Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-23-11 - Supplemental - 0225 0267 Market Street (32) 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: The Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: #SP-22-011 Market Street Lot N Site Plan Comments DATE: May 4, 2023, updated May 12, 2023 Responses by Applicant on May 25, 2023 Updated Comments June 13, 2023 Responses by Applicant June 20, 2023 The purpose of this memo is to provide comments on the compliance of the proposed 3-building development on Market Street Lot N. Comments are based on the plans and materials submitted March 27 and April 11, 2023. These updated comments now include a review of Building Envelope Standards. The three buildings are referred to as follows: a. 237 Market Street – “Building A1,” consisting of 101 units and 13,500 sf non-residential space and located on the eastern corner of the lot b. 225 Market Street – “Building A2,” consisting of 62 units and 13,500 sf non-residential space and located on the northern corner of the lot c. 113 Garden Street – “Building A3,” consisting of 50 residential units and located on the southern side of the lot Comments of Department of Public Works 1. There is no area for snow storage or plow turnaround at the end of the future public street. This may hinder/delay transfer of this road to the City. Applicant Response: Based on past discussions, it is anticipated that the City would not take the Future Public Street until it was extended across one or more adjacent parcels. In the interim, the Owners’ Association will maintain this street segment. The right of way width, existing access points to 155 Market Street, storm pond, and frontage build-out requirements limit the space available to reserve for snow storage or a plow turnaround. Updated comment: This will be included as a condition of approval. 2. It appears as if a stop sign is missing at the end of the Future Public Street near Market Street. Applicant Response: A stop sign has been added to sheet 14 Update comment: add “No Through Traffic” sign Applicant Response: A ‘No Thru Traffic’ sign has been added to sheet 14 2 3. We have previously asked developers to “pin” the sidewalk on Market Street to reduce vertical where it connects with existing sidewalk. Applicant Response: The Market Street Concrete Sidewalk Detail on sheet 9 has been revised to emphasize the notes regarding concrete reinforcement and dowels between new and existing sidewalk. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 4. Will detectable warning strips will be installed at locations where sidewalks/path cross streets? Applicant Response: Cast iron detectable warning strips will be installed where sidewalks/paths terminate on either side of a street. Where the concrete sidewalk is continuous across a driveway (such as the driveway off Garden Street or the Future Public Street) no detectable warning strips are proposed since the pedestrian has priority and the sidewalk is uninterrupted. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 5. New street should include re-alignment of crosswalk to be correct distance from the re-aligned intersection Applicant response: The Market Street crosswalk has been shifted closer to the re-aligned intersection. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 6. New comment: We do not have a lot of storage capacity in the current Market Street pump station. This is an issue that we will need to address with applicants as they apply for additional wastewater allocation. At this time, and based on the current allocation request of ~39,000 GPD, it has been strongly recommended that we add an emergency generator to the pump station. I will be pursuing this over the next few weeks and would welcome an opportunity to have a discussion about this with the applicants engineer. Applicant Response: Andy Rowe and Tom DiPietro have discussed the likely need for an emergency generator to be installed at the Market Street sewer pump station. The Applicant will work with DPW to better define the emergency generator scope of work and develop an approach with timeline that is compatible with the project’s schedule and future flow increases at the pump station. Civil Sheet 14 - Pavement Marking and Sign Plan: 7. Recommend a speed limit sign upon entry to Future Public Street Applicant response: A speed limited sign has been added to sheet 14 Updated comment: Please move speed limit sign at least 50-feet beyond the beginning of the road. The area adjacent to the second parallel parking space should be sufficient. Applicant Response: The speed limit sign location has been revised. 8. End parking space on Future Public Street (southwest-most space) should have right angle striping, not “T” at the back of space. See image below. Applicant response: Sheet 14 (and others) have been revised to correct the parking space marking. 3 Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Civil Sheet 10 - Street Profile Sitework and Storm Details: 9. Public street cross section note 8 should specify that pavement markings be durable polyurea, not durable tape. Applicant Response: Note 8 on sheet 10 has been revised to specify polyurea markings. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Comments of Planning Department Site Amenities Plan: 1. Planter in Pocket Plaza is 21' x 21', and center is 16 x 16. That's a very large area which feels like it will be a dead space, especially with direct south exposure and no shade. Recommend this area be enhanced to include more vertical elements and feature with shade (such as the structure next to building A3). This is also related to the requirement for the space to achieve a higher proportion of landscaping than larger areas, and for landscaping to be a primary component of the space. Applicant Response: The scale on the ‘Pocket Plaza Inset’ was inaccurately labeled 1” = 20’. The actual scale is 1” = 10’. Actual measurements of the central planter are 10’ by 10’ to the outside and 8’ by 8’ on the inside. The planter will be raised to seat height. The intent was to install a larger caliper shade tree in the central planter to provide shade during summer months but allow sun to filter through on sunny winter days. Per our meeting with staff, this area has been refined, the planter has been reconfigured to create a buffer with the surrounding parking lot and ramp. Additional plantings have been added and caliper has been increased to create a specimen tree. The area surrounding the planter is intended as flexible space for informal gathering and will be supplied with movable 4 furniture by the owner as shown, including Adirondack chairs, side and coffee tables, bistro tables and chairs, umbrellas etc. Updated comment: The applicant has significantly modified this space and the snippet. It was discussed that the applicant was going to increase the size of the tree in this area. Was this inadvertently omitted? Applicant Response: The plans and cost estimate have been revised to include a 5” caliper honeylocust tree. Walking path easement: 2. Is the land within 20' pedestrian easement sufficiently flat and functional for use? Is it absent of vertical elements allowing it to be mowed? Applicant Response: The 20’ wide pedestrian easement is intended to potentially accommodate a roughly 5’ wide walking path. A walking path is not proposed to be constructed – only an easement offered for a potential future path. The existing storm pond stone spillway would need to be crossed by any future walking path. Updated comment: The easement is to create an unimproved walking path until such time as the City chooses to formalize it. Based on a field visit, we are requesting four minor improvements in order to make this a viable walking path. First, please realign the northern end to be aligned with the level portion of the embankment near the existing 155 Market Street Driveway. Second, please provide a small footbridge over the stone spillway with at least 1-ft of available head. Third, please remove soil mound and fill minor low spot immediately adjacent to Garden Street. Fourth, please add a blue City ”Hiking Trail” sign at either end. This is in support of requirement for mid-block crossing in blocks longer than 600 ft in length, 15.A.16B(5). Applicant Response: As reviewed with Staff, the northern end of the pedestrian easement has been revised. Sheet 1 has been revised to include notes regarding a boardwalk over the stone spillway and grading to remove the mound and low spot adjacent to Garden Street. If the City chooses to open this easement to the public and designate it as a hiking trail, the City should install any needed signage. Note that the Applicant believes that the requirement for a mid-block crossing (per 15.A.16B(5)) is satisfied with the concrete sidewalk route through Block A, extending from Garden Street to the Future Public Street. 3. The existing paved drive is being shown as being within the 20' pedestrian easement. The easement should be moved, or driveway relocated, to have no obstructions. Applicant Response: The 20’ wide pedestrian easement is intended to potentially accommodate a roughly 5’ wide walking path. The 20’ easement width was proposed to allow future construction (in combination with the temporary easement) and maintenance of a path that is narrower than the full easement width. The existing paved drive does overlap with a portion of the pedestrian easement, but does not preclude a future walking path or sidewalk within the pedestrian easement as currently shown. Updated comment: What is the arrangement for maintenance of the existing driveway? Separately with respect to the path, does the Poon easement overlap the proposed City easement? Where is the Poon driveway located relative to the Poon easement? If the Poon 5 easement overlaps the Poon driveway exactly, a solution could be to shift the conveyance to the City to continue width but not overlap. Applicant Response: The existing access right of way to 155 Market Street was originally described as “sufficient to enable the Grantee to obtain access to the premises from the curb cut” on Market Street. This right of way is effectively the existing paved driveway leading to the front and rear of the property at 155 Market Street. The owner of 155 Market Street is responsible for any maintenance associated with the existing paved driveway. Driveway entries: 4. What has applicant done to indicates that this is a private area? We had discussed texturing, landscaping, signage. There is nothing notable within the site plan or signage plan Applicant Response: Current plans incorporate speed tables and reduced driveway width (22’ vs 24’). The most significant visual cue that this is a private drive is the continuous concrete sidewalk across the driveway where it intersects with the street. As discussed on May 17, the sidewalk adjacent to Building A1 has been eliminated. The sidewalk adjacent to Building A3 has also been adjusted, creating green strips with trees along both sides of the driveway. The adjustments to the sidewalks results in the trees being closer to the driveway, allowing the tree canopy to extend over the driveway. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed provided Fire Department access is maintained. 5. Please provide, as discussed with applicant, an easement or agreement for the City to use this passage for public use when Market Street is closed for events Applicant Response: The Applicant agrees to work with the City Manager’s Office, Department of Public Works, and Emergency Services to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to allow public access through Block A for City sponsored special events on Market Street. Updated comment: This has been incorporated as a condition of approval Modifications within ROW: 6. Recommend adding street trees to the expanded landscape island along Garden Street where the new curb cut is being installed. Applicant Response: Additional Street trees will be shown but noted as provided by separate contract. Updated comment: Whose contract this is under is not relevant to approval; streetscape must be improved as part of this site plan approval pursuant to LDR 8.04(A)(2)(b). Applicant Response: Understood – the note was to indicate that the Garden St street trees were already subject to a zoning permit and surety. 7. Driveway entry to Poon. Why not a bump-out instead of striping? Applicant Response: Striping is proposed to facilitate the continuation of on-street parking, mirroring the opposite side of the street, with the future extension of this street. The rank of 7 on-street spaces is the same as along the School/City Hall driveway and maximizes the on-street parking available to support the adjacent ground floor commercial uses. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 6 Building-specific: Building A1 8. In front of portions of building A1, plantings along Market Street will preclude restaurant seating in those areas and block window views of storefronts. This is not typical of a downtown and suggests an environment of office space and not retail/restaurant. Recommend a more retail/restaurant friendly design (ie, hardscape) Applicant Response: Outdoor restaurant seating is anticipated to be located adjacent to corner spaces within buildings. Where plantings are shown, TJ Boyle has reviewed and made substitutions as necessary to assure heights do not obscure visibility of window display. Plantings will generally be limited to 24-30 inch maximum height. Updated comment: This has been incorporated as a condition of approval Applicant Response: Understood that a condition of approval will require that the plantings be maintained to not obscure visibility of the storefront windows. 9. Please provide a stronger street presence of residential entries. Larger stoops, more welcoming entry including windows in doors (even if translucent or curtained) or sidelights, doors with panels or mullions. Applicant Response: See Residential Entry exhibit that highlights several elements that have already been incorporated to differentiate them from the commercial entrances. The design team was initially charged with enhancing these residential entries compared to those on previously constructed buildings. Updated comment: In certain circumstances, it still seems like a really difficult action for someone walking with groceries to enter with no stoop. Based on a review of buildings currently built, we can live with the design if the few stoops that do not currently have 24-inches of continuous width not coincident with the door are modified to have it. Applicant Response: An ‘Individual Residential Entry Walkway Detail’ has been added to civil sheet 9. The walkway to the individual entries will be offset, providing space on the handle side of the door. 10. Solar Ready Zones on Building A1 includes portions less than 5' wide. Per CA 103.3 of CBES, Solar Ready Zones area, "Each subzone shall be not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) in width in the narrowest dimension. Please revise to ensure that in achieving required 40% of roof area, at subzones meet minimum width requirements. Applicant Response: The Solar Ready Zones have been revised to have a minimum width of 5 feet and achieve the required 40% of the roof area. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed 11. Unit 111 has no entry on street. Recommend a doorway be added for consistency Applicant Response: The entry to Unit 111 was intentionally eliminated to avoid crowding the patio and entry to the residential lobby. An entry to Unit 111 would be on the side closest to the patio, and would encroach upon that adjacent space and surrounding plantings. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed 12. Are rooftop mechanicals properly hidden? They appear to be visible from locations in the public way reasonably proximate to the building 7 Applicant Response: While the mechanicals at the west end of Building A1 are visible in View 1, this view from Market Street will be hidden with the construction of Building A2. In addition, the mechanicals visible from View 1 are enclosed by the roof equipment screen. Updated comment: The 7-ft high rooftop equipment is screened. The smaller 2.5 – 3 ft equipment is set back at least 5-ft from all building edges. However, there are a few locations where a longer view will result in visibility of rooftop equipment despite setback. See screenshots and please revise rooftop equipment configuration, parapets, or screening. Applicant Response: Architectural sheet A473 has been revised to require a screen around all mechanical equipment within 15 feet of the rooftop perimeter. The height of the screen will be at least equal to the height of the mechanical equipment. 8 13. Common long-term bike parking appears to be inaccessible if a car is present at multiple locations, especially knowing it's not their own car. Follow manufacturer spacing if available. Space equal to the 2x the depth of one bicycle should be provided between the wall and nearest obstruction. Applicant response: The bike racks have been relocated within the garage. Updated comment: This does not appear to have been done. Applicant Response: The bike racks have been reconfigured within the garage. 14. First floor residential units should not show furniture blocking front doors. Applicant Response: The interior layouts have been modified so that furniture is not blocking the front doors. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed 15. The addition of balconies to this building is appreciated. Building A2 9 1. Please provide a stronger street presence of residential entries. Larger stoops, more welcoming entry including windows in doors (even if translucent or curtained) or sidelights, doors with panels or mullions. Applicant Response: See Residential Entry exhibit that highlights several elements that have already been incorporated to differentiate them from the commercial entrances. The design team was charged with enhancing these residential entries compared to those on previously constructed buildings. Updated comment: See above. Applicant Response: See above and ‘Individual Residential Entry Walkway Detail’ 2. Solar Ready Zones on Building A2 includes portions less than 5' wide. Per CA 103.3 of CBES, Solar Ready Zones area, "Each subzone shall be not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) in width in the narrowest dimension. Please revise to ensure that in achieving required 40% of roof area, all subzones meet minimum width requirements. The Solar Ready Zones have been revised to have a minimum width of 5 feet and achieve the required 40% of the roof area. Updated comment: See above. Applicant Response: See above and additional screening requirements on architectural sheet A473 3. Are rooftop mechanicals properly hidden? They appear to be visible from locations in the public way reasonably proximate to the building. The mechanicals visible in Views 1 & 5 include a roof screen (see sheet A473) Updated comment: See above. Applicant Response: See above and additional screening requirements on architectural sheet A473 4. Common long-term bike parking appears to be inaccessible if a car is present at multiple locations. See comment on Building A1. Applicant response: The bike racks have been relocated within the garage. Updated comment: this appears to have been addressed except one location near Stair 1 where three racks, proposed to support six bicycles, are partially blocked by adjacent parked cars. Applicant Response: The bike racks have been reconfigured within the garage. 5. The addition of balconies to this building is appreciated. Building A3: 6. Common long-term bike parking appears to be inaccessible if a car is present at multiple locations. See comment on Building A1. Applicant response: The bike racks have been relocated within the garage. Updated comment: This has not been addressed Applicant Response: The bike racks have been reconfigured within the garage. 10 7. Please provide a stronger street presence of residential entries. Larger stoops, more welcoming entry including windows in doors (even if translucent or curtained) or sidelights, doors with panels or mullions. Applicant response: See Residential Entry exhibit that highlights several elements that have already been incorporated to differentiate them from the commercial entrances. The design team was charged with enhancing these residential entries compared to those on previously constructed buildings. Updated comment: See above. Applicant Response: See above and ‘Individual Residential Entry Walkway Detail’ Comments of Stormwater Section Sheet 5: Utility Layout Buildings A1 & A2 1. Is this a new drain from the building into EX STMH2? If yes, what are the elevations? The bottom right corner only lists a new RIM. Applicant response: Sheet 5 has been revised to include the invert elevation of this new pipe into the STMH Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Sheet ST: Lot N (Block A) Stormwater Exhibit: 2. In the maintenance section of this sheet, the bioretention maintenance plan says to inspect a forebay for sediment depth. Will the bioretention basin have a forebay for pretreatment, or will it have a deep sump catch basin? If no forebay, omit this part of the maintenance section. Applicant response: This sheet has been revised to note that the deep sump catchbasin provides pretreatment for the bioretention area. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 3. Add a label for the pretreatment for the bioretention area 11 Applicant response: The pretreatment (deep sump catchbasin) has been labeled Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Landscaping Plan: 4. The trees that are proposed along the future city street are very close/on top of a proposed gas line. There are several other locations across the site that has this issue. In the future, this will likely mean these trees will need to be removed for any kind of maintenance required by the property owner, and it’s likely that the roots of these trees will present issues to the utilities. See examples below. Applicant response: Utilities have been reconfigured to the extent possible to avoid conflicts with tree plantings. Additionally, utilities are generally located deeper than the root zone based on species selection. 12 Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Comments of Fire Department – 1. Provide for WB40 1990 straight for vehicle access in the parking lot. Applicant response: We met with Ed Spooner on May 8 to review the plans with the turning template for the City’s apparatus – the layout is acceptable as shown, with mountable curb where noted on the plans. Updated comment: Please resubmit turning template for revised Garden Street entry. Applicant Response – the corner curb radii (15’) and driveway width (22’) off Garden Street is unchanged from the original application plans reviewed with the Fire Department on May 8. The sidewalks were revised along the driveway off Garden Street, but the driveway width and mountable curb radii were not changed. 2. Add a fire hydrant on the island close to the handicapped parking behind Building A2. Applicant response: A second hydrant has been added and reviewed with the Water Department. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. 3. Future solar ready zone shall comply with 2015 NFPA 1, 11.12 Photovoltaic Systems. Applicant response: Understood. 4. Consult with Fire Marshall’s Office regarding Electric Vehicle/Bike charging locations. Applicant response: Will Fontaine has reviewed potential future electric vehicle / bike charging locations with the Fire Marsal’s office. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed. Comments on Site 1. The decision will include a condition requiring that final subdivision approval be obtained prior to issuance of the first zoning permit. A number of project elements depend on it. Understood – Final Plat Review application submitted 5/5/23. DRB hearing held 6/20/23. 2. What is area of T4 and T5 within Lot N1? Applicant Response: Lot N1 T4 area = 2.26 acres, Lot N1 T5 area = 1.45 acres 3. What is length of T4 and T5 street frontage on Garden Street and planned public street on Lot N1? Applicant Response: See also Overall Site Plan (sheet 1) for Building Envelope Standards- Frontage Build-out Garden Street T4 frontage = 610.2’ Garden Street T5 frontage = 151.3’ Future Public Street T4 frontage = 89.6’ Future Public Street T5 frontage = 150.5’ 13 4. What is your proposed timing for the construction completion and opening of the planned public street relative to the building elements of the project? Applicant Response: The future public street segment will likely be constructed with Building A2, following completion of the building foundation and exterior shell. Access to 155 Market Street will be maintained during construction on the future public street segment. Updated comment: We have included the following condition in the decision. “The applicant must provide a temporary vehicular connection to the existing 155 Market Street driveway prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 267 Market Street. A pedestrian connection in the location of the planned public street consisting of construction and opening of a temporary (or the approved) sidewalk must also be established prior to occupancy of 267 Market Street. The sidewalk shall remain continuously open. The entire street section shall be complete prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 225 Market Street.” We acknowledge that the vehicular connection to the existing driveway may be occasionally closed for construction of 225 Market Street, but requiring it to be constructed prior to occupancy of 267 Market Street allows it to be used for emergency access. In terms of access to 155 Market Street from Market Street, continuous access must be maintained. What does the existing easement benefitting 155 Market Street say about contiguity and can applicant reroute as necessary? Applicant Response: Suggested condition - “The applicant must provide for emergency use, a vehicular connection to the existing 155 Market Street driveway prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 267 Market Street. A pedestrian connection in the location of the planned public street consisting of construction and opening of a temporary (or the approved) sidewalk must also be established prior to occupancy of 267 Market Street. The sidewalk shall remain continuously open. The entire street section shall be complete prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for 225 Market Street.” 5. Please demonstrate how the snippet/parklets to the rear of 225 and 267 Market Street are directly adjacent to a building entrance or public sidewalk as required. Applicant Response: Door added at the rear of Building A2 – see also Level 1, sheet A07 Updated Comment: The architectural and landscaping drawings have the entries on 225 Market St in two different places. 14 Applicant Response: The landscaping plans have been revised to match the entries on the architectural plans. 6. Please provide safe pedestrian access to the waste disposal structure. This access may need to meet ADA requirements, including an ADA accessible dumpster. Applicant Response: The sidewalk has been extended along the westerly side of the parking lot to the trash/recycling structure. A crosswalk and striping has been added for access to the trash/recycling structure from east. Updated Comment: This comment has been addressed Comments on Landscaping 1. No comments from City Arborist 2. “Base price for concrete” is not permitted to be included in your required minimum landscaping budget. With that line item excluded, the minimum required landscaping budget is not met for Phase 1. Applicant Response: Please see the updated landscaping budget exhibit. The base price of concrete has been removed. The budget reflects the updates to plans and details as shown on the revised landscape set. The overall landscaping budget exceeds the minimal requirement, although more advantageous improvements shown in phases 1 and 3 are proposed to offset a deficit for the minimum budget requirement in phase 2. The Applicant is willing to provide a letter of credit for the full landscaping budget for all three buildings with the zoning permit application for the first building (Building A1). Updated comment: To what is “specialty concrete” referring? There is already a line item for concrete walls. The applicant has not provided sufficient landscaping budget for Phase 2. This is not permitted. The applicant must shift some of the required landscaping from Phase 2 to Phase 3. Could most of the rain garden amenity be included in Phase 2? The revised tree size in the pocket plaza may affect the deficiency. Applicant Response: The "specialty concrete" will consist of stamped concrete with integral color. Colors and stamp patterns are to be coordinated with the final architectural plans. The hardscape areas being called out as specialty concrete can be found on landscape sheet L1.1. Building Comments 1. What is the height and screening / treatment for elevator towers? Applicant Response: No elevator towers are proposed, as elevator access to the roof is not proposed. The top of the elevator does extend above the roofline by 2’-3’, and is typically covered with the roof membrane material. The height of the elevator projection above the rooftop is reflected in the rooftop visibility and solar ready exhibit. Updated comment: This response has been incorporated into the draft decision. BES Comments All Buildings 1. Clarification needed as to which windows the provided window details on architectural sheet “A00 – Window Jamb Sheet” apply. 15 Applicant Response: Only regulated façade, including the windows facing the plaza Updated comment: This comment has been addressed 2. Must remove signs and placeholder signs from architectural plans Applicant Response: Only the Rendering plans have signage shown. The Renderings are for discussion purposes only, to provide an artist’s rendition of the building’s appearance. The Renderings were not intended to be part of the regulated plan set. Updated comment: This comment has been addressed 267 Market Street 1. For secondary façade, I am measuring first floor height as 14 – 15’, but self-certification says 16’. Please confirm. Applicant Response: The commercial portion of the building near Market Street has a level 1 elevation of 99’ and a level 2 elevation of 115’. The residential portion of the building has a level 1 elevation of 101’ and a level 2 elevation of 115’. Updated comment: This is not what is shown on the plan sheet A02 revised 3/23/2023. Applicant Response: See highlighted elevations below from sheets A02 & A09 16 2. The stated length of each transect zone is inconsistent between architectural and civil drawings and therefore I cannot calculate composite required frontage buildout or related requirements. Applicant Response: See Overall Site Plan (sheet 1) for Building Envelope Standards-Frontage Build-out. Architectural plan dimensions are straight line distances along the building façade, and do not account for additional length due to curved ROW frontage. Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 3. For secondary façade, please provide diagram showing maximum distance between non- residential first story public entrances. I measured as 60’, but self-certification says 58’-5”. Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 4. For secondary façade, requirement for non-hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard to be predominantly planted with groundcover or flowering vegetation is not met. Applicant Response: Plantings along secondary facades will be revised to increase area of groundcover or flowering vegetation in lieu of lawn area. Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 5. Trees on Garden Street have been omitted. Please clarify or correct. Applicant Response: Trees along Garden Street will be shown for context but will be noted as provided under separate contract (street & utility construction) Updated comment: Whose contract this is under is not relevant to approval; streetscape must be improved as part of this site plan approval pursuant to LDR 8.04(A)(2)(b). Applicant Response: Understood – the note was to indicate that the Garden St street trees were already subject to a zoning permit and surety. 17 6. For secondary façade, please demonstrate % of glazing for upper stories on a transect zone by transect zone basis. See Building Requirements – Secondary Façade, sheets A06 & A07 Updated comment: I measure far smaller upper story façade (4620 sf in T5 and 5954 sf in T4) for each zoning district than is provided on sheet A06. Please check calculations of both façade area and glazing area. Applicant Response: The elevation shown on sheet A06 is not to scale, and cannot be used for measurement due to the angle in the building façade. 225 Market Street 1. For secondary façade, the applicant self certification states that 93% of the frontage buildout is within the primary build-to-zone. Please confirm. Applicant Response: T5 secondary façade primary build-to zone = 9’ required frontage build-out within primary build-to zone = 75% 175.8' building within primary build-to zone / 191.4' frontage build-out = 91.8% Updated comment: The farthest distance I am measuring at any point on the façade within the T5 is 7.5’. What portion of the secondary facade is more than 9’ from the property line? Applicant Response: See highlighted portion of building façade, which is greater than 9 feet from the property line 2. Street tree spacing on planned public street is 35’, 30’ spacing is required. Applicant Response: Plans have been revised to space street trees at 30’ as required. Updated Comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 18 3. For secondary façade, please demonstrate % of glazing for upper stories on a transect zone by transect zone basis. Applicant Response: See Building Requirements – Secondary Façade, sheet A05 Updated comment: I believe the labels for this table on Sheet A05 are swapped. Assuming that, I estimate far smaller upper story façade (4,464 sf in T5 and 1,210 sf in T4) for each zoning district than is provided on sheet A05. Please check calculations of both façade area and glazing area. Applicant Response: The labels on sheet A05 have been corrected. 113 Garden Street 1. The stated length of each transect zone is inconsistent between architectural and civil drawings and therefore I cannot calculate composite required frontage buildout or related requirements. Applicant Response: See Overall Site Plan (sheet 1) for Building Envelope Standards-Frontage Build-out. Architectural plan dimensions are straight line distances along the building façade, and do not account for additional length due to curved ROW frontage. Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 2. Please provide diagram illustrating percentage of frontage buildout within the primary build-to- zone Applicant Response: Required frontage build-out within primary build-to zone = 75% 187.1’ / 217.1’ = 86% primary zone build-out Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision. 3. For secondary façade, requirement for non-hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard to be predominantly planted with groundcover or flowering vegetation is not met. Applicant Response: Plantings along secondary facades have been revised to increase area of groundcover or flowering vegetation in lieu of lawn area. Updated Comment: This comment has been addressed. 4. Trees on Garden Street have been omitted. Please clarify or correct. 19 Applicant Response: Trees along Garden Street will be shown for context but will be noted as provided under separate contract (Garden Street – street & utility construction). Updated comment: Whose contract this is under is not relevant to approval; streetscape must be improved as part of this site plan approval pursuant to LDR 8.04(A)(2)(b). Applicant Response: Understood – the note was to indicate that the Garden St street trees were already subject to a zoning permit and surety. 5. Note 2(e) is outdated on the applicant self-certification. Please provide a % transparency for upper story glazing. Applicant Response: See Building Requirements – Primary Façade, sheet A03 Updated comment: Comment addressed and incorporated into draft decision.