in that location and installation of a short culvert for conveyance of stormwater. The project has added the easement limits to the plan set. We will work with staff to address any other needs. 7. The applicant is proposing to make the parking stalls almost 2-ft wider than required. If the applicant were to meet the specific requirement, there would be about 5-ft less pavement on the site, which, if added to the proposed landscaping island, would promote tree health. Staff recommends the Board discuss reducing the width of the angled parking with the applicant and adding to the landscape island. We feel the project had good discussions with the Board as well as you on this matter. The project has increased the width of these 5 spaces to provide additional space for parents to exit vehicles with infants in child carriers. 8. Since the applicant is proposing to share bike parking between the two properties, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide square footage of the adjoining site into order to determine if required short term minimums are met. Project has added a bike parking calculation to C-1.00. The calculation outlines both the proposed building on 1459 Shelburne Road and the existing on 1475 Shelburne Road. Calculation identifies how the site(s) will meet the bike parking criteria. 9. Based on the provided floor plan, the applicant is not meeting the requirement for long term bicycle parking or clothes lockers. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide for the required long term bike parking and clothes locker prior to closing the hearing. As discussed in our zoom meeting. Both buildings have space for employees to store their things while at work. The existing building will have designated space in the basement of 1475 Shelburne Road, for long term bike parking if desired. The proposed building will have a wall mounted designated long term bike parking space in one of the closets. This information and calculations for it are shown on C-1.00. 10. The applicant has proposed a limited amount of landscaping around the parking area. The landscaping budget is not met (discussed below). Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to apply some of the required additional landscaping to the perimeter of the lot. The City Arborist recommends trees be set back 10-ft from curbs to provide protection from snow plowing. The project has added a calculation for landscaping budget on C-1.03 along with the calculations for how the budget will be met. Please let us know if you have any further comments about landscaping. The Project is happy to continue to work with staff if this is an issue and will provide what is needed. Further, the project has added additional landscaping in areas of concern, both in an opening in the perimeter and another shade tree. We feel the project is meeting all the landscaping requirements. 11. The applicant is proposing two shade trees and adding 14 parking spaces. This criterion is not met. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to apply some of the required landscaping budget to meeting this criterion. As mentioned above the project added an additional shade tree around the back parking lot. The total shade trees on parcel around the parking is up to four, (2) new Ginko, (1) new Maple and the existing 18” maple the project worked to save. Additionally, the Project will add (2) new Maple trees on 1475 Shelburne Road parcel to break up the combined parking between parcels. 12. The applicant’s proposal does not meet the minimum required landscaping budget. Annuals, mulch, grass may not be used to meet the minimum requirements, and the approved landscaping budget must be specifically enumerated. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide $23,500 in trees and shrubs prior to closing the hearing. The project has added a calculation for landscaping budget on C-1.03 along with the calculations for how the budget will be met. Please let us know if you have any further comments about landscaping. The Project is happy to continue to work with staff if this is an issue and will provide what is needed. 13. Staff supports the City Arborists suggestion to require the applicant to retain the 18-inch maple and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their erosion prevention and sediment control plan to provide robust tree protection around the drip edge of the existing tree. Staff also considers that since retention of this tree is not required, and the applicant must take specific measures to retain it, that the Board may wish to allow the applicant credit against their proposed minimum landscaping budget for retention of the tree. Staff considers a minimum appropriate value to be the cost of additional tree protection measures, for which the Board should require the applicant to provide a breakdown. Project has removed the option for the existing 18” Maple and will require it to remain and be protected throughout construction. Due to grading constraints and proximity to the tree having erosion control measures around the drip edge of an 18” tree will not be possible. We are open to further comments from the arborist if necessary. We have also revised the tree planting detail and calculations for required landscaping. See revised civil plan C-1.03. 14. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modifying their tree planting details to incorporate the comments of the City Arborist. See above comment. 15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City stormwater section prior to closing the hearing. The Project has worked closely with Dave Wheeler, South Burlington Stormwater. We have addressed all his concerns and will continue to coordinate throughout construction as needed. 16. Fixture type “G” is proposed to be a flood light, which is specifically prohibited. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the flood light fixtures. As mentioned on our zoom meeting. This light is for illumination of the sign in front of the building. From our conversations that is allowed and will be addressed when the project applies for a Sign Permit. 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. Building is designed to meet the Stretch Energy Code. Roof is designed to be solar ready, structurally in addition to proposed standing seam roofing material which makes it easy to add at a later date. In addition, the south roof orientation makes an ideal location for solar. Thank you for your time reviewing the project. We look forward to your review and input. Please reach out if there are any additional comments, questions, or concerns. Sincerely, Greg Dixson, P.E. Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. CC: Jeff O’Hara Leigh Lamphere Kelley DesRoches