HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-006 - Supplemental - 1459 Shelburne Road (34)
March 31, 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 (for April 5th meeting)
Dear Marla,
Attached with this letter are additional project materials. 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. The front brick walkway may add a limited amount of value to the site because of its limited
visibility and limited anticipated use. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to allow the
front brick walkway to contribute towards the minimum required landscaping value or whether
other site features, such at the planned playground, may be a better use of required value. If the
playground or other site features are used, full details and cost information are required.
As discussed on our call, the project owner intends to create a garden around the walkway for the front
entrance. The project also disagrees with the visibility assessment, this is the front of the building, the walk
and planned garden will add curb appeal to the building from views along Shelburne Road. This will be the
view of the proposed project for the majority of the public viewing the property.
2. For the brick patio (and brick walkway if allowed), Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to provide a detailed cost breakdown demonstrating that the requested hardscape
value is only the value beyond the value of standard concrete.
It is difficult to have a concrete company perform a proposal for work that will not be done. In my experience
on other projects pouring a reinforced concrete slab with finishing will be between 6-7 dollars per square
foot. This cost does not include any of the subbase installation and preparation. Between the front walk and
the back patio there are 710 s.f., which would cost approximately $4,970 at $7 per s.f. DiStefano Landscaping
provided a cost opinion for the installation of 4x8 Holland Stone Charcoal Pavers for the same space with
subbase prepared by others for $12,211.25. The difference in costs is more than $7,200 between concrete
and the pavers. My calculation of an additional $10 per square foot on the plans yielded $7,100 for the two
spaces which is more conservative.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to increase the minimum tree size and
recalculate the proposed landscaping cost, adding on-site plantings as necessary to achieve the
required minimum landscaping budget.
The project made the requested revision please see updated landscape schedule. We increased the size of
many of the plants proposed on site and I researched costs online. The new breakdown excludes prep and
material and is just the plants. Plants value now add to $13,520, combined with leaving the existing tree,
walk and patio the overall landscaping number is $24,220.
4. The Board on 3/2 supported the City Arborists suggestion to require the applicant to retain the
18-inch maple. Staff continues to recommend 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.
As discussed in the March 17, 2022, letter, number 13. An 18” caliper tree on average has a 18’ diameter drip
edge, this tree is in the middle of the site. There are sidewalks, the building, grading, fence, etc. which will all
be installed within the limits of the existing trees drip edge. The project has agreed and revised the project
plans to keep/maintain the existing tree and during construction will protect the tree to the greatest extent
practical. Further notes were added to protect the tree’s drip edge to the extent practical on the plans.
5. The Board has historically applied this standard across parking lots regardless of property
boundaries. This criterion is not met for the parking lot shared by this and the adjacent parcel to
the south. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how they will
meet this criterion for the shared parking lot prior to closing the hearing. Staff anticipates the
actual interior landscaping will be provided on the adjacent parcel to the south.
The southern property is an existing parking lot which has existing parking islands in the corners and in front
of the building. This is an attractive and well landscaped lot and the project feels it meets the intent the City’s
regulations. Further, the project will be adding two parking islands shown on the site plan which will loosely
separate the new project with the existing building. These parking islands will be on the 1475 Shelburne Road
property. The overall parking area in the lot is approximately 12,000 s.f. There is a total of 1,250 s.f. of
parking islands shown on 1475 Shelburne Road with the addition of the two new islands.
6. The applicant has not proposed any on-site snow storage. Staff notes the applicant has indicated
three areas on the adjoining site plan as “additional snow storage.” One area contains a mature
tree between the parking and the indicated area. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant
to describe how snow storage will be addressed for the subject property.
The project plans indicate that all swale areas will be used for snow storage. The basin is not intended to be
used for snow storage, but the swales will be. This is identified on the site plan C-1.00. The proposed one-way
entrance for the project does not provide the plow ample space to push snow in multiple directions. Our
thought is the plow will push much of the snow around to the dumpster location as indicated on the plans.
This is a long straight shot for the plow and makes the most sense. There will be snowbanks on either side of
the roadways and at the edge of the parking lots.
To give the children the most outdoor space as possible, there is little space for a giant snow pile area.
Further, the children enjoy snow piles and playing in the snow. If snow becomes a problem the applicant is
willing to pile snow in 2-3 parking spaces for temporary storage and to allow for play.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide trees with a minimum of 2 ½
inches at the time of installation.
This has been revised. See landscape plan.
8. On March 2, the Board briefly reviewed these criteria and did not voice any opposition. Staff
recommends the Board confirm they are satisfied these criteria are met.
Project already reviewed this with the board, happy to have further discussions as needed.
9. The proposed site layout is strongly integrated into the site layout for the adjacent property to
the south. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval that this project may not
obtain a zoning permit before a site plan approval for the adjacent site is obtained.
The project has quickly worked to submit an application for the property revisions on 1475 Shelburne Road
for this project. We have always considered this project as one but understand the need for an additional
application for 1475 Shelburne Road. Application was submitted with plans and fee on March 31, 2022.
10. The March 2 staff report included the comment that the proposed one-way signage was not in a
location which will be useful to users of the site. The applicant provided an additional one-way
sign on the curve of the driveway but retained the one-way sign at the entrance on Shelburne
Road. Staff recommends that sign be relocated to be just east of the first five parking spaces, as
that is the first location where people could inadvertently go the wrong way. If the applicant
wishes to retain the sign at the entrance, they may, but Staff still considers a sign east of the
first five spaces to be needed.
Project added a third sign at location identified by staff.
11. The applicant has shown a fence on the plans, but no fence details are provided. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a fence detail demonstrating
compliance with the LDR. If the applicant can provide a general description of the fence, Staff
considers provision of a detail can be a condition of approval.
As outlined in the application and our discussions the fence will look exactly like the existing fence at 1475
Shelburne Road. We have included pictures for the boards review.
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