HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SP-24-001_403 Queen City Park Rd_CWD#SP-24-001
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-24-001_403 Queen City Park Rd_CWD_ffd_DRB.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: December 27, 2023
Plans received: December 5, 2023
403 Queen City Park Road – Champlain Water District
Site Plan Application #SP-24-01
Meeting date: January 3, 2024
Owner
Champlain Water District
403 Queen City Park Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
Champlain Water District
403 Queen City Park Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax IDs 1430-00403 & 1430-00503
Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District, Possible
Class II Wetland Overlay, River Corridor Overlay, 100-
year Floodplain & Special Flood Hazard Area.
Engineer
Dufrense Group
56 Main Street, Suite 200
Springfield, VT 05156
Location Map
#SP-24-001
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan application #SP-24-001 of Champlain Water District to amend a previously approved plan for a
municipal water treatment plant. The amendment consists of replacing an existing 1-million-gallon
water tank with a new 1-million-gallon water tank and associated sitework & stormwater system
modifications, 403 Queen City Park Road.
CONTEXT
The applicant and property owner, Champlain Water District, serves South Burlington, Shelburne,
Williston, Essex, and Colchester but is a separate municipality with an independent municipal charter.
Champlain Water District owns land throughout these communities and occasionally develops that land
with new or renovated buildings and structures that are required for water treatment. The current
application includes the demolition of an existing 1-million-gallon tank, the construction of a new 1-
million-gallon tank, the creation of paved and other impervious surface on the site, and the construction
of a communications tower and small communications building on the site to enable the sending of
radio frequencies between this property and other nearby properties owned by Champlain Water
District, including the Champlain Water District water towers on Dorset Street and Harbor Ridge Road.
This application requires DRB review because it involves the alteration of an approved site plan,
including the expansion of an existing parking lot, and more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious
surfaces.
This application involves the construction of a structure of height exceeding the maximum height
standards for the subject zoning district, and a discussion of how best to apply the minimum landscaping
budget to a property owner/applicant such as Champlain Water District, which owns relatively little land
and has a relatively limited purpose & scope that does not include aesthetics.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Marty Gillies, hereafter referred to as ‘Staff’, have
reviewed the plans submitted on 12/8/2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for
Board review are in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
C1-R15 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 605,484 No Change
Max. Building Height 5 stories (up to 76 ft) 48.6 ft 48.6 ft
Max. Building Coverage 40% 9.96% 9.97%
Max. Overall Coverage 70% 28.1% 29.2%
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Not Provided No Change
Min. Front Setback 30 ft Not Provided No Change
Min. Side Setback 10 ft Not Provided No Change
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft Not Provided No Change
#SP-24-001
3
The applicant has not provided elevations or an estimated height for the proposed communications
building; however, they have communicated to Staff that the building is proposed to be quite small.
Staff considers that the maximum elevation for an accessory structure in this zoning district is 15 feet.
1. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to provide the height for the proposed
communications building.
The applicant is also proposing to construct a 70.5’ communications tower with a 10’ lightning rod on
the site, the total elevation of which is 80.5’ and apparently in excess of the maximum height for
principal structures in the subject zoning district. However, the definition of ‘Height’ in the LDRs
exempts minor rooftop apparatus from the height calculation of a building, and provides the following
examples of what constitutes a minor rooftop apparatus: “solar collectors, chimneys, elevator and
mechanical penthouses, air conditioning equipment, satellite dishes, and similar apparatus that project
from the roof”. If the Board finds a lightning rod to be a minor rooftop apparatus, the communications
tower would then have a building height of 70.5’. That height is less than the maximum height of 76’
theoretically allowed by the 5-story height maximum in this Zoning District. The 76’ maximum is
calculated using Article 3.07.B(3)(b), which states that story height in the C1-R15 zoning district is not to
exceed 20 feet for first stories and 14 feet for upper stories. If the Board finds that a lightning rod is a
‘Larger Rooftop Apparatus’ (examples given in the LDRs include “steeples, spires, towers, water tanks,
radio and television antennas”), Article 3.07.D(1) allows the Board to permit that apparatus as a
Conditional Use, which would require a supplemental application form and fee from the applicant, and
would require a second warned hearing.
2. Staff recommends that the Board discuss whether the 10-foot lightning rod is a ‘minor rooftop
apparatus’ or a ‘larger rooftop apparatus’. If determined to be a ‘larger rooftop apparatus’, Staff
recommends the Board direct the applicant to pay an additional fee and submit all necessary additional
materials for a Conditional Use review.
Finally, Staff notes that the applicant has submitted application materials that suggest the consolidation
of the lots addressed 403 Queen City Park Road and 503 Queen City Park Road. The City of South
Burlington’s online City Map Viewer is a planning tool and not an official record, but it suggests that
those two parcels, while both owned by Champlain Water District, are distinct. If the two parcels are in
fact distinct and separate parcels, then the parcels’ lot lines and side setbacks would apply to this
project and potentially impact this project’s level of compliance with side setback regulations or other
dimensional standards.
3. Staff recommends that the Board ask the applicant to describe the history of the 503 Queen City Park
Road parcel and its status today.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. 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 DRB shall consider the following.
Staff considers the proposed structures relate to the structures presently located on the site and
are essential for the use of the property, which is municipal water treatment. The applicant is able
to provide ‘adequate planting’ as part of this application and thereby meet the minimum landscape
#SP-24-001
4
budget requirement of 13.04.G(3) below, but future planned improvements to this site may test
this property’s ability to accommodate ‘adequate planting’. This situation is discussed in greater
detail under 13.04.G(3).
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along
the street.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the
street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s
existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
Staff noticed that the existing staircase behind the water tank to be demolished was
alternatively labeled on various plan sheets as ‘to be replaced’ and ‘to be removed’.
4. Staff considers that the status of this staircase has only a marginal impact on site
walkability but nonetheless recommends that the Board require the applicant to clarify
whether the staircase is proposed to be replaced or removed, and update the plans
accordingly as a condition of approval.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
(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 applicant is proposing to expand the existing parking area into the area behind the
principal building on the property which will be made available via the demolition of the
existing 1-million-gallon water tank. The new parking area is located to the rear of the
building and does not face a public street on either side of the property. Staff 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 proposed water storage tank will be 47 feet tall and will have a maximum elevation that
is identical to the existing water storage tank. It will also be located directly behind the
existing water tank. The proposed communications tower will be 70.5’ with a 10’ lightning
rod on the top, for a maximum height of 80.5’ feet. Staff considers these building forms and
functions to be compatible with the existing use of the site and to the existing development
on the site.
B. 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),
#SP-24-001
5
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.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of
development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations,
position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached
building types.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural
features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular
architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including
side and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
Staff considers the proposed water storage tank, communications building, and communications
tower all relate to the existing structures on the site in form and in function, as all three are
essential for the function of this site as a municipal water treatment facility.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
Site amenities are required for additions exceeding 5,000 sf to non-residential structures. This
requirement is not applicable.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Environmental Protection Standards
All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental
Protection Standards.
The proposed development is not taking place within the portions of the property which are within the
River Corridor or the 100-year Floodplain & Special Flood Hazard Area. As such, the proposed
development will not impact any Natural Resources or Environmental Hazards, so no changes affecting
compliance with Environmental Protection Standards are proposed.
B. Site Design Features.
All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking and
loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable
standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
Staff considers these criteria to be met. The future of landscaping on this site is discussed in greater
detail in 13.04.G(3) below.
C. Access and Circulation.
#SP-24-001
6
D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)]
E. Building Form.
Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design Overlay District, and
other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards contained
therein.
These standards are not applicable to this project.
F. Streetscape Improvements.
A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds
listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or
Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts,
and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street
Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
This standard is applicable to this project – however, the existing streetscape meets City standards and
therefore no upgrade or improvement is necessary.
G. 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.
As part of approval for Site Plan application #SP-20-028, the Board found that no further reservation of
land for inter-lot access was necessary. Conditions that would impact this property’s compliance with
this standard have not changed since that approval and therefore Staff considers this criterion to
continue to be met.
H. 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.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
No modifications to utility lines or other service connections are proposed.
I. 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 (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced
or screened.
This standard requires that all dumpsters be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque
fencing. The applicant has not identified any dumpsters on the submitted plans.
5. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to identify any dumpsters on the plan sheets and
testify how the dumpster screening requirements will be met as part of this application. Any necessary
plan modification can likely be incorporated as a condition of approval.
#SP-24-001
7
SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
A. Purpose
B. Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family
dwelling, all off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be
curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as
approved by the Development Review Board.
The applicant is proposing to add 7 parking spaces in the footprint of the water tank proposed to be
demolished and three to the west of that water tank, bringing the total number of parking spaces in the
rear of the property to 28 and the number of contiguous parking spaces in that portion of the parking
area to 21. The parking area is proposed to be curbed. No landscaping is proposed to be installed.
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.
No perimeter plantings are proposed in the proposed off-street parking area. Although this
parking lot area does not serve the public and is not visible from the public way, the benefits of
shade and canopy for parked cars still do apply to this parking area.
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.
The proposed expansion of the parking area will bring the total number of contiguous parking
spaces in this lot to 21 – as this is less than 28, this criterion does not apply.
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.
As noted above, the applicant is not proposing any perimeter plantings and has not
specified any species of plant to be installed.
(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.
The applicant is proposing to add a total of 10 parking spaces to a rear parking area that
is proposed to be re-surfaced and re-striped. These 10 parking spaces require the
provision of 2 major deciduous shade trees.
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how this criterion will
#SP-24-001
8
be met. The applicant can identify major deciduous shade trees that exist in proximity to
this parking are which are proposed to be retained, propose to relocate existing major
deciduous shade trees from elsewhere on the site to the edge of the parking area, or
propose to install new major deciduous shade trees.
(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.
As noted previously, the applicant has not proposed any trees to be planted around the
perimeter of this parking area.
7) 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.
The applicant has not included snow storage areas on the plans.
7. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to describe the proposed location for
snow storage and, as a condition of approval, identify all snow storage areas on the plan sheets.
C. Screening or Buffering
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses
This criterion applies only to the front yards of non-residential and multi-family uses along designated
arterial and collector streets – Queen City Park Road is neither an arterial nor a collector street, so this
criterion does not apply.
E. Site Restoration
F. Landscaping Plan
G. Landscaping Standards
(1) The Development Review Board shall require compliance with any Tree Ordinance or
Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the
effective date of these regulations.
(2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan.
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements
The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans, as
shown in Table 13-4 below. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a landscaping
budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first $250,000
in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or
improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000.
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
$0 - $250,000 3%
Next $250,000 2%
Additional over $500,000 1%
The applicant is proposing to resurface existing pavement, create additional pavement, create
an impervious stone apron surface, and construct a water tank, a communications tower, and a
small communications building. Table 13-4 specifies that the minimum landscaping budget is
#SP-24-001
9
calculated based on the total building construction and improvement costs. Any project costs
that are not associated with construction or improvement of buildings is not required to be
reflected in the landscaping budget. The applicant has therefore only included the cost of
constructing the communications building and has not included the costs of paving, water tank
construction, or communications tower construction for the purposes of calculating the
minimum landscaping budget. The minimum landscaping budget for this project is therefore
calculated as 3% of $20,000 (which is the cost associated with the construction of the
communications building) for a total of $600 in required plantings. The applicant is proposing to
install three 10’ arborvitaes on the property, which each have a cost of $300, for a total
provided landscaping budget of $900. The applicant is not required to bond for this amount, as
Article 17.15.B(1)(a) exempts development with a total landscaping budget requirement of
$2,000 or less from the bonding requirement.
While the applicant was able to include the required amount of landscaping on the site to meet
the minimum landscape budget for this application, the applicant has expressed concern about
their ability to meet this requirement for future projects, which may include multi-million dollar
expansions to the buildings on site and/or the addition of new buildings, both of which would
require tens of thousands of dollars of landscaping to be installed. The applicant’s primary
concerns include that finding space throughout the site to dedicate to plantings could interfere
with the function of the site, which is municipal water treatment; and that the front yard is
already landscaped to the point that no more plantings are feasible in that area.
8. Staff recommends the Board discuss the future of landscaping at this and other CWD sites in
South Burlington with the applicant. Staff recommends that this conversation include a
discussion of the factors that limit the applicant’s ability to provide landscaping on site and a
discussion of the location and type of projects/improvements the Board might accept as a
substitute for on-site landscaping.
For example, does CWD have the opportunity to do something akin to the Airport’s pre-approved
overall landscaping plan which allows them to construct, in pieces as landscaping budgets
permit, a recreation path on Airport-owned lands that are separate and distinct from the lands
on which the landscaping budget is required? Staff considers that both the Airport and CWD are
publicly owned, for public benefit, and are subject to external regulation that limits the ways in
which landscaping features can be incorporated on site. Staff therefore considers that it is
appropriate to consider alternative approaches to compliance for both uses.
Would the Board accept installations of bus shelters or infrastructure necessary for installation
of crosswalks to count towards the landscaping budget? What about financial contributions
towards ongoing projects that are within a certain distance from the subject property or other
property owner by Champlain Water District?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board review the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner
CITY OF BURLINGTON
CITY OF SOUTH BURLIN
G
T
O
N
NEW 1.0 MG PRECAST-PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE FILTERED WATER
STORAGE TANK
EX. RAW WATER
STORAGE
EX. MAINTENANCE
GARAGE
EX
.
D
R
Y
I
N
G
B
E
D
EX
.
D
R
Y
I
N
G
B
E
D
EXISTING
LAGOON
QUEEN CITY PARK
R
O
A
D
PI
N
E
S
T
TO INDUSTRIAL PA
R
K
W
A
Y
TO ROUT
E
7
EXISTING PETER L. JACOB
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF LANDS OWNED
BY CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT
EXISTING 1.0 MG
FILTERED WATER
STORAGE TANK,
TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING 1.0 MG
FILTERED WATER
STORAGE TANK
PAVEMENT RESURFACING
APPROXIMATELY 750 SF OF
PAVEMENT EXPANSION
PROPOSED STONE APRON
STAIRS TO BE REPLACED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
(0.85 ACRES)
APPROXIMATE EASEMENT
FROM DRAWING DATED 4/12/72 AND 3/3/89
FOR GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER RIGHT OF WAY
APPROXIMATE VELCO RIGHT OF WAY
FROM DRAWING DATED 1/7/08
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY
FROM DRAWING DATED 10/28/99
GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER
PROPERTY LINE
POTASH BROOK
APPROXIMATE SLOPE EASEMENT
FROM DRAWING DATED 3/3/89
APPROXIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
FOR RAW WATER MAIN
FROM UNDATED DRAWING
TITLED FILTER PLANT
TOPOGRAPHIC LOCATION BY
PAULSEN ASSOCIATES
APPROXIMATE RIGHT OF WAY
FROM DRAWING DATED
7/26/2000
NEW COMMUNICATIONS
TOWER AND BUILDING
FIG 1
1
GE
N
E
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
L
A
Y
O
U
T
T.P.KNAPP
T.P. KNAPP
T.P. KNAPP
AS SHOWN
R.N. GOODWIN
SHEET OF
Drawn by
Approved by
Scale
Date
Project #
Design by
Project Mgr.
Suite 200, 56 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
E-mail: info@dufresnegroup.com
Web: www.dufresnegroup.com
● ● ●
Springfield, VT ● Tel: (802) 674-2904 Fax: (802) 674-2913
Barre, VT ● Tel: (802) 479-3698
St. Johnsbury, VT ● Tel: (802) 748-8605
Manchester, VT ● Tel: (802) 768-8291
● ● ●
Dufresne Group is owned by Dufresne & Associates, PC
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
BY
Reviewed by
DUFRESNE GROUP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1
4190026
T.P. KNAPP
CH
A
M
P
L
A
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SO
U
T
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
V
T
SO
U
T
H
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
T
A
N
K
JULY 2022
SUBMITTAL
LOCAL ZONING
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 160804040
8.
9
.
2
0
2
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
S
A
N
D
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
S
A
D
D
E
D
MJ
O
/
T
P
K
QUEEN CITY PAR
K
R
D
.
CITY OF BURLINGTO
N
CITY OF SOUTH BU
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
NEW 1.0 MG FILTERED
WATER STORAGE TANK
FLOOR ELEV: 174.8'
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
SHEET OF
Drawn by
Approved by
Scale
Date
Project #
Design by
Project Mgr.
Suite 200, 56 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
E-mail: info@dufresnegroup.com
Web: www.dufresnegroup.com
● ● ●
Springfield, VT ● Tel: (802) 674-2904 Fax: (802) 674-2913
Barre, VT ● Tel: (802) 479-3698
St. Johnsbury, VT ● Tel: (802) 748-8605
Manchester, VT ● Tel: (802) 768-8291
● ● ●
Dufresne Group is owned by Dufresne & Associates, PC
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
BY
Reviewed by
DUFRESNE GROUP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
12
4190026
T.P. KNAPP
CH
A
M
P
L
A
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SO
U
T
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
V
T
SO
U
T
H
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
T
A
N
K
OCT 2023
% DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUBMITTAL
100 C1
2
SI
T
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
,
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
P
L
A
N
,
AN
D
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
T.P. KNAPP
K.S. MENEES
T.P.KNAPP
AS SHOWN
R.N. GOODWIN
NOTES:PROPOSED SITE PLAN
QUEEN CITY PAR
K
R
D
.
NEW 1.0 MG FILTERED
WATER STORAGE TANK
FLOOR ELEV: 174.8'
SHEET OF
Drawn by
Approved by
Scale
Date
Project #
Design by
Project Mgr.
Suite 200, 56 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
E-mail: info@dufresnegroup.com
Web: www.dufresnegroup.com
● ● ●
Springfield, VT ● Tel: (802) 674-2904 Fax: (802) 674-2913
Barre, VT ● Tel: (802) 479-3698
St. Johnsbury, VT ● Tel: (802) 748-8605
Manchester, VT ● Tel: (802) 768-8291
● ● ●
Dufresne Group is owned by Dufresne & Associates, PC
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
BY
Reviewed by
DUFRESNE GROUP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
15
4190026
T.P. KNAPP
CH
A
M
P
L
A
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SO
U
T
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
V
T
SO
U
T
H
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
T
A
N
K
OCT 2023
% DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUBMITTAL
100 L1
5
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T.P. KNAPP
K.S. MENEES
T.P.KNAPP
AS SHOWN
R.N. GOODWIN
NOTES:
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN
CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
TANK SECTION & ELEVATION
WALL SECTION 1
S1
TYPICAL TANK WALL PRESTRESS
SECTION DETAIL
S1
6
T.P.KNAPP
K.S. MENEES
T.P.KNAPP
AS SHOWN
R.N. GOODWIN
PR
E
C
A
S
T
P
R
E
S
T
R
E
S
S
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
WA
T
E
R
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
T
A
N
K
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
PLAN
SHEET OF
Drawn by
Approved by
Scale
Date
Project #
Design by
Project Mgr.
Suite 200, 56 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
E-mail: info@dufresnegroup.com
Web: www.dufresnegroup.com
● ● ●
Springfield, VT ● Tel: (802) 674-2904 Fax: (802) 674-2913
Barre, VT ● Tel: (802) 479-3698
St. Johnsbury, VT ● Tel: (802) 748-8605
Manchester, VT ● Tel: (802) 768-8291
● ● ●
Dufresne Group is owned by Dufresne & Associates, PC
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
BY
Reviewed by
DUFRESNE GROUP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
12
4190026
T.P. KNAPP
CH
A
M
P
L
A
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SO
U
T
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
V
T
SO
U
T
H
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
T
A
N
K
OCT 2023
% DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUBMITTAL
100
EXISTING 1.0 MG
FILTERED WATER
STORAGE TANK
FLOOR ELEV: 174.8'
OVERFLOW ELEV: 211.9'
NOM. DIA: 67.2'
PROPOSED 1.0 MG FILTERED
WATER STORAGE TANK
FLOOR ELEV: 174.8'
OVERFLOW ELEV: 211.9'
NOM. DIA: 67.2'
PROPOSED 1.0 MG FILTERED
WATER STORAGE TANK
FLOOR ELEV: 174.8'
OVERFLOW ELEV: 211.9'
NOM. DIA: 67.2'
SHEET OF
Drawn by
Approved by
Scale
Date
Project #
Design by
Project Mgr.
Suite 200, 56 Main Street
Springfield, Vermont 05156
E-mail: info@dufresnegroup.com
Web: www.dufresnegroup.com
● ● ●
Springfield, VT ● Tel: (802) 674-2904 Fax: (802) 674-2913
Barre, VT ● Tel: (802) 479-3698
St. Johnsbury, VT ● Tel: (802) 748-8605
Manchester, VT ● Tel: (802) 768-8291
● ● ●
Dufresne Group is owned by Dufresne & Associates, PC
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
BY
Reviewed by
DUFRESNE GROUP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
12
4190026
T.P. KNAPP
CH
A
M
P
L
A
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SO
U
T
H
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
V
T
SO
U
T
H
F
I
L
T
E
R
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
T
A
N
K
OCT 2023
% DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SUBMITTAL
100 C2
2
SI
T
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
,
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
P
L
A
N
,
AN
D
S
I
T
E
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
T.P. KNAPP
K.S. MENEES
T.P.KNAPP
AS SHOWN
R.N. GOODWIN
NOTES:
SITE SECTION 1
SITE SECTION 2
CIP RETAINING WALL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD
DRAWING NO.:
DATE:
RETAINING WALL NEAR LOADING DOCK
CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT
1
SEPT 2023
#5 BARS @ 12" O.C.
BOTH WAYS
34" CRUSHED
STONE BEDDING
MIN. 12" THICK
UNDER CIP WALL
CLASS "B" CONCRETE
NOTES:
1. CIP RETAINING WALL SHALL CURE FOR A MINUMUM OF 7 DAYS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
2. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL MEET ASTM A615, 60 KSI YIELD GRADE, DEFORMED BILLET
STEEL BARS. STIRRUP STEEL SHALL MEET ASTM A82. TIE WIRE SHALL BE MINIMUM 16
GAGE ANNEALED TYPE.
3. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL EXISTING VERTICAL AND
HORIZONTAL PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SURFACES THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH NEW
PAVEMENT.
1-1/2" TYPE III BITUMINOUS
CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.)
2-1/2" TYPE II
BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
PAVEMENT (TYP.)
FINE CRUSHED
GRAVEL
VAOT 704.05A
(TYP.)
12" MIN.(TYP.)
12" (MIN)
30" (MAX.)
6"
34"
TO BE ROUNDED ON A
12" RADIUS (TYP.)
3" (TYP.)
24"
8"
12"
UNDISTURBED
MATERIAL
TOP OF WALL ELEVATION
TAPERS DOWN FROM 178.5'
AT NORTH END TO 176.7' AT
SOUTH END