HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-21-19 - Supplemental - 0600 Spear Street (2)#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
1
1 of 16
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-19_600 Spear St_600 Spear FJT_PP_2021-07-
20.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 13, 2021
Plans received: May 24, 2021
600 Spear Street
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-19
Meeting date: July 20, 2021
Owner/Applicant
600 Spear FJT, LLC
c/o Frank Von Turkovich
1 National Life Drive
Montpelier, VT 05604
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1640-00600
Residential 4 Zoning District
8.63 acres
Engineer
TCE
478 Blair Park Road
Williston, VT 05495
Location Map
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
2
2 of 16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear FJT, LLC for a planned unit development on an
existing 8.63 acre lot developed with 7,000 sf storage building and single family home. The planned unit
development consists of one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four-family buildings, a 1.24
acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a
duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The most recent approval for the property was in 1983, which refers to a single family home and a
construction business and prohibits automobile repair and sales.
The 2006 UVM Master Plan refers to the parcel north of this property as the Miller Research Complex,
and the parcel south of this property as the Deslauriers 1963 and 1980 Tracts, and envisions continued
agricultural uses for these locations for the present time. These parcels are located in the Institutional &
Agricultural zoning districts.
The sketch plan was reviewed on October 20, 2021.
CONTEXT
The property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District and includes lands within the Interstate
Highway Overlay district. The property has an inherent density of 34 dwelling units, with the potential
for an affordable housing density bonus of 4 to 9 units (allowing a total of 42 to 51 units) if the
affordable units are income restricted to families earning no more than 80% AMI. At this time the
applicant has not chosen to include affordable units.
The applicant obtained City Council approval for an exemption from interim zoning with IZ-20-02.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 10/6/2020 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
1. The applicant has indicated that the existing home is used as a single family home, consistent with
City records. However, Staff has evidence that the existing home is being used as two units.
Acknowledging that this is an enforcement matter, Staff requests the Board ask the applicant to
clarify the use of the single family home, as Staff has not received a response to their inquiries.
Depending on the use, the violation can be corrected either as part of this permit application or as a
separate matter.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
3
3 of 16
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
Swift Street
Zoning District
Required Existing Proposed Lot A2 Proposed Lot
B
√ Min. Lot Size 6,000 s.f./unit
residential, 40,000 s.f.
non-residential
8.63 ac 54,014 sf 6.68 ac (9,093
sf / unit)
√ Max. Building
Height
28’ 22’ commercial,
28’ residential
22’ commercial,
28’ residential
Appx. 25 ft.
√ Max. Building
Coverage
20% Residential; 30%
Non-residential
3% 19% 6%
Max. Overall
Coverage
40% Residential; 60%
Non-residential
6% Unknown3 Unknown3
√ Max Front
Setback Cov.
30% Non-residential See note
√ Min. Front
Setback, Spear St2
50 ft. from Planned ROW
(Total 58 ft.)
72 ft. 72 ft. n/a
Min. Front
Setback, all other
streets
30 ft. N/A Appx. 30 ft 10 ft, waiver
requested
√ Min. Side
Setback
10 ft. Appx 10’ Appx. 10’ Appx. 14’
√ Min. Rear
Setback3
30 ft. Appx. 925’ N/A Appx. 580’
√ Zoning compliance
2. The applicant has included the proposed public road within the area for Lot A. The City cannot
accept a public road on an easement; it must be on its own lot. Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to update their computations to demonstrate the dimensional requirements are met for
Lot 1 excluding the public road.
3. The applicant has only provided lot coverage on an overall basis. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update their computations on a lot by lot basis. As discussed at sketch,
if the applicant cannot meet required lot coverages, the Board has the authority to waive overall lot
coverage on a lot by lot basis as long as the overall zoning district coverage is not exceeded.
Note: The property includes an approved commercial use. The portion of the existing front setback
coverage for the commercial use is far less than 30%. The proposed use of the building is a common
space for residents. Staff considers the proposed use of the building will no longer qualify as
commercial.
Applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the front setback from the required 30 ft to 10 ft. Staff
recommends the Board discuss this waiver request when discussing the character of the
neighborhood under site plan review standards.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
4
4 of 16
review standards for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land
use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is located in the northwest quadrant in an area identified as very low intensity principally
open land use. The objectives of the northwest quadrant as stated in the comprehensive plan include to
maintain existing affordable diverse residential neighborhoods, allow for infill development, and ensure
continued compatibility of University land uses with existing development and conservation patterns.
The zoning of this parcel is R4, while zoning of adjacent parcels is Institutional and Agricultural, accounting
for the land use policy of the comprehensive plan. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. 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.
The applicant has provided elevations for the proposed buildings, which are all proposed to look
the same. The buildings generally have a strong relationship to one another and to the street,
with some exceptions discussed under 14.07F below. Pedestrian movement is discussed under
PUD criterion 8 and 9 below. Plantings are discussed below under Site Plan Review Criterion
14.07D. Parking is discussed immediately below.
(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.
The applicants proposed parking configuration requires all but the western north-south
street be considered private streets. Implications of this are discussed under PUD criterion
8 and 9. Staff otherwise considers this criterion 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 subject property is generally level and surrounded by lands not currently zoned for
development. The building architecture is of a neighborhood scale. Staff considers this criterion
met.
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),
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.
All residential buildings are proposed to be the same. The applicant at sketch described that
they would be re-siding the existing commercial building and adding windows, but no
additional information has been submitted with this application.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
5
5 of 16
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide architectural elevations
demonstrating compliance of the existing building to be retained with this criterion. Staff
recommends the Board determine whether this should be prior to closing preliminary plat or at
the final plat stage of review.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
A. 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.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to extend both the north-south roadways and
sidewalks to the northern property boundary prior to the final plat application. This affects the proposed
stormwater management system, discussed below under 14.07F.
B. 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 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Wire served utilities are proposed to be underground. The proposed transformers are not screened. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to screen the transformers as required under 13.06 prior to
application for final plat.
C. 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.
5. Waste disposal is not addressed on the plans. Staff recommends the Board discuss this criterion with
the applicant.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape
requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $3,763,000. The required minimum landscape value is
therefore $31,380, as follows.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $32,630
Total $45,130
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
6
6 of 16
The City arborist reviewed the plans on 6/29/2021 and offers the following comments.
Landscaping looks Ok overall with 2 caveats:
• Recommend reducing the number of Maples. Maples are overplanted in south Burlington
and half the large shade trees on this plan are one species of Maple or another
• I notice a tree with AG on the drawing but didn’t find that tree in the Plant Schedule
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City arborist prior to
application for final plat.
The applicant is proposing $67,430 in trees and shrubs, exceeding the required minimum of $45,130. Staff
considers the required minimum landscaping budget to have been met.
Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
All off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be
curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers
as approved by the Development Review Board.
(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 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.
This criterion is not applicable.
(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 13.06(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.
Parking areas are curbed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(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.
Staff considers this criterion will be met when the comments of the City arborist are
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
7
7 of 16
addressed.
(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.
This criterion is met for most parking areas, but not all. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to address this criterion at final plat.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches
when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
Most of the proposed trees are to be at least 2.5” caliper, though the proposed “Green
Mountain Sugar Maple” is proposed to be 1.5-2” caliper and the “autumn brilliance
serviceberry” is proposed to be 1.5-2” caliper multistemmed. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant modify their plans to specify a larger size at installation.
(6) 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 does not appear to be shown on the plans. Staff considers snow storage may
be challenging with the stormwater system as designed, but considers this criterion can be
addressed at the final plat stage of review.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas, and utility
improvements such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be
effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
As noted above, utility improvements are not screened but staff considers this can be
addressed at final plat. Staff considers parking area screening to be adequately addressed.
(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
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.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development
Review Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development
Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements.
No screening is proposed on the north side of the project. As noted above, the parcels to the
north and south are in the agricultural institutional zoning district and are not zoned for
development at this time.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
8
8 of 16
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide screening to the north to protect
the enjoyment of that lot.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5)
feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
As noted above, the applicant is seeking a waiver of the front setback on the future city street. Given the
architecture and general neighborhood feel, Staff recommends granting of the requested waiver.
F Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The project is proposing a distributed stormwater management system consisting of four proprietary
filtration devices, twenty three bioretention systems, most smaller than a passenger car, and a large
underground detention system. As a result of this highly distributed system, there are surface stormwater
features located between each building and the street, detracting from the otherwise successful design
in creating a street-facing neighborhood environment. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans
on 7/7/2021 and offers the following comments.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “600 Spear Street FJT, LLC – Preliminary Plans” prepared
by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated May 14, 2021. We would like to offer the following
comments:
1. On sheet C-100, Construction Notes for Contractor & Client/Owner, Note 8 Construction
Observation: There is disclaimer language that indicates the owner has not retained TCE to
complete detailed inspections during construction or to provide exhaustive or continuous project
review. Has the owner retained TCE to provide any services during construction? There are a
variety of requirements included elsewhere in the plan that call for the engineer to approve test
results and inspect installation, such as the liners under the bioretention systems and the
bioretention soil testing, among others.
2. Are the rain guardian devices depicted properly on the plans? They are shown square grates on
the plans, but the detail on sheet C8-402 shows them protruding from the curb line. The concern
is that the rain guardian could take up an additional 3’-8” x 4’-1” space within the already
limited footprint provided for these bioretention areas.
3. Looking at Sheet C3-03, there are 8” pipes located either 3’ or 4’ below the surface of the
bioretention areas. These pipes appear to be different than the 6” underdrains depicted in the
Bioretention Areas detail on sheet C8-401, however, based on their depth, they appear to land
within the bioretention cross-section. Has this been considered/accounted for?
a. Also, on the bioretention area detail:
i. What size stone is being proposed within the 12” thick stone layer?
ii. Was a peastone layer considered in-lieu of the filter fabric between the
bioretention soil and stone?
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
9
9 of 16
iii. For the biorentetion soil testing, are you requiring the Morgan Method or the
Modified Morgan Method?
4. Has §12.03(E) of the City’s LDRs been considered for this site?
a. Please provide information on the impact to downstream infrastructure during the 25-
year storm.
b. Please provide information on the ability of the proposed Stormwater Diversion pipe’s
capacity to convey the 25-year storm from the upstream drainage area.
c. Please provide information on the ability of all proposed drainage structures to be able
to convey the 25-year storm event on site.
5. Are footing drains proposed for buildings? If so, where will they tie-in?
6. On Sheet C5-01, if silt fence is being proposed as the primary sediment control practice, it should
follow the Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control,
most recently updated in February of 2020. Part 5, Silt Fence notes that the maximum drainage
area for overland flow to a silt fence shall not exceed ¼ acre per 100 feet of fence. Silt fence
should also be depicted with j-hooks at the end to capture sediment.
7. Please provide the HydroCAD file for review.
7. The applicant indicated to Staff that they designed the system based on a request of the Board at
sketch to have a distributed stormwater management system. Staff does not recollect such a
comment, and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to consolidate the
stormwater system in order to reduce it’s impact on the site. Staff recommends the Board ask the
applicant to discuss what they believe the solution might look like, and provide feedback on whether
they are on the right track. In particular, Staff recommends the discussion address whether any other
elements of the site will be affected by a less distributed system, and if so, whether those impacts are
acceptable.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Comments of the Director of Public Works are included below under PUD criteria 8 and 9. Relevant
additional criteria are as follows.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation
of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial,
collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make
possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when
later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and
drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other
conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified.
In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more
than one dwelling unit.
Staff recommends the Board require the north south streets to be extended to the property line,
including the sidewalk, which is a required street cross sectional element. This criterion is further
reinforced by 15.12D(4) if the Board wishes to review additional information.
D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways.
(3) Private roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway or roadways
within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more of the following situations applies:
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
10
10 of 16
(e) The proposed roadway has two (2) or more points of access on another existing or
proposed roadway and serves nineteen (19) or fewer dwelling units in any combination of
single-family, duplex or multi-family dwellings.
(f) The homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the
South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed upon
prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation by
the City of South Burlington Fire Chief.
32 total homes are proposed to share a single access point onto a proposed public road. The proposed
road is connected to adjacent parcels to allow future interconnection, but as noted above, the adjacent
parcels are not proposed for development at this time. 15.12J limits the number of dwelling units
served by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street to fifty
(50) unless there are additional connections to other streets, subject to review and approval of the
Development Review Board.
8. There are 20 dwelling units proposed to be accessed via private roads with two points of access on
the proposed roadway. Staff considers that there may only be 19 dwelling units on the private
street, and recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plan to meet these criteria.
Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their plan for addressing this comment and
determine whether to require it to be addressed at this preliminary plat stage of review or allow it to
be addressed at final plat.
E. Standards for Construction of Roadways
(1) All streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant.
(2) All public roadways shall be built to the specifications in Table 15-1,Figure 15-1, and the
Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 unless specifically authorized otherwise
by the DRB in its final approval of the subdivision or PUD.
Local roads are required to have a 50-ft ROW with a minimum pavement width of 28-ft including
parking. It appears this criterion is met but no dimensions have been provided. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to dimension public roadways at the final plat stage of review.
(3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this section with the
exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be a minimum width of twenty-six (26)
feet with parking and twenty (20) feet without parking.
At sketch, the Board directed to make the private road widths 20-ft with 8-ft of parking. As with the
proposed public road, this criterion appears to be met. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to dimension private roads and parking spaces at the final plat stage of review.
C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water
allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on 7/7/2021 and offers the
following comments.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
11
11 of 16
1. All water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the Champlain Water
District Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances, current
edition, henceforth CWD Specifications.”
2. There is a 12” AC water main on the east side of Spear Street that shall be tapped for this
project. The main is located off the east edge of the road. Tapping materials shall comply with
the Champlain Water District.
3. The Ludlow fire hydrant located on Spear Street next to the proposed entrance shall be replaced
as part of this project.
4. There is a 12” AC water main located on the east side of Interstate 89 that the proposed
forcemain could be crossing. The main must be located prior to any drilling and connection
activities.
5. All water mains must be moved to the edge of road and not placed in the center of the road where
depicted. No parallel underground utility (ex. phone, electric, cable, gas) shall be designed or
installed within four feet (4’) of the water main from either side, or above the water main from the
bottom of the main to finish grade. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer separations are only as
allowed in these specifications and the VT Water Supply Rule. No building or structure shall be
built above the water line or within the water line easement.
6. Water mains shall be run to the edge of the property and capped where future public roads are
proposed.
7. PVC water mains shall comply with AWWA C900 with minimum Pressure Class 235, DR18.
Tracer wire and termination box specifications are required for plastic pipe.
8. Service lines shall be copper sized appropriately for each dwelling. Information for each
building’s account must be provided to the Department for billing purposes. If a fire sprinkler
line is to be run to each building, then there shall also be a separate domestic water line with
independent shut off located outside in a Department approved location. The domestic line shall
be tapped off the fire sprinkler line.
9. The service line to the existing building shall be shut off at the Spear Street corporation,
disconnected, capped and the curb box removed.
10. Hydrant leads shall be Ductile Iron.
11. Cor-Blue T-bolts and nuts are required for underground installations.
12. Water main intersections shall include three valves at each tee. Anchor tees (aka: Hydrant tees
and Swivel tees) shall be Class 350 ductile iron, cement lined, conforming to AWWA/ANSI
C110/A21.10, C111/A21.11, and C104/A21.4. In lieu of Anchor tees, Mechanical Joint tees may be
used if a Foster Adaptor is used to secure the valve directly to the branch of the tee.
13. V-Bio polyethylene encasement is required for all ferrous material installations underground. This
includes fittings for PVC and HDPE pipe, and fire hydrant barrels.
14. Gate valves shall be Mueller, Kennedy, AFC, M&H or approved equal on water distribution mains
and Mueller, AFC, or approved equal on CWD Transmission mains.
15. Stainless steel tapping sleeves shall be TPS Triple Tap or approved equal.
16. Fire Hydrants shall be Kennedy K-81 D or Waterous Pacer and shall conform to AWWA C502. Note:
Waterous Pacer hydrants shall be installed with a Boston Operating Nut.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
12
12 of 16
17. 4” Storz pumper nozzle connections are required on all South Burlington fire hydrants. Spring
loaded hydrant flags and Storz connections shall be installed before new lines are turned on by
the Department.
18. No connection or taps shall be located within 3 pipe diameters of any other fitting or pipe joint.
Example: If tapping a 12” water line the tapping saddle must be a minimum of 36” away from the
nearest joint in the 12” water line.
19. Connections will only be permitted between the hours of 7:00am and 3:00pm on regular
Champlain Water District business days, except Fridays. All connections must be completed by
3:00pm; connections that cannot be completed by 3:00pm may be suspended and completed the
following business day. A suspended tap may entail back filling the excavation until the following
day. CWD personnel have the authority to suspend connections that they deem cannot be
completed within the time period stated above.
20. No water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior approval of the
appropriate CWD Division. The appropriate CWD Division may restrict work before November 15
and after April 1 during adverse weather conditions. CWD does not allow excavating for water
mains during the winter months except by special permission.
The SBWD shall provide more comments as this project progresses through further plan reviews.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the South
Burlington Water Department prior to application for final plat.
The applicant has submitted with their application preliminary water and wastewater allocation.
These applications should be submitted to the appropriate departments and approved prior to final
plat application.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction
to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject
property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the
project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The project will disturb more than one acre of land and therefore will be required to obtain a state
General Permit for construction. Comments of the City Stormwater Section pertaining to erosion
prevention and sediment control are included above. Staff recommends the Board review this
criterion in more detail at final plat.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on
the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review
by City staff or consultants.
The project is proposed to generate 25 vehicle trips per PM peak hour. 15.12F requires the project
not result in level of service below “D” at the adjacent major roadway, and at the nearest signalized
intersections.
9. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to ask the applicant to quantify the existing level
of service of adjoining signalized intersections to determine if this project may have difficulty
meeting the required LOS.
The applicant is proposing a crosswalk on Spear Street at the entrance to the project connecting to
the existing recreation path. The City Council decision granting interim zoning exception (IZ-20-02)
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
13
13 of 16
found that the applicant must include a Repeating Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), or other
infrastructure designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle crossing from the subject parcel to the
Spear Street recreation path in its application to the Development Review Board. No such RRFB has
been included.
10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to work with the Director of Public Works to
determine the appropriate location for the RRFB, and discuss whether to require this prior to
closing preliminary plat or as a condition of final plat approval.
It is unclear what surface treatment is proposed for the internal rec paths and sidewalks. Staff
recommends the Board require the rec path segments to be asphalt and the sidewalks concrete.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to
wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with
respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The project is proposed to impact two areas of Class III wetlands and buffers.
12.02E(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III
wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall
development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering,
and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values
identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by
appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation
measures.
The applicant provided the following written testimony pertaining to wetland impacts.
While not mapped on the Vermont State Wetland Inventory or City of South Burlington Wetland
Map, palustrine emergent wetlands have been delineated on the property and boundaries were
confirmed by the State Wetlands Program. A small Class III wetland exists near the center of the
property east of the existing garage and is dominated by the invasive common reed (phragmites
australis). This wetland, which is isolated and only 0.03 ac is likely the result of prior site
disturbance. A second Class III wetland, 0.06 ac, exists along the northern property boundary
within a wider portion of a farm ditch running east to west. Non-wetland portions of the ditch
exhibited dry, non-hydric soils and were lacking wetland vegetation. Additionally, two Class II
wetlands were identified in the northwest and southeast corners of the property, both extending
off-site. These wetlands were identified as Class II wetlands due to their off-site size and
vegetative composition.
The project proposes fill in the Class III wetlands, however, no impact to the Class II wetlands is
proposed. A small amount of wetland buffer is impacted temporarily during construction for
installation of the subsurface stormwater detention system. As Class III wetlands, the two areas
proposed for impact do not provide significant flood or stormwater storage, surface or
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
14
14 of 16
groundwater protection or erosion control on the property. Both areas proposed to be impacted
have been previously disturbed as the 0.03 ac wetland is within existing fill and the 0.06 ac
wetland is within a man-made farm ditch, and either are dominated by or contain invasive
species. As Class III wetlands are non-jurisdictional at the state level, no state wetland impact
permit will be required for this project.
11. Staff considers this criterion met and recommends the Board discuss whether they have any concerns
with the proposed wetland impacts.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
Visual compatibility and compatibility with the comprehensive plan is addressed in accordance with
14.06A above.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The applicant is proposing an interior commons area as well as retaining the eastern portion of the
property as open space. The eastern portion is delineated by a trail behind the proposed easternmost
buildings. Staff recommends the Board review design of the interior common area at final plat.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure
that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not
be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two
directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and
location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
The Fire Chief did not provide comments on this application. Staff recommends the Board revisit
this criterion at final plat.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
The applicant has proposed to extend the sidewalk along Swift Street for the length of the building.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/2/2021 and offers the following comments.
1. The project’s proposed crosswalk across Spear Street shall be protected by a RRFB. Please
have the developer include this in their next submission as well as the supporting technical
details and specifications. If there is access to adjacent power, the RRFB shall be powered in
this manner instead of it being solar powered.
2. For the two segments of road labeled as “New City Street”, the City shall be offered an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication on each. The City may not choose to exercise this Offer until
such time that the streets connect to future to be public streets. As presently constituted just
within this development, the streets serve more as internal drives than city streets that exist
to the good of the general public. Maintaining the streets in the winter would also be
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
15
15 of 16
problematic under the current proposal given the demarcation point between proposed
public and private streets.
3. Both sections of sidewalk along the proposed new city street that runs north-south shall run
all the way to the project’s northerly border.
4. All pavement markings on sections of street proposed to be public shall meet the VTrans
spec for durable markings, Section 646.07, of the VTrans 2018 Standards. We are happy to
work with the developer on the specific final product selected.
5. I didn’t see a plan sheet for the standard civil details. Please have the applicant submit one
for review.
6. The crosswalk discussed in #1 above shall be illuminated by a street light. Please have the
applicant provide fixture details along with photometrics for this ped crossing.
7. For the path that connects at Spear Street I was unable to find the listed material or size of
that path. Please have the applicant clarify.
Many of these comments have been echoed by Staff elsewhere in this document. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to address these comments prior to final plat application.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review standards
above.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff
from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as
possible to where it hits the ground.
See discussion above under Site Plan Review standard pertaining to Low Impact Development.
D) OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
One short-term space is required for every 10 units, or 4 spaces. These spaces must be located near
building entrances.
12. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to locate one inverted-U type
rack for each building. Staff reminds the Board there are 4 units per building.
The applicant has indicated they intend to provide long term bike storage in the commercial building to be
retained. One space per unit is required. 13.14C(2) requires secure storage in bicycle locker, bicycle storage
room or private enclosure outside of the private residence that protects entire bicycle, including components
and accessories against theft and weather.
13. The regulations do not contemplate a centralized bicycle storage area for such a widely distributed
development. The farthest unit is located approximately 500-ft from the location proposed for bicycle
storage. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether this is acceptable.
#SD-21-19
Staff Comments
16
16 of 16
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner