Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 10/07/2014 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 October 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Davis, S. Fahim, Design Review Committee; D. Marshall, G. Rabideau, R. Jeffers, D. Rice, M. Robertson, S. Swanson, D. Hoar, B. Hoar, V. Hunt, P. Simon, J. Mack, K. McFarland 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Announcements: Mr. Barritt informed members of the resignation of Art Klugo from the Board. He invited interested members of the community to apply for the open seat. Mr. Barritt also noted the presence of Design Review Board members to participate in design review applications. 3. Design Review Application #DR-14-09 of Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC, for after-the-face approval of architectural alterations to both buildings and proposed alterations to paint vent stacks, 200 Dorset Street & 59 Garden Street: Mr. Simon said they are seeking approval of final construction elements. He noted the vent stacks are located on top of Healthy Living and Trader Joe’s and are there due to a change to gas heating unit. The plan is to use colors that match the building style, rust for Healthy Living and charcoal grey for Trader Joe’s. Mr. Simon said he personally would prefer them to be stainless steel grey. They are also seeking approval for the location of gas and electric meters, security lights, and bollards at the northwest corner of Trader Joe’s to protect the gas meter. Mr. Barritt asked about a missing window on the Pier 1 building. Mr. Simon said that when they had a specific tenant they learned they needed an additional staircase to meet the code. There was a conflict with the window, so it wasn’t put in. Mr. Behr explained how the window could have been accommodated even with the staircase. He noted that while this is now on a “rear” side of the building, in the future it will be on a major road in City Center, and the missing window makes it look like a “service side” of the building. He said he would advocate for the window being put in. Mr. Davis said symmetry isn’t always necessary. He added that he had never noticed anything was missing. He suggested some possible “way‐finding” signage as he wasn’t sure the window was necessary. Mr. Wilking said the applicant should have come to the Board before omitting the window, as this “throws the approval out at some level.” He said he could live without the window, but he felt the process was “disrespectful.” Members then discussed the bollards and the utility meters. Mr. Belair read from the regulations indicating that the applicant should “minimize visibility from the street.” They should be part of the building, not an afterthought. Mr. Barritt suggested a little screening in front of them, something to match the fencing. Mr. Behr agreed. Members also discussed a gas pipe at the base of the rear of the building. Mr. Simon said there is no room for screening. Mr. Davis suggested painting it to blend in with the concrete. Members were OK with stainless steel on the vent stacks. Mr. Belair noted the regulations require them to be screened. Mr. Simon said they have an urban feel and anything you do to make them larger will just draw attention to them. Mr. Barritt stressed the Board’s displeasure with “after‐the‐fact” changes. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-14-09. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Continued Master Signage Permit application #DR-14-07 of Larkin Tarrant and Hoehl for approval to amend previously approved Master Signage Permit #DR-07-02 to accommodate signs for the new hotel under construction, 5 Dorset Street: Mr. Rabideau said the application includes building-mounted signs, a pedestal mounted sign and miscellaneous small signs. New signs will include two large building-mounted signs in front, one on each side. They will be white background and will be internally lit. Smaller signs will be directional and informational (e.g., “no smoking”). On the Comfort Inn, there will be one building-mounted sign and the pedestal-mounted sign. Mr. Behr said any new signage for Comfort Inn would have to come to the Board if it deviates from the Master Signage Permit. Members were OK with the plan. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-14-07. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Design Review Application #DR-14-08 of Val Hunt for after-the-fact approval to eliminate the requirement that siding be installed on the new wall approved under design review approval #DR-13-03, 340 Dorset Street: Ms. Hunt said there were limitations because of building construction and also a potential problem with ice coming off the building. The carpenter said there was not enough room to build out without changing all the posts. Mr. Barritt said the sign covers part of the windows and there is a question as to whether it meets the standards. Ms. Hunt suggested adding trim to make it look better. Mr. Davis said that would just make it stand out more. Ms. Fahim suggested making the sign smaller. Mr. Behr advocated for the original picture where you can see the top of the window. Ms. Hunt asked if they can just trim it around to look like the top of the window. Mr. Davis said that was OK, but he still didn’t think it should be done. Mr. Barritt felt it would look better than what is there new. He felt the effect on the bottom should be repeated on top. Mr. Belair suggested having the applicant provide a plan for what is going to be done. Mr. Behr said it should include the materials to be used. Mr. Miller moved to continue #DR-14-08 to 21 October 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a previously approved plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road: Brian Hoar said they will be adding a storage and display parking lot in the rear of the property. It meets the requirements for runoff. He noted that Public Works asked to make the detention pond larger. It is all grassy, and Mr. Hoar said they might want to use that area in the future. Mr. Hoar said they don’t agree with having to screen the dumpsters. One is hidden by a hedgerow and is close to where parts delivery trucks back in. The other is hidden from Shelburne Road and is near doors that are used all the time. Mr. Belair read from the regulations regarding screening “with opaque fencing.” Mr. Barritt said there is no choice and suggested some very small wooden screening. Members were unanimous in requiring screening. Mr. Barritt asked the applicant to reconsider the request to enlarge the stormwater area. Mr. Hoar said they meet all state requirements. Douglas Hoar added that all the water flows south and west. Mr. Behr noted the entire parking lot to the north is just sheet flow. Douglas Hoar said that won’t be helped by expanding the pond. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-14-25. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC, to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street: The applicants indicated they have tried to be proactive with abutters and have listened to their concerns. They are also trying to be as innovative as possible. They provided the Board with plans of several concepts they considered before arriving at the current plan. Applicants indicated the 3-lot subdivision meets the regulations and includes a private drive. They noted staff concern as to whether this qualifies as a PUD. It maintains low impact design with a narrow drive. Many of the outstanding natural features, including an apple orchard and mature maples, will be preserved as much as possible. The applicants suggested the Board visit the site. Applicants noted that neighbors’ concerns mainly had to do with stormwater. They hope to come up with a plan that helps address existing water issues. There is a culvert under the east side of Spear Street. This outfalls directly onto the abutters. The hope is to work with the city and abutters to make it better; they won’t make it worse. Applicants noted that part of the property is in an R-1 zone and part in R-2. They need to go into the R-1 zone to get the fullest potential in R-2. That’s why they are asking for a PUD. Mr. Barritt said he had a problem seeing a PUD here. Messrs. Rice, Robertson, Swanson, Mack and McFarland all expressed concern with stormwater issues and flooding that occurs on their properties. Mr. Mack said he preferred the drive be on the north side of the property to avoid damaging his trees. He also noted some covenants the applicant may have to deal with and the requirement he had to put in sprinklers because they are on a private road. The applicant asked if instead of a private drive they could do a reduced city street. Mr. Belair said that is possible but would have to be approved by Public Works. He noted that if the existing house were torn down, they wouldn’t need a public street as the regulations allow up to 3 units on a private street. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-23 until 21 October 2014. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-26 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a three phase, 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of subdividing three duplex lots (#39, 39A, & 40) into two triplex lots, 69, 73, 83, 87, 95, and 101 South Jefferson Road: Ms. Jeffers noted these were originally triplex lots and a builder wanted duplexes. There is now a new builder who wants the triplex arrangement. The design remains the same. Members were OK with the plan. 9. Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-07 of Grandview Fame, Inc., for after-the-fact approval to place 3,800 cubic yards of fill on an undeveloped lot, 596 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked to continue to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MS-14-07 to 21 October 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-08 of Northeast Territories, Inc., for after-the-fact approval to place 5,800 cubic yards of fill on an undeveloped lot, 39 Bowdoin Street: Mr. Marshall said there are three buildings under construction in the immediate vicinity. There is silt fencing up. Mr. Belair reminded the applicant that the grade will be listed at the pre-fill level. Mr. Marshall said he understood that. Mr. Miller moved to close #MS-14-08. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes: No minutes were presented for review. 12. Other Business: Mr. Belair advised members of a Vermont League of Cities and Towns workshop for planning and zoning. Interested members can attend at city expense. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. Clerk October 21, 2014, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment DATE: October 3, 2014 Cc: Paul Simon/White + Burke, Applicant Re: Agenda #3, October 7, 2014 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Design Review Application #DR-14-09 200 Dorset Street Design review application #DR-14-09 of Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC for after-the-fact approval of architectural alterations to both buildings and proposed alterations to paint vent stacks, 200 Dorset Street & 59 Garden Street. The after-the-fact changes summarized below (see details in September 5, 2014 memo from Paul Simon and submitted plans) were made without DRB approval and consequently were not issued a Certificate of Occupancy. These include: Trader Joe’s: ---the installation of exhaust pipes, Knox Box, Strobe, two service light fixtures, key box, security light, fire department connection and an intake vent. ---Also, the plans do not show electric and gas meters. ---The applicant is also seeking approval to add bollards near the northwest corner of the building. Pier 1: ---the installation of Knox Box, Strobe, two security lights, a security sensor, an exhaust vent, a fire department connection and an equipment vent. ---Also, the plans do not show electric and gas meters nor hose bib locations. ---Finally, the south window was removed and the soldier brick course is missing on the east elevation. Also, the applicant is also seeking approval for proposed alterations (also noted in the September 5, 2014 memo and in the submitted plans), namely: Trader Joe’s: ---to paint three stainless steel vent pipes a charcoal color to match the building’s exterior trim work. Healthy Living: ---to paint a ventilation stack pipe a rust color to match the building’s rooftop screening and railing. 2 “As built” design elevations were submitted as part of the application materials, and are included in your packet for review. As always, it is important to consider these changes in context of overall building design, and whether they would have been approved if proposed originally under the LDRs; in other words, not just because the building has already been constructed that way. You are all familiar with the detailed performance standards for design review in this vicinity; this site itself is located in Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay Districts. Generally in this City Center design overlay, issues to consider include the following: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. 1. The Board should discuss whether the design for the east elevation of the Pier 1 building remains compatible with the other sides of the building with the removal of a window and the soldier course. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows.... n/a (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. See (h) below (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. See (a) above (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. 3 (f) Roofs as a design element. n/a (g) Orient buildings to the public street. n/a (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. 2. The three vent pipes on the Trader Joe’s building and the one on the Healthy Living building are not enclosed by walls or parapets nor grouped or screened in a suitable manner. The Board should discuss whether the vent pipes and their proposed colors are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. Staff has reviewed this item with the applicant and fully supports this solution. The proposed painting, staff feels, will allow the pipes to blend in and draw less attention than the current Healthy Living approval for trees. (i) Promote energy efficiency. n/a (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. n/a 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. 5. The Board should discuss whether the utility connections and meters comply with the above design standards. RECOMMENDATION The Board should discuss the issues raised above Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Paul Simon Date: September 5, 2014 Re: Malone, Trader Joe’s– Memo re: Revised Elevation Plans We request the Development Review Board to approve the listed on-site as-built constructed changes to the architectural elevations of the Trader Joe’s building, and the Pier 1 building. Overall the changes include slight differences than what was approved and/or include additional equipment (not previously shown) such as meters, door lighting, ventilation, strobe and knox box equipment for fire department access. We have provided greater detail and specifics on each of the items listed below. We have also provided updated architectural elevations highlighting (red clouds) of the specific items. In addition we request board approval of our proposal to paint ventilation stack piping on Trader Joe’s and Healthy Living buildings. The painting of the stacks is a proposed solution to balance and integrate these appurtenant structures in character with the existing building materials. Photoshop imagery has been provided with this proposed solution. A. Trader Joes 1. Plans do not show electric and Gas Meters. RESPONSE: The final coordination required to locate the gas line and meter occurred during construction, the line and meter location has been added to the plans. 2. An exhaust pipe was installed by the tenant at the north end of the building. In addition, exhaust pipes were installed by the tenant to serve units in both entry vestibules. RESPONSE: Efficiency Vermont coordinated with the tenant during construction to change the original proposed electric vestibule heaters to natural gas heating units. The efficient units require roof-top exhaust piping. Three ventilation stacks have been added to the architectural elevations to ventilate these gas mechanical units and the entry/vestibule space heating units. Page 2 of 4 4. A Knox Box and Strobe were installed at the East Entry. RESPONSE: The Knox Box and Strobe were added per direction of the South Burlington Fire Department. The location of these devices have been added to the architectural elevations. 5. Two service light fixtures were installed by the tenant above the service door. RESPONSE: These wall mounted light fixtures were installed by the tenant above the service door, within the loading area. We understand the light fixtures are used by tenant for delivery purposes in order to safely illuminate delivery access. 6. A key box was installed by the tenant adjacent the man door on the north elevation. RESPONSE: The key box was located and installed at the direction of the South Burlington Fire Department. 7. A security light was added to the north elevation above the man door. RESPONSE: The security light was added above the man door to illuminate the code required egress lighting. 8. The electric meter location was not shown on the plans. RESPONSE: The electric meter location was finalized during construction and the location has now been added to the architectural elevation. 9. A fire department connection has been added to the North elevation. RESPONSE: The location of the Fire Department connection was coordinated with the South Burlington Fire Department. This location is now shown on the architectural elevation. 10. An intake vent has been installed on the north elevation. RESPONSE: An intake vent has been installed by the tenant for interior building equipment ventilation. 11. Bollards added at North West Corner. RESPONSE: For safety purposes we are requesting two bollards be added along the North elevation of the building to protect the gas meter and gas piping from vehicular conflict. Existing View (without bollards) Proposed View (with 2 bollards) Page 3 of 4 B. Pier 1 1. A Knox Box and Strobe were installed at the South Entry RESPONSE: A Knox Box and Strobe were installed per direction of the South Burlington Fire Department. 2. A security light was added to the south elevation above the egress door. RESPONSE: The security light was added above the man door to illuminate the code required egress lighting. 3. A security sensor was installed. RESPONSE: The security sensor was installed by the tenant adjacent the egress door on the east end of the south elevation. 4. The south window on the east elevation was removed. RESPONSE: The south window on the east elevation was removed during the coordination of construction drawings with the tenant layout. The window was in direct conflict with the egress stair. 5. Gas and Electric meter locations not shown on plans. RESPONSE: The final location of gas and electric meters was coordinated during fit-up construction and now shown on the plans. 6. The soldier brick course is missing on the east elevation. RESPONSE: The soldier course on the east elevation was removed in the development of Construction Documents as it does not align with any other elements on the façade. 7. A security light was added to the east elevation above the man door. RESPONSE: A security light was added to the east elevation above the man door to depict the code required egress lighting. 8. Hose bib locations not shown on plans: RESPONSE: Hose bib locations are now shown on the architectural elevations and located as installed. 9. An exhaust vent was installed on the east elevation not shown on plans. RESPONSE: The exhaust vent has been added to the architectural elevations in the location installed. 10. A fire department connection has been added to the North elevation. RESPONSE: The location of the Fire Department connection was coordinated with the South Burlington Fire Department 11. An equipment vent was installed to the north elevation. RESPONSE: An equipment vent was installed adjacent the Fire Department Connection on the north elevation and has been added to the architectural elevations. Page 4 of 4 C. Conceling rooftop devices 1. Concealing rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances. RESPONSE: Both Healthy Living and Trader Joe’s buildings include small stainless steel vent piping protruding above the roof levels. This proposal includes painting of the ventilation pipes so the stacks are “balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building” consistent with article 11 (h) of the city regulations. The Healthy Living stack pipe will be painted a rust color to match the rooftop screening and railing. In addition, the three Trader Joe’s ventilation stack pipes will be painted a charcoal color matching the exterior building trim-work. Photos illustrating this approach are included in JPG format. Existing View Healthy Living Proposed rust color painting Existing View Healthy Living Proposed rust color painting Existing View Healthy Living Proposed rust color painting Existing View Trader Joe’s Proposed trim color painting Existing View Trader Joe’s Proposed trim color painting Existing View Trader Joe’s Proposed trim color painting Existing View Trader Joe’s Proposed trim color painting Existing Gas Meter located North West Corner of Building Proposed bollard protection 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: Agenda #4, Application #DR-14-07 DATE: October 3, 2014 Master Signage Permit application #DR-14-07 of Larkin Tarrant and Hoehl for approval to amend previously approved Master Signage Permit #DR-07-02 to accommodate signs for the new hotel under construction, 5 Dorset Street. Staff has prepared a draft decision for the Board’s consideration in which we have left blank the various findings the Board must make regarding the multiple design review elements, for discussion with the applicant and decision. 68’ - 8”36’ - 7 1/2”SIGN AREA = 25.0 SQ FTAS DETERMINED BY1/2 AREA OF BOUNDING RECTANGLEBUILDING FACADE AREA = 36.625’ X 68.67’ = 2515 SQ FTALLOWED SIGNAGE = 2515 X 15% = 377 SQ FTALLOWED SIGNAGE = 200 SQ FT MAXIMUMALLOWED CUTOUT LETTER SIGNAGE = (200 SQ FT MAXIMUM) / 2 = 100 SQ FTFOR DETAIL DESCRIPTION SEE DRAWINGWALL LOGO EAST SIZINGSCALE: NTSJUNE 13, 2014EAST ELEVATION R2FACING DORSET STREET WALL SIGN AREA = 75.0 SQ FTAS DETERMINED BYHALF AREA OF BOUNDING RECTANGLESIGN AREA = 1.2 SQ FTGELCORE WHITE LED INTERIOR LIT CHANNEL CABINETS EACH WITH ITS OWN POWER SOURCE PENETRATION TO INSIDE WALL CAVITYWITH UNBROKEN POWER RUN FROM EACH CABINET TO REMOTE POWER SUPPLY CABINET DEPTH 5 INCHESRETAINERS AND RETURNS PAINTED DARK BRONZE TO MATCH MATTHEWS 313TRANSLUCENT WHITE PLEXI FACES ( CYRO SG WRT 30 )IMPORTANT NOTE:INTERIOR WALL ACCESS NEEDS TO REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE EXTERIORSIGN ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS ARE COMPLETED AND RUN COMPLETELYTO THE REMOTE TRANSFORMER LOCATED IN THE ATTIC SPACE AT THE UPPERRIGHT IN THE BUILDING SECTION DISPLAYING THE EXTERIOR SIGN. ONLY AFTER THE ELECTRICAL RUNS HAVE BEEN MADE AND LOAD TESTED MAY THE INTERIOR SHEETROCK WALLS BE INSTALLEDTERTIARY ENTRY IDGMD06/13/14NORTH ELEV R6RABIDEAUARCHITECTSHOMEWOOD SUITESNORTH ELEVATIONFACINGWILLISTON RDEXTERIOR WALL SIGN&TERTIARY ENTRY ID3/32” = 1 FOOT# 1502 GMD06/11/14DIRECTIONALIEXTERNAL LIT R1HOMEWOOD SUITESHOMEWOOD SUITESEXTERIORDIRECTIONALSIGNEXTERNAL LITOPTIONQTY = ONE TWO FACED3/4” = 1 FOOT# 16593/4” MDO BACKGROUNDPAINTED DARK BRONZE TO MATCH MATTHEWS # 3131” X 1” FLAT BLACK PAINTED MOLDINGMATTE WHITE VINYL COPY4” X 6” FIR POSTS WITH 3” X 6” FIR BEAMSPAINTED MEDIUM BROWNATTACHED TO PAD WITH BLACK PAINTEDSTEEL & STRAP ASSEMBLYJ-BOXELECTRICAL FEEDJ-BOXJ-BOXELECTRICAL FEED20 1/2”30”21”COPY SIZE = 2 1/4”AREA = 3 SQ FT4”6”3”HOMEWOODSUITESCOMFORTSUITESEXIT TOI-89 ANDBURLINGTONEXIT TODORSET ST.S. BURLINGTONRAB LIGHTINGRFP 38 INCANDESCENT FLOODON CUSTOM GOOSENECK FIXTURE 1/8” ALUMINUM DIBOND PLAQUESPAINTED DARK BRONZE MATCH TO MATTHEWS 313MATTE WHITE VINYL COPYSCREWED THROUGH FACE ONTO EXTERIOR WALL SURFACEOPTION: 1” THICK SIGN FOAM CUTOUT COPY PAINTED FLAT WHITEGMD06/06/14TERTIARYENTRANCE ID R2HOMEWOOD SUITESHOMEWOOD SUITESEXTERIORBUILDING MOUNTEDTERTIARYENTRY IDQTY = ONE EACHTOTAL = 33” = 1 FOOT# 165913”13”COPY SIZE = 10”AREA (EACH)= 1.2 SQ FT GMD06/13/14WALL LOGO EASTSIZING R4RABIDEAUARCHITECTSHOMEWOOD SUITESSIZING FORBUILDING MOUNTEDALUMINUM CHANNELLETTERS & LOGOEAST ELEVATIONFACING DORSET STQTY = ONE ONE FACEDEXTERIOR WALL MOUNT3/4” = 1 FOOT# 15021/2 BOUNDING RECTANGLE SIGN AREA = [(100.65” X 71.63”) / 144 ] / 2 = 25.0 SQ FTREGULATED FORMULAS FOR SIZING PROPORTIONS BY HILTON.040" THK. ALUM. RETURNS with .050" THK. ALUM.CAD CUT BACKS. RETURNS PAINTED 313 DK BRONZE.177" THK. CYRO SG WRT30 WHITE FACESw/ 1" DK. BRONZE JEWELITE RETAINER.GELCORE POWER WHITE L.E.D.'s (2) PER FOOTGELCORE GECLPSPH POWERSUPPLIES (REMOTE BEHIND WALL).5" DEEP CHANNEL LETTERS w/ REMOTE POWER SUPPLIESLETTERS ILLUMINATE WHITE AT NIGHT..080" THK. ALUM. R.O.S.T. CAPSULE FACE and .063" THK.ALUM. RETURNS PAINTED 313 DK. BRONZE SATIN FINISHR.O.S.T. COPY BACKED UP w/ .125" THK. CYRO SG WRT30 WHITE DARK COLOR BUILDING LETTERSH =11”I = 11”11x1.6178 = 17.79”11x 6.5118 = 71.63”11x.4454 = 4.9”11x.4545 = 5.00”11x.381 = 4.19”11x.3026 = 3.23”11x.1.1963 = 13.16”11x.4.3322 = 47.65”11x.9.1503 = 100.65”11x.9.1503 = 100.65”11x.4.9373 = 54.31”11x.1238 = 1.36” GMD06/13/14WALL LOGO NORTHSIZING R4RABIDEAUARCHITECTSHOMEWOOD SUITESSIZING FORBUILDING MOUNTEDALUMINUM CHANNELLETTERS & LOGONORTH ELEVATIONFACING WILLISTON RDQTY = ONE ONE FACEDEXTERIOR WALL MOUNT3/4” = 1 FOOT# 1502SIGN AREA = ONE HALF BOUNDING RECTANGLESIGN AREA = [(173.85” X 124.26”) / 144 ] / 2 = 75.00 SQ FTH =19”I = 19”19x1.6178 = 30.73”124.26”19x.4542 = 8.63”19x.4736 = 9.00”19x.381 = 7.24”19x.3026 = 5.58”19x.1.1963 = 22.73”19x.4.3322 = 82.30”19x.9.1503 = 173.85”19x.4.9373 = 93.81”19x.1238 = 2.35” #DR-14-07 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\WORKING FOLDER DRAFT DECISIONS\DR_14_07_5Dorset_LTHLP_mastersign_ffd.doc 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR-14-07 LTH, L.P. 5 DORSET STREET FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Larkin Tarrant Hoehl, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a previously approved master signage permit. The amendment consists of amending a previously approved Master Signage Permit #DR-07-02 to accommodate signs for the new hotel under construction, 5 Dorset Street. Pursuant to Section 6 of the City of South Burlington Sign Ordinance, the erection, alteration, or relocation of any sign within this district shall require design review by the Development Review Board (DRB). Section 8 of the Sign Ordinance requires all property owners within the DS/CC Sign District to obtain a Master Signage Permit. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing on September 16, 2014 & October 7, 2014 and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: STATEMENTS OF FACTS 1. The applicant is seeking to amend a previously approved master sign permit for the properties at 5 Dorset Street. 2. The parcel contains an existing Comfort Inn & Suites, an existing vacant restaurant (a former Friendly’s Restaurant) and a new, Homewood Suites Hilton nearing completion. 3. The subject property falls within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District and is subject to the South Burlington Sign Ordinance adopted June 3, 2002 and last amended May 3, 2010. 4. The application was received on August 14, 2014. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is Larkin Tarrant Hoehl. 6. The applicant has submitted renderings of proposed signage. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing an application for signage, the Board has considered the following: The property contains an existing Comfort Inn & Suites, an existing vacant restaurant (a former Friendly’s Restaurant) and a new, Homewood Suites Hilton nearing completion. The applicant proposes the following classes of signs under an amended Master Signage Permit The applicant has submitted photos and/or renderings of all of the proposed signs, which are used only to show the sign designs, with the exception of the small signs to be posted near secondary entrance #DR-14-07 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\WORKING FOLDER DRAFT DECISIONS\DR_14_07_5Dorset_LTHLP_mastersign_ffd.doc 2 doors informing guests that their room keys will open the doors and that smoking is prohibited within 25 feet of the building entrance. The applicant has also submitted 3 pages of site plan with sheets labeled C-2, C-3 and C-5 which provide further detail on proposed sign locations. No sign is proposed for the current vacant restaurant building. Any such signs would be subject to this approval. (a) Consistent Design The design of a sign must be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the subject property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. The Board finds that the proposed sign package ………………………………………………… Signs are proposed to be internally illuminated. The internally illuminated signs will use opaque backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics to ensure the background is not illuminated. Per the So. Burlington Sign Ordinance, internal illumination is limited to text and graphics only. The remainder of the body of the sign must be opaque. The Board finds that the proposed sign types will meet this requirement. (b) Promotion of City Center Goals Signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. The DRB find that the proposed signage …………………………………………………. (c) Color & Texture The color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. All new signs will have a white face and frame components will be a bronze color. The principal color for the existing and proposed Comfort Inn signs will be blue and white while secondary colors are orange/yellow. The Board finds that ………………………………………………….. (d) Materials Used- Signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. New signs are proposed to be fabricated of metal, aluminum, painted fir beams and other materials. The Board finds that these materials are acceptable. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs shall be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. #DR-14-07 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\WORKING FOLDER DRAFT DECISIONS\DR_14_07_5Dorset_LTHLP_mastersign_ffd.doc 3 The proposed sign package is of substantial and sturdy construction and as previously stated; materials are weather-resistant and high quality. The maintenance of orderly appearance shall be enforced. All signs shall be kept in good repair; landscaping surrounding the freestanding signs shall be kept trimmed and neat and shall not obscure the text of the signs. This criterion shall be enforced. (e) Wall Mounted Signs Section 10 of the Sign Ordinance governs the size and location of wall-mounted signs and shall be enforced by the Code Officer. Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, a wall-mounted sign for a multi-tenant building or a multi-building lot with a master signage permit in any district with freestanding or landscape sign shall not exceed 15% of the area of the façade to which it is attached or 100 sq. ft., whichever is smaller. Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, the total area of all wall-mounted signs on the subject property shall not exceed 10% of the area of principal public façade of each building. Section 10(c) states that a wall-mounted sign shall not project above the roof or parapet of the building nor below the top of any first floor doorway unless permitted through the design review approval process. Pursuant to Section 10(d), a wall-mounted sign shall not cover any opening or project beyond the top or end of any wall to which it is attached. Section 10(g) stipulates that a wall-mounted sign shall not project from the wall in excess of 9”. The Code Officer shall ensure that these requirements are met at the time of application of individual signs. (f) Freestanding Signs Section 9(h) states that free-standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right-of-Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge of the Right of Way toward the building face. The existing Comfort Inn & Suites sign is located within this sign corridor. The Board finds this to be consistent with this criterion. Section 9(h) states that free-standing signs in the Dorset Street/City Center District may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than twelve (12) feet, measured from the average finished grade at the base of the sign to the highest point of any part of the sign structure. #DR-14-07 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\WORKING FOLDER DRAFT DECISIONS\DR_14_07_5Dorset_LTHLP_mastersign_ffd.doc 4 This shall be enforced by the Code Officer at the time of application of individual signs. DECISION Motion by _______________, seconded by _______________, to approve Design Review Application #DR-14-07 of Larkin Tarrant Hoehl subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The applicant shall obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to any changes to signs on the property 3. Illuminated signs shall be limited to internal or external illumination. 4. All signs shall be limited to the primary & secondary colors applicable to the respective portions of the property. The primary colors for the Comfort Inn & Suites are blue and white with orange/yellow as secondary colors. The primary colors for the Homewood Suites property shall be white and dark bronze with black and medium brown as secondary colors. 5. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs shall be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. 6. All signs shall be kept in good repair; landscaping surrounding the freestanding signs shall be kept trimmed and neat and shall not obscure the text of the signs. 7. Prior to the installation of any signs on the property, the applicant shall obtain a sign permit (if required by the sign ordinance) from the Code Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair #DR-14-07 F:\USERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\WORKING FOLDER DRAFT DECISIONS\DR_14_07_5Dorset_LTHLP_mastersign_ffd.doc 5 Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment DATE: October 3, 2014 Cc: Val Hunt, Applicant Re: Agenda #5, October 7, 2014 meeting DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Design Review Application #DR-14-08 340 Dorset Street Val Hunt, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting after-the-fact approval to eliminate the requirement that siding be installed on the new wall approved under design review approval #DR-13-03, 340 Dorset Street. The Administrative Officer visited the property in mid-August 2014 for compliance with the Certificate of Occupancy and found that the clapboard siding described in #DR-14-03 had not been installed. The applicant indicated they thought they were in compliance because the Azak panel they installed was weatherproof. Staff indicated that the applicant could seek after-the-fact approval of what they had built. The subject property falls within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11.01(D) (1) (b) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the addition to or alteration of the exterior wall of a building or structure by tearing down or removing any portion thereof, or by filling in, sealing, boarding up, closing or enclosing any portion of any existing window, door, space, porch, etc shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB). C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of each district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - ………… (2) Design District 2 - This area includes all land on both sides of San Remo Drive. This area is unique in that it is the only area in the designated City Center which is substantially developed with buildings and uses. Many of the buildings, however, are in need of updating and aesthetic improvement. The City’s vision for this area is that of a somewhat unique and eclectic neighborhood with a wide variety in design in terms of color, materials, building shapes and site layouts. It is the City’s vision that the existing buildings and sites be improved for example by replacing metal facades with higher quality materials, adding windows and doors to the first floors, and doing improvements to the sites to better relate the properties to the public street thereby promoting pedestrian movement. Design plans for properties within Design District 3 shall comply with the following design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(F) of the Land Development Regulations: F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows:. ………………. (ii) Design District 2. A wide variety of both natural and high quality man-made materials are allowed. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete, synthetic stucco, wood clapboard (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles), and glass or glass block. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include metal skin and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The previously approved wall was to be constructed with marine grade plywood, grey vinyl clapboards to match the existing siding and finished with white azek trim boards. The Board found that design compatible with the remainder of the building. Staff has visited the site (see photos in packet) and offers the following comments:  A white panel wall (the applicant indicates this is made of Azak paneling) was constructed that covers the top row of smaller windows and a portion of the bottom row of windows rather than the approved, grey clapboard.  There is no trim or molding or other design element along the top of the bottom row of windows to distinguish it from the panel.  Signs of the other tenants along the front of the building are installed over the grey clapboard siding. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. While the project does reduce the amount of see-through glass along the top half of the feature, it does reduce the monotony of the building’s long glass façade. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. The proposed wall would provide a visual “break” to the long façade which is mostly all glass. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. There are no changes proposed to the roof or roofline. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. The building is already oriented to the street. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. There are no rooftop devices. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. As the building is not new, it would not be feasible to apply this criterion. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. This criterion is not applicable to the subject application. RECOMMENDATION The Board should determine if what was constructed is compliance with the criteria above especially (a) Consistent design, (b) Materials used and (c) Colors and Textures used Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_14_25_1485Shelburn eRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview_Oct7mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 3, 2014 Application received: May 27, 2014 SITE PLAN REVIEW #SP-14-25 DBS, LLP – GOSS DODGE – 1485 SHELBURNE ROAD Agenda # 6 Meeting Date: October 7, 2014 Applicant Douglas Hoar POB 2122 South Burlington, VT 05407 Contact Person Douglas Hoar Owners DBS, LLP POB 2122 South Burlington, VT 05407 Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-14-25 of Douglas Hoar to amend a previously approved plan for a 36,085 sq. ft. auto sales, service and repair facility. The amendment consists of expanding the size of the vehicle display and storage area by 11,250 sq. ft., 1485 Shelburne Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assistant, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 27, 2104 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit 431,244 sq. ft. 431,244 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 40% 6.7% 6.7%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 50.6% 53.6%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A N/A  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A N/A  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A  Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) N/A N/A  Zoning compliance or existing non-complying This application is fundamentally identical to several other applications approved for this property back in 2006, with continued expansion of parking areas to serve the auto dealership. Proposed here is another parking area, 75’ x 150’ in size, to be located just behind and to the west of the existing parking areas in the southwesterly corner of the property, in an existing lawn/greenspace area. Note, however, that for purposes of analyzing this application, the proposed area ------as is the case with some of the other areas on the property previously approved------- is actually considered an Outdoor Storage and Display area. ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.05 Outdoor Storage and Display A. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application. This criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may comprise an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present opportunities for theft, or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of residentially-zoned parcels. Staff feels that no new enclosures or screening should be required. The proposed new area is CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview towards the back of the property and the area is screened from view by mature trees and undergrowth along its western and southern parcel boundaries. B. Outdoor Display. Outdoor display of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Any outdoor display shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application that clearly indicates the location of any outdoor display areas. Staff notes that the applicant’s revised plan submitted on September 19, 2014 identifies which areas are considered customer or employee parking areas and which would be Outdoor Storage and Display area. (2) Outdoor display of equipment is prohibited where such equipment is fitted with arms, lifts, buckets, or other parts that can be elevated and where such parts are displayed in an elevated manner. This does not include boats with masts, bridges, or canopies. Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed Outdoor Storage and Display area will abut other display areas on the properties. This criterion is met. (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. (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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Criteria (2) – (4) are not applicable. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. There are no new structures, nor new utility services shown on the site plan. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Not applicable. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Noted above. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling 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. No changes from existing. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. No new landscaping is shown, nor required as this project is considered an Outdoor Storage and Display area and not a parking lot. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. No modifications requested. 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District and as such must comply with relevant standards. Although the property remains well under the theoretically permissible coverage limit of 70%, constructing a new parking lot and disturbing a new land area 11,250 sq. ft. in size may trigger new or additional stormwater management requirements. The Public Works Dept. submitted the following comments in an email to staff on September 11, 2014: I reviewed the site plan titled "Goss Dodge Chrysler" dated 8/25/14 consisting of one sheet titled "Stormwater Plan Post-Development". I'd like to offer the following comments: * In order to evaluate the project's compliance with requirements found in section 12.03.C(1) of the City's Land Development Regulations the applicant must submit hydrologic modeling information for the 1 year, 24 hour storm event. * Consider expanding the size of the proposed grass channel / dry detention pond so that it captures and treats a larger portion of the impervious area found on site. While the proposed infrastructure will treat the new 0.31 acres of impervious area, the remaining 5.05 impervious acres on the site currently receive no treatment or detention before leaving the site. * The applicant has indicated that a State stormwater discharge permit and a state construction permit is required for the project. This should be included in the findings of fact. * I recommend that the DRB include a condition requiring that the stormwater treatment and conveyance structures be maintained. * The stormwater improvements shown on the sheet submitted and reviewed should also be included on the site plan that was previously submitted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington The applicant’s engineer submitted a reply later on September 30, 2014 to Mr. DiPietro’s comments: Thanks for reviewing the plans so quickly. Please find the following responses to your comments below: 1. Please find the attached HydroCAD computations for the project which show the routed post- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview development discharge rate (0.02 cfs) is less than the pre-development discharge rate (0.76 cfs) in the 1- year, 24 hour storm event to meet the requirements of Section 12.03.C(1); 2. Per the location of the proposed stormwater system, portions of the existing impervious coverage on-site will flow to the system and receive treatment. During the design, we worked with Helen Carr (State Stormwater Program) to make sure the system be designed to meet the requirements of the State Stormwater Manual (Vol. I & II); 3. Agreed. We will provide copies of the Stormwater Discharge and Construction General permits upon receipt; 4. Agreed. As part of the State Stormwater Discharge Permit, the system will require annual inspections and maintenance if needed (cleaning low flow orifice, etc.); 5. We have provided our design to the applicants to have Warren Robenstein update his Site Plan accordingly, including the stormwater system area limits, with a note referencing our plan for additional information; Thanks, Peter F. Heil, PE, CPESC | O'Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC 2. The Board should discuss with the applicant whether to require the applicant to comply with Mr. DiPietro’s recommendations regarding expanding the size of the proposed grass channel/dry detention pond. OTHER Existing, unscreened dumpsters are shown on the revised plan submitted on September 19, 2014. 3. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to screen the dumpsters. Snow storage areas are shown on the plan. A bike rack is shown near the Showroom. Staff notes that showroom is misspelled as “shrowroom.” No new exterior parking lot lights are shown, so it is presumed that no new light poles/fixtures are proposed, but that all existing lights are to remain. These shall be downcasting and shielded. Staff notes that the Vermont Legislature recently amended Sec. 29. 24 V.S.A. § 4416 to read: § 4416. SITE PLAN REVIEW (b) Whenever a proposed site plan involves access to a State highway, the application for site plan approval shall include a letter of intent from the Agency of Transportation confirming that the Agency has reviewed the proposed site plan and is prepared to issue an access permit under 19 V.S.A.§ 1111, and setting out any conditions that the Agency proposes to attach to the section 1111 permit. Staff has conferred with VTRANS staff and has referred the applicant to the same. VTRANS staff indicates that it is their goal to issue Letters of Intent within 30 days. Staff notes that the application did not contain such a letter. 4. Staff recommends that the Board keep the hearing open until the receipt of the letter from Vtrans. RECOMMENDATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_14_25__1485ShelburneRoad_DBSLLP_GossDodge_siteplanreview The Board should seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Douglas Hoar, DBS LLP CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Oct 7mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 3, 2014 Plans received: August 18, 2014 SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-14-23 Agenda #7 Meeting date: October 7, 2014 Owner Synergy Development, LLC 151 Murphy Road Charlotte, VT 05445 Applicant same Contact Person Jeremy Matosky TCE, Inc. 478 Blair Road Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01741 Residential 1 and Residential 2 3.62 Acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Oct7mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four (4) lots ranging in size from 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plan submitted on August 18, 2014 and offer the following comments. Applicability of use of Planned Unit Development approach The applicant’s proposal to retain the existing single family home on a smaller lot and create 3 additional lots each with a single family home hinges on whether or not they are allowed to use PUD review. Without PUD review, it would be feasible to retain the existing home on a new smaller lot and create 2 new additional lots. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The applicant argues that PUD review is justified in order to allow a more efficient lot layout, reduce impervious coverage, allow the use of a private drive and increase density by one additional lot in the City’s Core Area beyond the 3 lots that would be allowed without PUD review. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following:  To encourage innovation in design and layout. The proposal submitted does not appear to be innovative in design or layout. The applicant proposes a shared access, but otherwise the proposal does not appear to include significant coordinated layout or design elements. An example of a PUD that met this standard would be the Kirby Road cottages in which the units are clustered around a common green area.  Efficient use of land. The three (3) additional units are spread-out over the entire parcel without coordination between the units or the function or management of the land.  The viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Oct7mtg.doc Comprehensive Plan. The Core Area is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1. Core Area The core area of the City shall be defined as those areas lying north of I-89 and I-189, and lying west of Spear Street. It is recommended that the majority of development density and new development over the next 20 years be directed to the core area of the City. It should be noted that within the core area, there will be sub-areas of varying uses and densities, natural resource preservation areas, parks and open spaces, and transportation facilities. Many of these sub-areas, such as the City Center, commercial centers and residential areas are discussed below. The subject property is located in a Low Density area as depicted on Map 6 Future Land Use in the Comprehensive Plan (see map in packet). In evaluating this project for PUD applicability, the Board should take into consideration all the standards above as a whole. Staff notes that without PUD review, the applicant may still develop the lot and add two new lots/homes to the west of the existing home. 1. The Board should discuss whether the project, as presented, qualifies for a PUD review. Frontage requirements The minimum lot frontage requirement in the R1 and R2 Districts is 50 feet per lot, which is not being met. Only lot #4 would have street frontage, the remaining lots would be served by private right-of- ways. The applicant seeks relief from this section, which states: “In order to promote infill development while protecting the character of existing neighborhoods, no lot shall be created without a minimum of 50-ft of frontage on a public road in the following districts: R1, R1-LV, R2, R4, and LN”. Staff feels that PUD provision does not allow this frontage requirement (50 feet per lot) to be waived when a PUD creates multiple lots as the applicant requests. This is not a dimensional requirement within the Core Area but rather a stand-alone frontage requirement for certain districts including R-1 in which this project’s road frontage is located. 2. The Board should decide whether it is allowed to waive the requirements of Section 3.05 (C). The applicant argues that without PUD review, the creation of multiple curb cuts would result. Staff notes that multiple lots can share a single curb cut. Lot sizes and Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 3.62 acre parcel into 4 lots as follows: Proposed Size Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_23_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_sketch_Oct7mtg.doc Lot 1 0.5 acres R-2 but would include some acreage transferred from R-1 per Section 15.03 Lot 2 0.5 acres R-2 but would include some acreage transferred from R-1 per Section 15.03 Lot 3 1.7 acres R-1 Lot 4 40,000 sq. ft. (existing SF home) R-1 Should PUD review be allowed, the applicant is requesting a shift of the zoning district boundary pursuant to Section 15.0(C) cited below, which would allow the creation of lots 1 and 2. 15.03 Allowed Uses, Densities, Zoning Boundary Adjustments and Perimeter Setbacks A. Uses Allowed. In any application for PUD review, all uses allowed as permitted or conditional uses in the underlying district(s) involved in the application shall be deemed to be permitted uses and a separate conditional use permit or permits shall not be required. B. Density. In any application for PUD or subdivision review, the overall density or FAR allowable for the land in question shall be the same as for the underlying district(s) involved in the application. C. Zoning District Boundary Adjustment. In conjunction with a PUD or subdivision application involving land in two or more zoning districts, the DRB may at its discretion approve a request to relocate the boundary of the zoning district up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by the application. 3. The Board should consider topography, the intent of the regulations, context and the issue of precedence should it decide to allow the creation of lots 1 and 2 to enable them to achieve the 0.5 acre threshold. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board address the numbered items above before proceeding with any more detailed review. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer From: Samswanson@aol.com [mailto:Samswanson@aol.com]   Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:43 PM  To: ray  Subject: Fwd: storm water permitting ‐ request advice/information  Mr Belair, This is the second of two email notes I indicated I would send you in a just sent note describing my concerns regarding plans for the development of three new homes at 1741 Spear Street. Sam Swanson 17 Harbor Ridge Road South Burlington, VT From: ray@sburl.com To: Samswanson@aol.com CC: tdipietro@sburl.com Sent: 7/23/2013 12:52:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: RE: storm water permitting - request advice/information Hi Sam, The stormwater measures you refer to were required as part of subdivisions located in what was then called the “Bartlett Brook Watershed Protection Overlay District”. It was formed “in order to control stormwater runoff and prevent worsening of erosion problems currently experienced within the Bartlett Brook…watershed. It is the intent of this overlay district to require that all land development within the Bartlett and North Brook watersheds incorporate appropriate stormwater management design to ensure that the development will not adversely impact the stormwater flow characteristics of the streams”. As you can see, the intent was not to prevent stormwater impacts on neighbors, although it could. The improvements for the Westview project consist of 2 stormwater retention ponds. One was for the original 3 lots and 1 is for the fourth lot that was approved in 2005. You are welcome to stop by the office and look over these approved plans. I hope this helps. Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Samswanson@aol.com [mailto:Samswanson@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:57 AM To: ray Cc: Tom Dipietro Subject: Fwd: storm water permitting - request advice/information Ray Belair, Tom DiPietro suggested I contact you to learn about the runoff control measures that the city has imposed as conditions for development for the two homes on Westview Drive that abut my home property. Can you provide me with information on these development requirements? The note below that I sent to Tom explains my concerns. Tom suggested that there may be some runoff control measures that were established that were designed prevent excessive runoff from these sites. As the note below explains, the runoff problem is growing worse as more and more home sites are developed along Westview Drive. I would be glad to stop by your office or talk with you by phone if that is the best way to address this. Best, Sam Swanson 17 Harbor Ridge Road phone 652-0056 From: Samswanson@aol.com [mailto:Samswanson@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:41 PM To: ray Subject: Fwd: storm water permitting - request advice/information Mr. Belair, This is one of two email notes I indicated I would send you in a just sent note describing my concerns regarding plans for the development of three new homes at 1741 Spear Street. Sam Swanson 17 Harbor Ridge Road South Burlington, VT 05403 From: Samswanson@aol.com To: tdipietro@sburl.com CC: jrabidoux@sburl.com, pconner@sburl.com Sent: 7/12/2013 10:19:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: storm water permitting - request advice/information Tom DiPietro I would like to learn how the storm water permitting system works in South Burlington. I am writing to ask for information and any advice you may offer. Our property on Harbor Ridge Road has suffered growing runoff problems as the property west of us on Westview Drive has been transformed from vacant land in scrub woodland to residential development. These impacts have proven severe during the recent rains. Two large streams flooded onto our half acre property, one on the north side and one on the south side, overwhelming the stormwater management system we spent several thousand dollars building only a few years ago. Earlier this week I discussed the problem with Justin Rabidoux. He offered to review the design of any additional storm water facilities I propose for my property. Before making additional investments I want to first see what can be done to reduce the large volume of rapid flowing runoff that comes down from the home sites along Westview Drive during and following heavy rainfall and snow-melt events. The volumes of runoff have increased after the clearing and construction of each new home on Westview Drive. The recent rains brought floods of muddy water originating from the construction site at the corner of Westview Drive and Spear Street. I want to learn what are the storm water management responsibilities that go with the development of land along Westview Drive and what may be my options to enforce existing requirements and to request new, more effective requirements. The current controls clearly are inadequate and there remain additional undeveloped sites that will make these problems worse when yet more homes are developed in this area. I welcome any advice you may offer. I understand you are very busy now so I am asking for some references to reports, regulations or statutes that I may read to understand how the storm water regulation system works. Best, Sam Swanson 17 Harbor Ridge Road phone 652-0056 PS FYI .... by house is the second house north of the water tanks on Harbor Ridge Road. From: Samswanson@aol.com [mailto:Samswanson@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 5:38 PM To: ray Subject: Synargy Development proposal to develop lands at 1741 Spear Street Dear Mr. Belair, I am writing to request party status for the South Burlington Development Review Board consideration of the proposal by Synergy Development to construct three new homes at 1741 Spear Street. I am also offering comments that describe my concerns as an adjoining neighbor at the southwest corner of the Synergy property. I am very concerned about the changes in storm-water run-off the construction of three new homes on this property will create both when the homes are under construction and in the long term when new owners occupy and landscape the property. A lot of water drains from this property now when extended rains saturate the soil and during winter-spring periods when changes in the weather produce rapid melting of a snow pack over frozen ground. This property is now covered for the most part with new- growth trees and brush which slows the flow of water from the site until rains saturate the soil. The run-off poses a problem for my property for two reasons. 1. First, a major portion of the existing drainage follows a pathway to a drain constructed on a segment of my property on the north described on City maps as a "drainage right-of-way." The existing drain system is at capacity during high run-off conditions. This drain now possess no capacity margin to handle additional run off from the Synergy property.. 2. Second, it appears that some portion of the existing drainage from the Synergy property also flows thru two very small "holding areas" and then continuing on down along a drain "ditch" between the near-by Shuman and Downing properties and enters my property at the southeast corner. The storm-water control management measures required when the Downing and Shuman homes were built are not functioning effectively, providing only minimal buffering of run- off during high run-off conditions. Any additional drainage from the Synergy development will make conditions worse. As background, I am forwarding in a separate email a July 2013 email exchange I had with the South Burlington Storm Water Utility manager, Tom Dipietro, and you regarding the problems I am already experiencing during high-run off conditions. I am also concerned about the prospect that the developer may plan the construction of the new homes with limited removal of existing vegetation only to have the eventual owner remove much of this vegetation to improve views to the west or to achieve other landscaping objectives, with dire consequences for neighbors who live down hill from these new homes. The experience with the construction of the homes and landscaping on the Downing and Shuman properties offers lessons of experience I ask the Development Review Board to address here. On September 24 I accepted an invitation from Synergy's Jason Pidgeon to meet with him and the engineers he is employing to explain my concerns. The Synergy team promised they would address these concerns in detail. While I look forward to learning what they propose I request an independent evaluation of run-off conditions that will consider storm-water management actions that will prevent a deterioration of conditions now and in the longer term future. I request that the Development Review Board undertake, or require the developer to fund an independent storm-water management study that will provide an objective assessment of the effective options for managing storm water from the property during and after three new homes are constructed. I look forward to working with you and the Development Review Board to address my concerns.. Best, Sam Swanson 17 Harbor Ridge Road South Burlington, VT 05403 phone 652 0056 email samswanson@aol.com 16' WIDE DRIVEWAY WWWWWWWWWFMFMWSFMFMFMFMFMFMOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPWWWWGGGGGGGGWGSPEAR STREETLOT 440,000 SQ. FT.0.9 AcresLOT 373,702 SQ. FT.1.7 AcresLOT 122,000 SQ. FT. 0.5AcresLOT 222,000 SQ. FT. 0.5AcresRESIDENTIAL 1RESIDENTIAL 2220.16'191.91'166.28'60.99'49.89'150.12'159.07'229.39'WFM FMFMFMFM192.45'42.18' 40.75' 82.92'156.66'43.68'5.35'239.16'76.78'137.26'58.87'199.82'47.92'25' ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT 10'SIDE10'SIDE30' REAR10' SIDE50' ACCESSAND UTILIY EASEMENT30' REAR10' REAR10' SIDE 10' REAR 10' SIDE30' REAR50' EASEMENT 25' SIDE50' FRONT25' ACCESSEASEMENT16' WIDEDRIVEWAY10' SIDE25' SIDEEXISTING GRAVELDRIVE TO BERELOCATEDNOTE: OPTIONAL 4TH DRIVEWAYWOULD ELIMINATE NEW CURBCUT IF APPROVED BY DRBSynergyDevelopment, LLC1741 Spear StreetSouth Burlington, VermontPlanned UnitDevelopmentSketch PlanSK-108/15/141" = 30'14-087RMP/NPCNTH0FeetGraphic Scale3030609012015°±TrueMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable. TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project. TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUTELSSTATE OF VERMONT PROFES SIONALENGINEERLI CENSEDField Book:206APPLICANT:JASON PIDGEIONSYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC151 MURPHY ROADCHARLOTTE, VERMONT 05445CIVIL ENGINEER:TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE)ATTN. JENNIFER DESAUTELS, PE478 BLAIR PARK ROADWILLISTON, VT 05495PHONE: (802)879-6331PROJECT INFORMATION:OWNER OF RECORD: JASON PIDGEONSYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC151 MURPHY ROADCHARLOTTE, VERMONT 054451. TAX PARCEL ID: 1640-017412.PHYSICAL ADDRESS 1741 SPEAR STREET OF PROPERTY: SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 054033.PARCEL SIZE: 3.62 ACRES4.ZONING DISTRICT: RESIDENTIAL 1, RESIDENTIAL 2PROPOSEDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINERIGHT-OF-WAY LINEEASEMENTSBUILDING SETBACKSFENCETREE LINESEWER MANHOLE (SMH)CATCH BASIN (CB)VALVECURB STOP (CS)FIRE HYDRANT (HYD)WATER SUPPLY WELLEND CAPUTILITY POLEIRON PIPESTEEL REBARPUMP STATION (PS)CONCRETE MONUMENTOVERHEAD POWERSEWER FORCEMAINSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADGRAVEL DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSLEGENDSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSAND SERVICESLIQUID PROPANEOR NATURAL GASOUTLET OREND SECTIONSS124FMWGOHP124WGOHPFMDPSWSURVEY NOTES:1. THE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN IS TO DEPICT PERTINENT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS OF THE DATE OF SURVEY.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD88 (GEIOD 12).4. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE (U.S. SURVEY FEET).5. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL ESTABLISHED WITH RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS FROMTHE VTUV CORS STATION. A TRIMBLE R6 RTK GPS UNIT WAS EMPLOYED FOR THESEOBSERVATIONS.6. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN AREBASED ON RESEARCH, UTILITY PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCEENCOUNTERED AND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARYSTANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BYTHE OWNER OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST.ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED. ACTUALLOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MAY VARY. DIGSAFE MUST BE CONTACTED PRIORTO ANY EXCAVATION. CALL 1-888-DIG SAFE (344-7233).7. PERIMETER BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON FROM BOUNDARY SURVEY BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS DATED, 6/26/14.EXISTINGTHREE BR.HOUSEZONING NOTES:R1 DISTRICTMIN. LOT SIZE: 40,000 S.F.FRONT SETBACK: 50 FT.SIDE SETBACK: 25 FT.REAR SETBACK: 30 FT.R2 DISTRICTMIN. LOT SIZE: 22,000 S.F.FRONT SETBACK: 30 FT.SIDE SETBACK: 10 FT.REAR SETBACK: 30 FT. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment RE: Agenda #8, Application #SD-14-26 – South Village DATE: October 3, 2014 Sketch Plan application #SD-14-26 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a three (3) phase, 334 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of subdividing three (3) duplex lots (#39, 39A, & 40) into two (2) triplex lots, 69, 73, 83, 87, 95, & 101 South Jefferson Road. The applicant is seeking a reversion of the following element of a previously approved proposal, #SD-13- 37: Resubdivide lots #39 and #40 into three lots (creating new lot 39A); and then Shorten lots #39, #39A, and #40 by approx. 2’ to 113.5’; That Findings and Decision noted, in part: Dimensional Standards: Minimum lot sizes for single family homes remain consistent with prior approvals for this project, and are all above the minimum approved lot size of 3600 sq ft. The applicant has proposed that lots #39 and #40, previously approved for triplexes, become three lots, each with a duplex. Although there is no change in the development density based on number of dwelling units, this does require a waiver of the minimum lot size for each lot. The new plan shows lot #39 at 0.20 acre; lot #39A at 0.19 acre; and lot #40 at 0.21 acre. The Master Plan approval is silent on the issue of minimum lot sizes for duplex lots. The Board has the authority under the PUD provisions of the bylaw to issue a waiver on these lot sizes if it deems them consistent with the standards. As precedent, several other lots were previously approved as multi-unit dwellings on lots smaller than the 0.55 acre/dwelling lot size base requirement in the LDRs: lots #31 and #32 are each only 0.23 acre in size, lot #46 is only 0.26 acre, and lot #45, a triplex, is only 0.30 acre. Based on this, the Board finds that granting these lot size waivers for duplex lots #39, #39A, and #40 acceptable and consistent with applicable standards and prior approvals for this project. RECOMMENDATION The current proposal is to return the three (3) lots to their original configuration of 0.29 acres each. Since this brings these lots back to their previously approved form, staff has no issues with the proposal. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING NORTHEAST TERRITORIES, INC. – 39 BOWDOIN STREET MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Northeast Territories, Inc. is seeking miscellaneous for after-the-fact approval to place 5,800 cubic yards of fill on an undeveloped lot, 39 Bowdoin Street. The Board held a public hearing on this application on October 7, 2014. David Marshall represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Northeast Territories, Inc. is seeking miscellaneous for after-the-fact approval to place 5,800 cubic yards of fill on an undeveloped lot, 39 Bowdoin Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Northeast Territories, Inc. 3. The subject property is located in the Industrial & Open Space Zoning District 4. The plan submitted consists of three (3) pages, page one is entitled “Neagley & Chase Construction Office Facility Lot 5 Meadowland Business Park 66 Bowdoin Street South Burlington Vermont, Lot 7 – Overall Site Plan,” dated Aug. 20, 2014. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be #MS-14-08 2 filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The Board finds that this criterion is not applicable as the fill is meant to be a permanent addition to this property. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The Board finds that this criterion is met. The plans indicate that the stockpile will be seeded and mulched and that a silt fence will be installed on the downhill side of the stockpile. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The Board finds that a bond is not necessary to assure compliance. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development will be the existing grade prior to the placement of the fill which is the subject of this application. DECISION Motion by _________________________, seconded by _________________________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-08 of Northeast Territories, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the fill placement. #MS-14-08 3 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. 6. The pre-construction height for future development will be the existing grade prior to the placement of the fill which is the subject of this application. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons – yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking – yea nay abstain not present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2014, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. DSMDSMACL1" = 40'13102C2.0AUG. 20, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACENORTHEASTTERRITORIES, INC.20 SOUTH CRESTBURLINGTON, VERMONTNEAGLEY & CHASECONSTRUCTIONOFFICE FACILITYLOT 5MEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARK66 BOWDOIN STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTLOT 7 - SOILSTOCKPILELOCATIONS ANDQUANTITIESPROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND11689PROJECTLOCATIONPROJECTLOCATIONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13102\1-CADD Files-13102\Dwg\13102E.dwg, 8/20/2014 12:10:37 PM DSMDSMJDL1" = 150'13102C1.0AUG. 20, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACENORTHEASTTERRITORIES, INC.20 SOUTH CRESTBURLINGTON, VERMONTNEAGLEY & CHASECONSTRUCTIONOFFICE FACILITYLOT 5MEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARK66 BOWDOIN STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTLOT 7 -OVERALLSITE PLANPROJECTLOCATION11689PROPOSEDSITE3.06 AC.P:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13102\1-CADD Files-13102\Dwg\13102E.dwg, 8/20/2014 1:03:47 PM DSMDSMACL1" = 40'13102C2.0AUG. 20, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACENORTHEASTTERRITORIES, INC.20 SOUTH CRESTBURLINGTON, VERMONTNEAGLEY & CHASECONSTRUCTIONOFFICE FACILITYLOT 5MEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARK66 BOWDOIN STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTLOT 7 - SOILSTOCKPILELOCATIONS ANDQUANTITIESPROJECTLOCATIONLEGEND11689PROJECTLOCATIONPROJECTLOCATIONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13102\1-CADD Files-13102\Dwg\13102E.dwg, 8/20/2014 12:10:37 PM DSMDSMACL1" = 40'13102C3.0AUG. 20, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACENORTHEASTTERRITORIES, INC.20 SOUTH CRESTBURLINGTON, VERMONTNEAGLEY & CHASECONSTRUCTIONOFFICE FACILITYLOT 5MEADOWLANDBUSINESS PARK66 BOWDOIN STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTLOT 7 -EPSC PLANPROJECTLOCATION11689PROJECTLOCATIONPROJECTLOCATIONIntroductionThis project is subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizationfrom the State of Vermont to discharge construction related storm waterrunoff.Coverage under the State Construction General Permit 3-9020 isrequired for any construction activity that disturbs 1 or more acres ofland, or is part of a larger development plan that will disturb 1 or moreacres.This project has been deemed to qualify as a Low Risk Site which issubject to the erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC)standards set for in the State of Vermont'sLow Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and SedimentControlThe following narrative and implementation requirements represent theminimum standard for which this site is required to be maintained asregulated by the State of Vermont.Any best management practices (BMP's) depicted on the project's EPSCSite plan which go beyond the Handbook requirements are consideredto be integral to the management of the site and represent componentsof the municipal EPSC approval for the project which shall beimplemented.The EPSC plan depicts one snap shot in time of the site. Allconstruction sites are fluid in their day to day exposures and risks as itrelates to minimizing sediment loss from the site. It is theresponsibility of the Contractor to implement the necessary BMP'sto comply with the Low Risk Handbook standards outlined on thissheet based on the interim site disturbance conditions which may ormay not be shown on the EPSC Site Plan.Specific BMP's which are critical to allowing the project to be considereda Low risk site include the items checked below:Limit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any onetime.There shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earthexposure in any location before temporary or final stabilization isimplemented.The project is to disturb less than two acres of soil with anerodibility higher than K=0.17.Limit the project soil disturbance to less than two acres with slopesgreater than 5%.This project is authorized to disturb up to 1.6 acres1. Mark Site BoundariesPurpose:Mark the site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. Delineatingyour site will help to limit the area of disturbance, preserve existingvegetation and limit erosion potential on the site.How to comply:Before beginning construction, walk the site boundaries and flag trees,post signs, or install orange safety fence. Fence is required on anyboundary within 50 feet of a stream, lake, pond or wetland, unless thearea is already developed (existing roads, buildings, etc.)2. Limit Disturbance AreaPurpose:Limit the amount of soil exposed at one time to reduce the potentialerosion on site.Requirements:The permitted disturbance area is specified on the site's writtenauthorization to discharge. Only the acreage listed on the authorizationform may be exposed at any given time.How to comply:Plan ahead and phase the construction activities to ensure that no morethan the permitted acreage is disturbed at one time. Be sure to properlystabilize exposed soil with seed and mulch or erosion control mattingbefore beginning work in a new section of the site.3. Stabilize Construction EntrancePurpose:A stabilized construction entrance helps remove mud from vehiclewheels to prevent tracking onto streets.Requirements:If there will be any vehicle traffic off of the construction site, you mustinstall a stabilized construction entrance before construction begins.How to installRock Size: Use a mix of 1 to 4 inch stoneDepth: 8 inches minimumWidth: 12 feet minimumLength: 40 feet minimum (or length of driveway, if shorter)Geotextile: Place filter cloth under entire gravel bedMaintenance:Redress with clean stone as required to keep sediment from trackingonto the street.4. Install Silt FencePurpose:Silt fences intercept runoff and allow suspended sediment to settle out.Requirements:Silt fence must be installed:on the downhill side of the construction activitiesbetween any ditch, swale, storm sewer inlet, or waters of the Stateand the disturbed soil* Hay bales must not be used as sediment barriers due to theirtendency to degrade and fall apart.Where to place:Place silt fence on the downhill edge of bare soil. At the bottom ofslopes, place fence 10 feet downhill from the end of the slope (ifspace is available).Ensure the silt fence catches all runoff from bare soil.Maximum drainage area is ¼ acre for 100 feet of silt fence.Install silt fence across the slope (not up and down hills!)Install multiple rows of silt fence on long hills to break up flow.Do not install silt fence across ditches, channels, or streams or instream buffers.How to install silt fence:Dig a trench 6 inches deep across the slopeUnroll silt fence along the trenchEnsure stakes are on the downhill side of the fenceJoin fencing by rolling the end stakes togetherDrive stakes in against downhill side of trenchDrive stakes until 16 inches of fabric is in trenchPush fabric into trench; spread along bottomFill trench with soil and pack downMaintenance:Remove accumulated sediment before it is halfway up the fence.Ensure that silt fence is trenched in ground and there are no gaps.5. Divert Upland RunoffPurpose:Diversion berms intercept runoff from above the construction site anddirect it around the disturbed area. This prevents clean water frombecoming muddied with soil from the construction site.Requirements:If storm water runs onto your site from upslope areas and your sitemeets the following two conditions, you must install a diversion bermbefore disturbing any soil.1. You plan to have one or more acres of soil exposed at any one time(excluding roads).2. Average slope of the disturbed area is 20% or steeper.How to install:1. Compact the berm with a shovel or earth-moving equipment.2. Seed and mulch berm or cover with erosion control mattingimmediately after installation.3. Stabilize the flow channel with seed and straw mulch or erosioncontrol matting. Line the channel with 4 inch stone if the channelslope is greater than 20%.4. Ensure the berm drains to an outlet stabilized with riprap. Ensure thatthere is no erosion at the outlet.5. The diversion berm shall remain in place until the disturbed areas arecompletely stabilized.6. Slow Down Channelized RunoffPurpose:Stone check dams reduce erosion in drainage channels by slowingdown the storm water flow.Requirements:If there is a concentrated flow (e.g. in a ditch or channel) of storm wateron your site, then you must install stone check dams. Hay bales mustnot be used as check dams.How to install:Height: No greater than 2 feet. Center of dam should be 9 inches lowerthan the side elevationSide slopes: 2:1 or flatterStone size: Use a mixture of 2 to 9 inch stoneWidth: Dams should span the width of the channel and extend up thesides of the banksSpacing: Space the dams so that the bottom (toe) of the upstream damis at the elevation of the top (crest) of the downstream dam. Thisspacing is equal to the height of the check dam divided by the channelslope.Spacing (in feet) = Height of check dam (in feet)/Slope in channel (ft/ft)Maintenance:Remove sediment accumulated behind the dam as needed to allowchannel to drain through the stone check dam and prevent large flowsfrom carrying sediment over the dam. If significant erosion occursbetween check dams, a liner of stone should be installed.7. Construct Permanent ControlsPurpose:Permanent storm water treatment practices are constructed to maintainwater quality, ensure groundwater flows, and prevent downstreamflooding. Practices include detention ponds and wetlands, infiltrationbasins, and storm water filters.Requirements:If the total impervious* area on your site, or within the common plan ofdevelopment, will be 1 or more acres, you must apply for a State Stormwater Discharge Permit and construct permanent storm water treatmentpractices on your site. These practices must be installed before theconstruction of any impervious surfaces.How to comply:Contact the Vermont Storm water Program and follow the requirementsin the Vermont Storm water Management Manual. The Storm waterManagement Manual is available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm*An impervious surface is a manmade surface, including, butnot limited to, paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, roofs,driveways, and walkways, from which precipitation runs off ratherthan infiltrates.8. Stabilize Exposed SoilPurpose:Seeding and mulching, applying erosion control matting, andhydroseeding are all methods to stabilize exposed soil. Mulches andmatting protect the soil surface while grass is establishing.Requirements:All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilizationwithin 7, 14, or 21 days of initial disturbance, as stated in the projectauthorization. After this time, any disturbance in the area must bestabilized at the end of each work day.The following exceptions apply:Stabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the areawithin the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast forthe next 24 hours.Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in aself-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet orgreater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches).All areas of disturbance must have permanent stabilization within 48hours of reaching final grade.How to comply:Prepare bare soil for seeding by grading the top 3 to 6 inches of soil andremoving any large rocks or debris.Seeding Rates for Temporary StabilizationApril 15 - Sept. 15 --- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre)Sept. 15 - April 15 --- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acreSeeding Rates for Final Stabilization:ChooseMulching RatesApril 15 - Sept.15 -- Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.)Sept.15 - April 15 -- Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.)Erosion Control MattingAs per manufacturer's instructionsHydroseedAs per manufacturer's instructions9. Winter StabilizationPurpose:Managing construction sites to minimize erosion and prevent sedimentloading of waters is a year-round challenge. In Vermont, this challengebecomes even greater during the late fall, winter, and early springmonths.'Winter construction' as discussed here, describes the period betweenOctober 15 and April 15, when erosion prevention and sediment controlis significantly more difficult.Rains in late fall, thaws throughout the winter, and spring melt and rainscan produce significant flows over frozen and saturated ground, greatlyincreasing the potential for erosion.Requirements for Winter Shutdown:For those projects that will complete earth disturbance activities prior tothe winter period (October 15), the following requirements must beadhered to:1. For areas to be stabilized by vegetation, seeding shall be completedno later than September 15 to ensure adequate growth and cover.2. If seeding is not completed by September 15, additionalnon-vegetative protection must be used to stabilize the site for thewinter period. This includes use of Erosion Control Matting or nettingof a heavy mulch layer. Seeding with winter rye is recommended toallow for early germination during wet spring conditions.3. Where mulch is specified, apply roughly 2 inches with an 80-90%cover. Mulch should be tracked in or stabilized with netting in openareas vulnerable to wind.Requirements for Winter ConstructionIf construction activities involving earth disturbance continue pastOctober 15 or begin before April 15, the following requirements must beadhered to:1. Enlarged access points, stabilized to provide for snow stockpiling.2. Limits of disturbance moved or replaced to reflect boundary of winterwork.3. A snow management plan prepared with adequate storage andcontrol of meltwater, requiring cleared snow to be stored down slopeof all areas of disturbance and out of storm water treatment structures.4. A minimum 25 foot buffer shall be maintained from perimeter controlssuch as silt fence.5. In areas of disturbance that drain to a water body within 100 feet, tworows of silt fence must be installed along the contour.6. Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and icedams.7. Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must beinstalled ahead of frozen ground.8. Mulch used for temporary stabilization must be applied at double thestandard rate, or a minimum of 3 inches with an 80-90% cover.9. To ensure cover of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas ofdisturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, with thefollowing exceptions: If no precipitation within 24 hours is forecast and work will resumein the same disturbed area within 24 hours, daily stabilization is notnecessary. Disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as housefoundations or open utility trenches.10. Prior to stabilization, snow or ice must be removed to less than 1inch thickness.11. Use stone to stabilize areas such as the perimeter of buildingsunder construction or where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated.Stone paths should be 10 to 20 feet wide to accommodate vehiculartraffic.10. Stabilize Soil at Final GradePurpose:Stabilizing the site with seed and mulch or erosion control matting whenit reaches final grade is the best way to prevent erosion whileconstruction continues.Requirements:Within 48 hours of final grading, the exposed soil must be seeded andmulched or covered with erosion control matting.How to comply:Bring the site or sections of the site to final grade as soon as possibleafter construction is completed. This will reduce the need for additionalsediment and erosion control measures and will reduce the totaldisturbed area.For seeding and mulching rates, follow the specifications under Rule 8,Stabilizing Exposed Soil.11. Dewatering ActivitiesPurpose:Treat water pumped from dewatering activities so that it is clear whenleaving the construction site.Requirements:Water from dewatering activities that flows off of the construction sitemust be clear. Water must not be pumped into storm sewers, lakes, orwetlands unless the water is clear.How to comply:Using sock filters or sediment filter bags on dewatering discharge hosesor pipes, discharge water into silt fence enclosures installed in vegetatedareas away from waterways. Remove accumulated sediment after thewater has dispersed and stabilize the area with seed and mulch.12. Inspect Your SitePurpose:Perform site inspections to ensure that all sediment and erosion controlpractices are functioning properly. Regular inspections and maintenanceof practices will help to reduce costs and protect water quality.Requirements:Inspect the site at least once every 7 days and after every rainfall orsnow melt that results in a discharge from the site. Perform maintenanceto ensure that practices are functioning according to the specificationsoutlined in this handbook.In the event of a noticeable sediment discharge from the constructionsite, you must take immediate action to inspect and maintain existingerosion prevention and sediment control practices. Any visiblydiscolored storm water runoff to waters of the State must be reported.Forms for reporting discharges are available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htmTEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAILN.T.S.N.T.S.CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAIL20' (6m) RROADWAYAASTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEN.T.S.STONE CHECK DAM STRUCTUREN.T.S. 30 36 41 50 66 100 15 18 20 25 33 48MAXIMUM WATER DEPTH OVER ROCK (mm) 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.1015075N.T.S.SILT FENCE DETAILNOTES:1. INSTALL MIRIFI ENVIROFENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL OR AS DETAILED HEREIN.2. INSTALL SILT FENCES AT TOES OF ALL UNPROTECTED SLOPES AND AS PARALLEL TOCONTOURS AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FILLED OR UNPROTECTED SLOPESCREATED DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED ON THE FINALPLANS. CURVE THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UP INTO THE SLOPE. REMOVE SEDIMENTWHEN ACCUMULATED TO HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SILT FENCES ARE TO BEMAINTAINED UNTIL SLOPES ARE STABILIZED.3. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BEOVERLAPPED BY 6", FOLDED AND STAPLED.D-50OF ROCK(MM)DOWNSTREAM FLOWLINE SLOPE OF STRUCTURE (m/m)10'10'2.5'METAL POST4 x 4 WOODPOST SPACING212 X 212 WOODWOOD POST30"18"60cm(2 ft. MAX.)15cm TO 45cm(0.5 TO 1.5 ft.)DIFFERENCE12'. MIN.50' MIN.EXISTING GRADENATIVE MATERIALPLASTIC ORANGECONSTRUCTION FENCE75mm (3 in.) MIN.COARSE ROCK0.35 m/m OR FLATTERFLOW LINE SLOPEROCK SET IN 10cm (4 in.MIN.) TRENCHMINIMUM DEPTH OF COARSEROCK PLACED IN CHANNELFLOW LINE IS 15cm (0.5 ft.)SIDE VIEWFRONT VIEWEND POINTS 'A' MUST BE HIGHERTHAN THE FLOW LINE POINT 'B'AABASECTION A-ADIVERSION RIDGE REQUIREDWHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2%ROADWAY2% OR GREATERSPILLWAYBPLACE DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURESUCH THAT POINT 'B' ISAPPROXIMATELY LEVEL WITH THELOWEST GROUND ELEVATION OFTHE UPSTREAM STRUCTUREFILTER FABRICTEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHOR NETTINGSILT FENCE OR HAYBALES INSTALLED ONDOWN GRADIENT SIDESANDBAGS ORCONTINUOUS BERM OFEQUIVALENT HEIGHTDIVERSION RIDGESUPPLY WATER TO WASHWHEELS IF NECESSARY2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSEAGGREGATE MIN. 8"(150mm) THICKPLAN VIEWNOTES:1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAYREQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TOTRAP SEDIMENT.2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY.3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITHCRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENTBASIN.NOTE:USE SANDBAGS OR OTHERAPPROVED METHODS TOCHANNELIZE RUNOFF TOBASIN AS REQUIRED36" MIN.12" MIN.POST2"8"FILTER FABRIC TO BEMIRAFI 100X OR APPROVEDEQUALFILTER FABRIC TO BECLIPPED, BACKFILLED ANDTAMPED 8" BELOW GRADESTEEL OR WOOD STAKES(SEE CHART AT RIGHT)SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAILN.T.S.2. ATTACH SILT FENCEAND EXTEND IT TOTHE TRENCH.3. STAPLE THE SILTFENCING TO THEEND POSTS.BACKFILL TRENCH.1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8" TRENCH, SET POST DOWNSLOPE.ANGLE 10°UPSLOPE FORSTABILITY ANDSELF CLEANINGPOSTSSILTFENCE100°12"MIN.8"COMPACTEDBACKFILLP:\AutoCADD Projects\2013\13102\1-CADD Files-13102\Dwg\13102E.dwg, 8/20/2014 12:10:40 PM