HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-060 - Supplemental - 0224 0268 Market Street (38)
TO: The Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SP-22-060 268 Market Street First Round Comments
DATE: December 1, 2022, Revised December 9, 2022
Applicant Responses Provided December 12, 2022, January 12, 2023
Comments Updated January 20, 2023
The purpose of this memo is to provide comments on the compliance of the proposed 3-building development on Market Street Lot B. Comments are based on the plans and materials submitted
November 15, November 23, December 12, 2022 and January 12, 2023.
Items which have been addressed are shown in black text (with exceptions noted). Items which are outstanding are shown in red.
The three buildings are referred to as follows:
268 Market Street – “Building B1,” consisting of 73 units and 9,089 sf non-residential space and located on the southern corner of the lot
224 Market Street – “Building B2,” consisting of 62 units and 9,132 sf non-residential space and located on the western side of the lot
339 Garden Street – “Building B3,” consisting of 26 residential units and located on the eastern side of the lot
Comments of Department of Public Works
Overall Site Plan
Can the parking lot detectable warning surfaces be relocated to be in the direction of the crosswalk, not along the radius (unless it is serving 2 perpendicular crosswalks)
/
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Plans revised to adjust the location of the detectable warning surfaces.
Pavement markings & sign plan
Please bring all pavement markings to front in black (like crosswalks) on this plan. Fine to be grey on other sheets
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Done
Check locations of accessible parking spot signs. Some are in walkways, far from parking space, blocking bike racks, etc.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Done
Eastern most parking area has “K” pointing to wrong space (or that space is missing the striping?)
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Plan revised
I’d recommend signs towards street (and maybe towards the parking lot as well) at the emergency vehicles access be “Do Not Enter” (R5-1) and “Authorized Vehicles Only” (R5-11) mounted
together on single post
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Done – sheet 11 revised to reflect these sign changes
Public ROW Comments
Confirm where Stop signs are proposed. I do not see any at the Garden / Market intersection, but I do see stop bars on the Garden Street approaches to Market Street.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: An existing stop sign is located on the northerly Garden Street approach to Market Street. A stop bar is also proposed at this location. Note that prior to
completion of the southerly segment, the approved plans show a stop sign and stop bar on the Garden Street approach to Market Street.
Please provide a detail for the mountable curb.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See sheet 7 for details of concrete mountable curb and granite mountable curb.
It is difficult to fully understand the work proposed at the SW approach to Market Street from the Poon property (the access across from “City Hall / School Driveway Future Public Street”).
My preference is that this intersection get reworked so that the roads are in alignment, but I’d like to better understand the impacts to the existing infrastructure in the Market St
ROW.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: No work is proposed with this application on the future street that will align opposite the existing City Hall / School Driveway Future Public Street. Construction
of this future street, including adjustment of the existing curb cut, will be proposed with development on Lot N (Buildings A1-A3).
Please confirm that the existing stormwater pipe under Market St that will receive water from this development can manage the increased flow of water during the 25 year storm event (City’s
design standard).
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See attachment ‘Market St pipe 12-05-22’
Garden Street reconfiguration shall be as shown on the below sketch for consistency with support street typology.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Plans have been revised to match the sketch below.
/
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: It seems we inadvertently sent you an outdated markup. Please update to correct the south end. Further, it is unclear whether the striping at the north end
is correct. Please modify plans to clarify what is proposed and what is existing.
12/27 UPDATED COMMENT: The applicant sent draft revisions on 12/23. Striping is approved. Please add a Reserved Parking sign to the wheelchair accessible space. Please add rim elevations
to CB-12 and CB-13; roadway is going uphill in the direction of flow, so inverts need to be really clear between CB12 and CB13. Please also check grading for necessary updates; in
northwest corner of parking lot, spot grade 314.55 is very close to 315 contour.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE:
- Reserved parking sign added
- Rim elevations for CB 12 & 13 have been added to sheet 3. The primary functions of CB 12 & 13 are junction boxes for the connection to the existing storm pipe stub. The rim elevations
are slightly lower than the adjacent sidewalk along the street.
- Spot grade 314.55 is the top of mountable curb (7" high). The nearby 314 contour is pavement grade at base of curb
Market Street concrete scoring patterns shall be as shown on attached plan. Please also note the specifications require a 12” crushed stone base under 6” reinforced concrete (grid throughout
& dowels into adjoining jointed sections to preclude shared use path heaving).
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Sheet 7A was added to incorporate details for sidewalks within the public right of way.
There is an existing light pole within the 25-ft clear zone of the driveway entrance. This light pole will need to be relocated.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show the light being relocated (sheet 4).
EPSC Comments
We will include a condition of approval to update the sweeping language on the EPSC plan to say, “Sweeping paved area with a mechanical or vacuum street sweeper to remove sediment as
needed, or anytime sediment is visible on Market or Garden Street”.
We will include a condition of approval to add a note to the EPSC plan to clarify vehicle access to the site during construction: “During construction no vehicles will exit/enter the
property at any location other than the entrance on Garden Street where a stabilized construction entrance is located”.
We will include a condition of approval to add a note to indicate that all EPSC measures will be maintained to ensure their effectiveness.
Please revise the plans to specify where/how will dewatering occur.
Please coordinate with the Department of Public Works to specify a type of inlet protection to be utilized in Market Street that is more than a piece of fabric under a storm drain grate,
but not something that would be problematic for the traveling public (e.g. inlet protection involving stone piled around the grate).
Please revise the plans to include discussion of the additional EPSC related measures and BMPs that are required during the winter construction season.
Comments of Planning Department
We would like to schedule a meeting to review the non-residential portion of the building within the T5 zoning district.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The architectural plans for level 1 in Building B1 and Building B2 will be revised to identify the interior area adjacent to the plaza as commercial tenant
space. This will increase the total commercial tenant space within both buildings. The new total commercial tenant space areas are listed on sheet 1. See commercial tenant spaces
outlined below:
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: Pending updated architectural plans, the decision will include a condition that non-residential spaces may not be leased for residential use, or uses supporting
a residential use, for a period of more than 3 years, and the initial three year lease may only be renewed in one-year increments thereafter.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The plan sheets for Level 1 of Buildings B1 & B2 have been revised – see sheets A07 and A17
Comments of Stormwater Section
This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Please
note that Potash Brook is now classified as a warm water stream.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Understood
The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit
from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: CGP authorization 7736-9020.6 and Discharge Permit 7736-INDS.A are attached.
As the project proposes to create more than one-half acre or more of impervious surface, the project is subject to the requirements of section 13.05 of the LDRs.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Understood
On the provided soil investigation logs, the VHB TP#4 lists SHWT at 3.5’ below grade, which is approximately 310.5’. The mulch layer of the bioretention practice is at 313’, which would
mean that the bottom of the practice would be at 311’ as the VSMM requires a 24-48 inch deep planting bed. The bioretention practice would have ≤0.5’ to SHWT, which is not incompliance
with the VSMM for an infiltration practice. The applicant should propose to line the practice.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The bio-retention area was approved to meet the recharge and WQv requirement only. The overflow catchbasin (CB 7) conveys runoff from the larger storms to
gravel wetland #2 for detention. VSMM 4.3.1.1 (required elements) states that:
The bottom of the bioretention practice shall be located at or above the seasonal high groundwater table (SHGWT).
The separation to SHGWT requirements identified in Section 4.3.3.1 are not applicable to bioretention practices designed to treat the water quality and groundwater recharge volumes only.
Sheet D2 – Stormwater Details from VHB
The bioretention detail calls out a minimum of 24” from the mulch layer to SHWT. This is inaccurate – SHWT should be two feet from the bottom of the bioretention soil media since less
than 1 acre of drainage area contributes to the system. The applicant should revise the bioretention area detail to reflect requirements set by the VSMM.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The bio-retention area was approved to meet the recharge and WQv requirement only. See also above.
The bioretention detail does not show a layer of bioretention soil media. The callout says 18” of concrete sand. Per the VSMM, the bioretention planting bed should be 24 to 48 inches.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The note has been revised to refer to the bioretention soil mixture and the specification included on sheet D2
Sheet L-1.1 – Planting Plan
Several trees shown on the planting plan are too close in proximity to proposed stormwater structures and pipes. The applicant should increase the separation between proposed tree locations
and stormwater infrastructure to prevent future damage.
12/27 UPDATED COMMENT: This comment has not been addressed. In particular, there is a tree in the western-most island that is proposed 2.5’ away from a new catch basin, which will
cause problems in the future.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The tree has been shifted away from CB10 – see Landscape Planting Plan sheet 1.1
There is a shrub proposed <1 ft away from a cleanout to the north of the lower trash building. The applicant is advised to move this shrub location to prevent difficulty maintaining
the cleanout.
Sheet 5: EPSC Plan
What will be the phasing of construction regarding construction of buildings, site grading, construction of stormwater treatment, etc.?
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: A construction phasing plan has been prepared.
12/27 UPDATED COMMENT: The applicant is preparing a new EPSC pan which will include clarification on whether the bioretention basin shall be used as a sediment basin or not.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: EPSC sheet 5 revised to include bioretention area EPSC sequencing.
The applicant should provide a maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater infrastructure per Section 13.05B(5). The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly
maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See VHB Maintenance Plan, sheet SW4
Comments of Fire Marshal’s Office
The tree by the NW fire access will need to be moved back toward the property line with the school. As shown, the aerial and Engines will hit the branches. All FDC shall be kept clear
of landscaping features. Three feet on either side of the FDC and clear to the public way. It is acknowledged that this is on the school property; we believe we have an easement that
includes maintenance of the referenced tree.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: While this is noted on the civil drawings, the landscaping plans will also call out the relocation of the tree near the emergency vehicle access. FDC connections
are shown on sheets 4 & 10. A note has been added to sheet 10 regarding the access requirements, and the landscaping plan has been revised to provide clear access from the public way.
1/20 NEW COMMENT: We will include a condition of approval to relocate trees to be at minimum 4-ft from edge of parking lot islands to not inhibit apparatus access in the parking areas
and at the corners of the buildings and access to the FDCs. This may require placement of smaller plantings on the outside of the trees relative to the curb line.
Comments on Landscaping
Need a Plant Schedule, Planting Details and Specifications, and Landscaping Cost, affecting:
Parking lot perimeter planting compliance
Variety of landscaping compliance
Tree caliper compliance
Landscaping budget compliance
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: plant schedule and cost have been provided.
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: Landscaping cost by phase do not meet required minimum landscaping budget. Pertaining to landscaping as a whole, the raised planter beds for the garden space
and the crawl tunnel value may be counted towards the non-planting landscape budget. The seat walls may not except where they serve functionally as seating; then the value above the
value of a standard bench may count. The concrete planters may only count for the value above the value of standard planter boxes.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The sequencing of construction has been modified to complete the pocket plaza with the occupancy of Building B2. This results in the required minimum landscape
budget being satisfied with the successive completion of each building. The seat walls and planters are proposed to enhance the streetscape by better defining the space adjacent to
the building. These areas could be simply comprised of concrete walks, steps, and railings, with sloped plantings areas between the building and Market Street sidewalk. Instead the
board formed concrete walls add a vertical element and visual interest.
1/20 UPDATED COMMENT: The Administrative Officer finds only some of the concrete seat walls enhance the project design, while others are more functional in nature, and has excluded
the seat walls from landscape budget calculations. However, landscaping budget is met without these elements.
The parking lot island computation omits the 13 spaces behind building B3. Please revise.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See exhibit file named ‘Application - landscaped island areas Rev11-22-22’
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: The plan includes two areas that are outside of the parking lot that include plantings that the applicant has counted towards the required minimum interior parking
lot landscaping. These areas are marginal. Additional interior landscaping areas may be required if modifications to the provided open spaces do not improve the perception of parking
lot landscaping. See comments on open space areas.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: As suggested, the 7 parking spaces adjacent to the rain garden have been shifted toward the trash enclosure to create a connection to the adjacent island.
The perennials in the rain garden have been extended into this island, as well as the island off the corner of Building B3.
Shade trees are not evenly placed. Please locate shade trees on south end of central parking lot aisles. Understood that this may replace proposed shrubs. 12/20 COMMENT HAS NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Armstrong maple trees are proposed at the north end of the islands behind the trash buildings - near the garden spaces and the seating area in the snippet/parklet.
See Residential Amenity Plan
1/20 UPDATED COMMENT: Comment has been addressed. There will be a condition requiring these trees to be called out on the landscaping plan (the callouts are omitted) and the minimum
size to be 2.5-inches.
Landscaping adjacent to former dog park may or may not meet screening or buffering requirements; awaiting revised plans to review.
COMMENT ADDRESSED
More information is needed about the features that resemble retaining walls between the building and the street. Provide detail, height, material, update architectural rendering, or
if not present, update plans.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Sheet L2.0 for images of the board formed concrete walls. Typical elevations and dimensions will be added to the wall detail. The top of the wall will
typically be slightly lower than the adjacent finish floor elevation to allow drainage away from the building.
Revise plans to indicate locations of snow storage.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Areas will be identified on the Planting Plan for limited onsite storage of snow. For larger or multiple snow storms, removal of snow from the site may be
required.
UPDATED COMMENT: The applicant is responsible for maintaining landscaping in a vigorous growing condition. Damage due to snow storage must be remedied during the next growing
season. If plantings do not thrive with coincident snow storage, the applicant must revise the location of snow storage on the approved plans.
Comments on Lighting
Lighting levels from fixture type “W” are too high, particularly on Garden Street. Please revise.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: This light fixture has been revised to lower its illumination.
Building Comments
224 Market Street is located predominantly within the secondary build-to-zone. 85% of the building façade must be located within the primary build-to-zone.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The majority of the Building B2 façade is 6 feet or less off the edge of the street right of way. See the Build-To Zone exhibit.
268 Market Street is located predominantly within the secondary build-to-zone. 85% of the building façade must be located within the primary build-to-zone.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The majority of the Building B1 façade is 6 feet or less off the edge of the street right of way. See the Build-To Zone exhibit.
Rooftop plans have not been provided therefore it is not possible to determine whether rooftop elements are proposed. If rooftop structures other than the rooftop towers are proposed,
such as elevator towers, their height and area must be provided.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: No elevator tower is proposed. The height of rooftop mechanical equipment is noted on the Solar Zone and Rooftop Visibility exhibits.
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: 5’ high RTU on each building, awaiting information on screening
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See sheet A473 for roof screening specifications
Height of rooftop towers must be provided. If they are more than 14 ft above the floor of the fourth floor, size must also be provided.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The height of rooftop mechanical equipment is noted on the Solar Zone and Rooftop Visibility exhibits.
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: Awaiting information on rooftop tower height.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Dimensions added to top of ‘high parapet’ (tower element) on sheets A01, A11, & A24
1/20 UPDATED COMMENT: These elements project more than 14-ft above the floor of the fourth floor and are therefore limited to 20% of the floor area of the fourth floor. What is their
size?
Provide demonstration of how the project will meet the standards of Appendix CA: – Solar-Ready Zone of the Commercial Building Energy Standards as prepared and revised by the Vermont
Public Service Department.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See notes on the Solar Zone and Rooftop Visibility exhibits.
General Comments
To understand what is included in each phase, for the purpose of landscaping, open space, and certificate of occupancy issuance, please provide a plan showing each phase cumulatively
as well as a narrative description of what is included in each phase.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: A construction phasing plan has been prepared.
12/20 UPDATED COMMENT: Please provide additional information as to how each phase cumulatively meets required landscaping and open space requirements. It is unclear in what order the
phases are proposed in the provided plan.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Construction phasing plan revised to include sequencing of open space. Landscape cost estimate also revised to reflect changes in open space completion.
Qualifying open space areas should be outlined and labeled on the plans. At this time compliance of open spaces with requirements cannot yet be evaluated.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: A plan identifying the open space areas has been added to the Open Space Narrative.
12/20 UPDATED COMMENTS:
Rain Garden: The rain garden has adjacent seating. Seating must be proportionate with the size of the garden and number of users, and enhance the rain garden. A single bench on a
concrete pad does not meet this criterion. Revise to improve compliance with seating/access requirements.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Orientation and number of benches revised around the perimeter of the rain garden seating.
Garden Space: The garden space appears to comply with the requirements of Article 11B, but more information about its layout is needed. It is unclear on the provided plans what is
planters and what is space between planters. What are the double lines, and what are the dimensions measuring? Additionally, are there intended to be planters east of the sidewalk?
How many beds will be provided? To serve 20% of residents, beds would need to be very small.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Discussed on 12/27. Garden spaces defined graphically on Hardscape Plan and additional images added to the Hardscape Details.
Parklet: This space must be directly adjacent to the public right of way or an operable building entrance. It is separated from the public right of way by the pocket plaza, and is
not directly adjacent to a building entrance. Revise to be adjacent to a building entrance, or to be an open space type without this requirement. Seating must be the main focus of
the space. Some seating is provided, but it should be revised to be enhanced by it’s situation within the open space rather than turning its back on it. Seating should be provided
near the proposed play tunnel. Please schedule a conversation with landscape architect to discuss. Other requirements are met.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Building entrance added adjacent to the parklet. The configuration and types of the seating in the parklet have also been revised as discussed on 12/27.
Please quantify Class III wetland and wetland buffer impacts and show on plans.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: A small class 3 wetland was previously located on Lot B near the intersection of Garden Street and Market Street. However, this wetland was filled with the
City’s construction of the Market Street improvements. There are no class 3 wetland or buffer impacts proposed on Lot B.
Please provide a future cross-lot access easement between the property and the school property to the north in the location of the trash enclosure by 339 Garden Street (20-ft wide driveway
easement) and by the sidewalk accessing the bioretention area (15-ft path easement). No changes to plan are required.
12/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: A draft easement is being prepared. We will provide this draft for review by the City attorney.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Draft easement provided for review on 01-10-23
Additional Comments as of 12/9/2022
Water/Wastewater allocation request was omitted for commercial uses. Please provide preliminary requests as a best guess.
UPDATED COMMENT: Preliminary wastewater allocations have been approved. The decision will include a condition that non-residential spaces shall require zoning permit approval, and
associated wastewater allocation, prior to occupancy.
Sidewalk on Garden Street should carry the grade and concrete through the driveway crossing. Please provide sufficient grading to make it clear that this is the case.
In parking lot islands and bumpouts recommend specifying continuous planting pits to a depth of 2 ft. where existing soil is replaced with loam or sandy loam to support tree growth
Tree and Shrub Planting Details and Specifications are missing
BES Comments
All Buildings
Generally, applicants provide numeric responses to all criteria where the standard is numeric. It greatly speeds up our review. We’ve proceeded with our own computations in the interest
of time here, but we request that you provide numeric information in the future.
As discussed, we are applying standards in aggregate where they are relative to another part of the building, and for each transect zone where they are measured as individual items.
I hope what standards have been applied will be more clear than I am able to explain here in the decision.
There are some street related requirements in the BES that are not met but will be addressed by addressing the above comments. These items have not been duplicated below.
Percent of frontage buildout within primary and secondary build-to-zones for primary and secondary facades: As discussed, please provide an exhibit that shows the primary and secondary
zones and a calculation of percent in each.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: See Build-To-Zone Exhibit dated 12-09-22 (no change from prior submission on 12-12-22)
339 Garden Street
Building Breaks – 5 required, 4 provided. Max span without a building break 48’, 49.75’ provided. I suspect the miss here is that material changes must be 20 feet wide and bump outs
must be 2 feet deep to count. For the tiny fraction that our opinion matters, we like the large dark grey section and would like to see that remain. The deficiency could be addressed
by making the step back 2 feet deep.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The 2' deep bump out dimension has been added to sheet A-27
A minimum of 85% of upper story glazing must be transparent. This standard got cut off in the current PDF of the LDR, but it can be confirmed that it was not intended to be removed
by reviewing the LDR amendment documents. Please provide information.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Sheet A26 has been revised to note that 100% of the upper story glazing will be transparent.
224 Market Street
T5 primary façade first story glazing 80% of building width: We cannot accept the large column in the approximate center of the building as part of the glazing, both because of its
width and because it is a horizontal change in plane. We are willing to accept the other columns as window frames or mullions. Without the column, 80% glazing has not been provided.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: Sheet A13 revised to exclude canopy column and comply with 80% glazing requirement.
Building Breaks: Sheet A17 scale is incorrect so we are unable to confirm whether the horizontal changes in plane are 2 feet or greater.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The bump out dimensions have been added to sheet A14. The scale on sheet A17 is now correct.
Upper story glazing proximity to building corners: Only storefront or bay windows may be closer than 30” to building corners. We consider the first story glazing to be storefront glazing
but not the upper story glazing.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The 'D' window on the 4th Level (NW corner) has been adjusted to be 30" from the building corner
268 Market Street
Secondary façade entrance spacing: the building elevations don’t match the partial floor plans provided for the purpose of entrance spacing computations. Please revise in order for
us to evaluate.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The entrances have been revised on Sheet A05.
T5 primary façade first story glazing 80% of building width: We cannot accept the large column in the approximate center of the building as part of the glazing, both because of its
width and because it is a horizontal change in plane. We are willing to accept the other columns as window frames or mullions. Without the column, 80% glazing has not been provided.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The first story glazing on sh. A03 excludes the canopy column & complies with the 80% glazing req'ment.
Upper story glazing proximity to building corners: Only storefront or bay windows may be closer than 30” to building corners. We consider the first story glazing to be storefront glazing
but not the upper story glazing.
1/12 APPLICANT RESPONSE: The 'C1' windows on Levels 2, 3, & 4 (MW corner) are a minimum of 30" from the building corner.
Sincerely,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner