Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 04/07/2015
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 April 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; R. Audette, R. White, D. Bell, T. Vincent, S. Vock, C. Lisman, P. Simon, T. Bouton, C. Gallup, P. Cross, D. Hillman, R. Roesler, R. Smith, R. Diaco, J. Desautels 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued conditional use application #CU-15-01 of Richard B. White to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,574 sq. ft. by constructing two additions of 5’ x 8’ and 19’ by 19’6” and constructing a 19’ x 27’ 2‐story detached accessory structure to contain a 772 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue: Mr. White noted he went east 17-1/2 feet instead of 19-1/2 feet and eliminated a privacy fence to comply with issues raised by a neighbor. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-15-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continue reopened final plat application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of: 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’x 55’ detached accessary structure, 1 Dorset Street. Ms. Bell indicated the area where there was concern about landscaping on the south side of the lease line. She said they have an agreement that will not change the number of plants or the landscaping budget. She showed the landscaping plan and identified three trees that are existing and the location for planting of junipers. She also showed the hotel plan with their landscaping and the lease line that the applicant will honor. Members were not happy with the 5 foot break in landscaping. Mr. Vincent said he wasn’t sure why this was being insisted on. Mr. Belair said that since this is one PUD, the lease line is not recognized and it is considered one property. Mr. Lisman, representing the Larkin Family Partnership said they are OK with some plantings as long as they are no taller than the others would be and they would not block the visibility going in and out. Ms. Bell said the landscaping could be manicured to a safe height. Mr. Wilking was not pleased with this and felt it would look odd to have one type of plant trimmed two different ways. He felt they were better off with the previous plan. Ms. Bell noted several corrections to the approval motion: the curb reveal has been adjusted to be flush; and on p. 2, the 9 foot setback should be 6 feet. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-07 of Robert Audette to subdivide a 9,607 sq. ft. lot off from a 770 acre parcel developed with an airport, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Audette explained that last fall they repaved the Pour House parking. The tenant striped it differently, and Mr. Belair said that cannot be done. There is also a question of whether there is encroachment onto the wetland (He showed this on the plan). They did a new survey and learned that the property lines weren’t where they thought they were, and they were encroaching onto Airport property. They then asked the Airport to sell them the property, but the Airport would only lease it to them. Mr. Audette said they will use this property for snow storage and to keep the tenant from backing onto Airport property. He also indicated where they will put up a 5-foot fence which is required by the Airport. No issues were raised. 7. Master Signage permit application #DR-15-01 of 20 San Remo Drive, LLC, to establish the initial master signage design parameters for all future signs on the property, 20 San Remo Drive: Members reviewed the application and had no issues. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-15-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-15-12 of University Medical Center to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,664 sq. ft. medical office building with approval to expand the facility by 5,534 sq. ft. in two phases of 5,065 sq. ft. in phase I and 469 sq. ft. in Phase II. The amendment consists of revising condition #11 of the site plan approval to reduce the estimated traffic generation, 35 Joy Drive: Mr. Simon said they had a trip generation rate based on the ITE Manual which they felt was excessive. Since then, they worked with staff and did an on- site study during peak weekday traffic during two weeks. Staff and Public Works are OK with the data from that study. Mr. Belair said the applicant will not have to pay for any additional trip ends. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-12. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Site plan application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse and distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road: Mr. Bouton explained that they have increased the number of items they sell and need room to store product; they also need room to park their loaded trucks at night. He showed the current plan and how traffic enters the site. The queueing area sometimes backs up and truck turn-around becomes dangerous. In the new plan, there is a “truck only” entrance which has a large turn‐around area. Mr. Bouton said the new plan will improve the curb appeal of the property as people driving by won’t see any trucks parked there at night. Mr. Vock showed where stormwater runoff will be brought to a stormwater pond for treatment. He also showed where the fueling area will be moved to allow better circulation and safety. There will also be a “break” area and an observation deck. Mr. Vock also showed the areas for snow removal/storage. He noted that they will have to comply with Vermont stormwater rules and have submitted an application to the State. Mr. Barritt asked why they can’t have just one curb cut. Mr. Bouton explained the issues with truck stacking that can block the access to the parking lot. He noted that they had hired a consulting company to look at the site and they recommended relocation; however, Mr. Farrell does not want to move the company out of South Burlington. Mr. Barritt noted that the Stormwater Superintendent’s comments were very positive. Members then considered landscaping issues. Mr. Belair noted that the City Arborist came up with a different way of replacing trees that are being removed: on a caliper by caliper basis rather than by the number of trees. The applicant’s landscape consultant said that inch‐by‐inch replacement almost doubles the number of trees, and the site is very constrained and they will run out of places to put landscaping. They prefer a one-to-one replacement. He indicated where trees would be planted and showed screening for some trucks that queue near the fuel canopy. There would also be evergreen shrubs to screen parked cars. Mr. Barritt suggested the applicant work with the City Arborist to reach a compromise. Members said they would like to see the new landscaping plan. Members also considered the loss of some green space in front. Ms. Smith said she was OK with that because the front will be more attractive and the bio-swales will help. Mr. Wilking said he had no problem with what was shown since this is an industrial site. Mr. Miller said this is a great story of a successful business that wants to stay in South Burlington. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-10 until 21 April 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 17 February, 3 March and 17 March 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 17 February, 3 March and 17 March 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. ___________5/5/2015________________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CU-15-01 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICHARD B. WHITE – 56 CENTRAL AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-15-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-1501 of Richard B. White to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,571 sq. ft. by constructing two (2) additions of 4’-9 ¾ “ X 8’-10” & 19’ X 17’-6” and constructing a 19’ X 27’ 2-story detached accessory structure to contain a 754 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on March 3, 2015, March 17, 2015 and April 7, 2015. The applicant represented himself. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Richard B. White, seeks conditional use approval to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,571 sq. ft. by constructing two (2) additions of 4’-9 ¾ “ X 8’-10” & 19’ X 17’-6” and constructing a 19’ X 27’ 2-story detached accessory structure to contain a 754 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Richard B. White. 3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District. 4. The application was received on January 19, 2015. 5. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “Richard White 56 Central Avenue South Burlington VT 05401”, prepared by Hinge Architecture, dated March 26, 2015 and received on March 30, 2015. FINDINGS OF FACT The applicant, Richard B. White, seeks conditional use approval to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,574 sq. ft. by constructing two (2) additions of 4’-9 ¾ “ X 8’-10” & 19’ X 17’-6” and constructing a 19’ X 27’ 2-story detached accessory structure to contain a 772 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 9535 S.F No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 6.54 % 16.46 % Max. Overall Coverage 60% 17.4 % 31.7 % Min. Front Setback 10 ft ~20 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 5 ft. < 5 ft. No change Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. 26’7” No change Max. Building Height 25 ft. 23.35 ft. No change to existing home roof; proposed rear addition is 17.05 ft high, proposed accessory unit is 15 ft. high Pre-existing non-conforming Zoning compliance The Board has prepared its Findings of Fact in two sections so as to address, firstly, the proposed two additions to the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and secondly, the proposed accessory structure. FINDINGS ON PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING The applicant seeks approval to add an entryway on the side of the house and an addition on the rear of the house. Since the house is non-conforming, the project must be reviewed under 3.11(D) [Alterations to Non-Conforming Structures] and 4.08(E), and (F) [Queen City Park District] of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDR). Section 3.11 (D) (1) of the Land Development Regulations states that “except as otherwise provided in sub-sections (2) and (3) below, and in Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City Park District, and in Article 12, Section 12.01(D), any non-complying building or structure may be altered, including additions to the building or structure, provided such alteration does not exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for industrial and commercial property of the current assessed value as determined by the City Assessor and in compliance with Section 3.11(B) above. In the event an addition or an expansion to a building or structure is proposed, the addition or expansion itself must comply with the provisions of these regulations (e.g., setback requirements)”. Section 3.11 (D) (2) of the SBLDR’s states that “the thirty-five percent (35%) limitation for residential properties described above shall not apply to structures on lots that were in existence prior to February 28, 1974”. This proposed alteration, pursuant to Section 3.11(D) (2) of the SBLDR’s is not subject to the 35% limitation described in Section 3.11(D) (1) as the lot was in existence prior to February 28, 1974. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc F. Nonconforming Structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not: (a) Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or (b) Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. The proposed additions would increase both the footprint and square footage of the existing non-conforming structure. (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled ‘Conditional Use Review’ below. (3) The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: (a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and (c) Adequate on-site parking. The larger of the two (2) additions will be located in part in the location of an existing deck. A new deck area will be constructed as well on the south side of the building. The smaller addition, located on the south –east corner of the existing house, consists of a new main door entry. The Board finds that the proposed additions will not adversely affect the views of adjoining and/or nearby properties as the entryway addition is minor and the primary addition is taking place within the area already in use by the existing deck. With regards to the proposed additions’ impact on the access of sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties (in this case the property to the north), the primary affect beyond what currently exists will be the height ( 17 ft., 5/8 inch) of the walls and roof of the addition (see Elevations for details). The Board notes that in both cases, the additions meet all setback and height requirements. The applicant submitted a shadow study. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not adversely affect the view of or access to sunlight of the property to the north. With regards to item (c) the plans indicate two parking spaces on the property as well as construction of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc a garage as part of the addition. The Board finds that these will provide adequate on-site parking. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. No increase in the number of bedrooms is proposed as a part of the additions. The Board finds that the proposed additions will not have an undue adverse impact on existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. As noted in Section 4.08 of the LDRs, the purpose of the Queen City Park District is as follows: A Queen City Park District (QCP) is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed additions are part of an overall pattern in recent years of the conversion of what were once smaller seasonal homes into larger year round residences. The additions will not change the existing use of the property as a residential home. The Board finds the proposed additions to be compatible with the existing character of the QCP neighborhood. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The adequacy of existing off-street parking is maintained. The Board finds that the proposed additions will have no undue adverse impact on traffic. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, the property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is a pre-existing non-conformity. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The Board finds that the proposed additions will have no undue adverse impact on the utilization of renewable energy resources such as rooftop solar or wind. The Board finds the project to have met the Conditional Use Criteria noted above. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc FINDINGS ON PROPOSED ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. The Accessory Residential Unit cannot be occupied unless it secures an allocation of wastewater and water from the appropriate authorities, a condition to which the project will be subject to at the time a decision is rendered on the application. In addition, the proposed Accessory Residential Unit is a one-bedroom unit and therefore the likelihood of school-age children living in the property is lower than that of a 2-bedroom or larger home. The Board finds that the proposed Accessory Residential Unit will not have an undue adverse effect on existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. As noted in Section 4.08 of the LDRs, the purpose of the Queen City Park District is as follows: A Queen City Park District (QCP) is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed additions are part of an overall pattern in recent years of the conversion of what were once smaller seasonal homes into larger year round residences. The additions will not change the existing use of the property as a residential property. The Board finds the proposed Accessory Residential Unit to be compatible with the existing character of the QCP neighborhood as other Accessory Residential Units have been approved in the neighborhood. The municipal plan identifies this neighborhood as medium density residential. The plan also notes that the “availability of quality housing, and quality affordable housing, is important in attracting and retaining a qualified work force.” The proposed Accessory Residential Unit represents a small but important contribution towards this goal in a neighborhood that is highly desirable due to its character and the proximity of Lake Champlain. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed Accessory Residential Unit will have two dedicated off-street parking spaces and therefore the Board finds that it will have no undue adverse effect on traffic. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Except where the DRB has discretionary authority noted above, the property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is a pre-existing non-conformity. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The Board finds that the proposed Accessory Residential Unit will have no undue adverse effect on the utilization of renewable energy resources such as rooftop solar or wind. The Board finds the project to have met the Conditional Use Criteria noted above. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS Pursuant to Section 3.10(E) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, in any district where a single- family residence is a principal permitted use, one (1) accessory residential unit within or attached to a primary single-family residence or within an existing, permitted accessory structure may be permitted by the DRB in accordance with Article 14, Site Plan Review, and the following additional criteria: (a) Floor space of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total habitable area of the single-family dwelling unit. According to the applicant, the total habitable area of the single family dwelling unit after creation of the proposed addition is 2,571 sq. ft. As proposed, the accessory residential unit will use 754 sq. ft. of that space, or 29.3% of the habitable area of the principal dwelling. The application conforms to this limitation. (b) The principal dwelling shall be owner occupied. The applicant testified that the primary residence will be owner occupied. This criterion is met. (c) The accessory dwelling shall be an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. The proposed accessory dwelling is a one-bedroom unit. This criterion is met. (d) Adequate wastewater capacity is available to service the accessory unit, as demonstrated by the issuance of a Wastewater Allocation or on-site wastewater permit pursuant to the South Burlington Ordinance regulating the use of public and private sanitary sewage and stormwater systems. The applicant must obtain wastewater approval prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (e) Two additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot, either in a garage or a driveway, or not in any areas required to meet coverage limitations, or any front yard other than a driveway, required by these Regulations. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc As illustrated on the site plan, these are provided. (f) If occupancy of the unit is to be restricted in the deed of the single-family home to a disabled person, no additional off-street parking is required. No such deed restrictions are proposed. This criterion does not apply. (g) A zoning permit shall be required for the accessory residential unit. A zoning permit is required. DECISION Motion by ______________, seconded by ____________________, to approve conditional use application #CU-15-01 of Richard B. White, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This 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. Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the accessory residential unit, the applicant shall obtain final wastewater allocation. 4. 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. 5. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Brian Breslend – 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 __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_15_01_56CentralAve_White_addition_and_accessory_ffd.doc 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SD-15-02 5 Dorset Street Halvorsen Development DATE: April 7, 2015 Development Review Board meeting The applicant, Halvorsen Development and the landowner, Larkin Family Partnership, had requested that the final plat application be reopened to consider two minor changes in the plan: a lease line modification and the relocation of the Pergola north to be located within the lease line limits for this development which the Board granted. Since discussion of this request at the Board’s March 17, 2015 meeting, the applicant has made additional changes. These revisions are detailed in the applicant’ letter and revised set of plans both dated March 30, 2015 and received on March 31, 2015. Staff feels that proposed changes have no significant impact on the plans previously reviewed by the Board and will clear up a potential inconsistency between the location of lease lines and the physical location of the various structures on the property. Recommendation: The Board should review the information provided by the applicant and should close the final plat plan application once it is satisfied. No other outstanding items remain. 12-052Sheet Title Project Title Use of These Drawings 1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended for preliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines or XWLOLWLHVDQGRUDSSURYDOIURPWKHUHJXODWRU\DXWKRULWLHV¬ They are not intended as construction drawings unless noted as such. 2. Only drawings specifically marked ͞For Construction͟ are intended to be used in conjunction with contract documents, specifications, owner/contractor agreements and to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, including EXWQRWOLPLWHGWRWKH$UFKLWHFWLIDSSOLFDEOH¬7KHVH Drawings shall not be used for construction layout. Contact TCE for any construction surveying services or to obtain electronic data suitable for construction layout. 3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are not transferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, and FRSLHVWKHUHRIIXUQLVKHGE\7&(DUHLWVH[FOXVLYHSURSHUW\¬ Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. If errors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought to the 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 all applicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans are SURSHUO\FRRUGLQDWHGZLWKRWKHUDVSHFWVRIWKH3URMHFW¬7KH Owner and Architect, are responsible for any buildings shown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feet DURXQGDQ\EXLOGLQJ¬ 5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains the most current revisions.Project Reference:Scale: Project Number: Date: Drawn By: Project Engineer: Approved By: No. Description Date By Revisions 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COM TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS No. 8104 CIVILJOHN P . P I TRO WI S KISTATE O F VER M ONT PROF ESSIONA L E N G INEERLICE N S E D Field Book: 1 09/29/14 DABAdd Bull Nose Curb Detail Site Details C8-02 08/22/14 SHOWN 14-091 BKA ARCHITECTS SMM ¬¬ ¬ Halvorsen Development One Dorset Street South Burlington, VT NOTE: DETAILS PROVIDED BY OTHERS SW-001 1" = 1' LAST REVISED 04/21/20142014 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TYPICAL STORM DRAIN TRENCH NOTES ON STORM DRAIN TRENCH: 1' FINISHED ROAD GRADE D + 8"1' A WET TRENCH SHALL BE DEWATERED PRIOR TO INSTALLING BEDDING THE LETTER "D" SHOWN ON THE DETAIL INDICATES THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE. DEPTH OF STORM DRAIN LINES VARY, REFER TO PLANS FOR DEPTH IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS. D FOR PAVED SURFACES VARIES(SEE PAVEMENT SECTION)FOR GRASSED AREAS REPLACE TOPSOIL, SEED, AND MULCH OVERFILL TO ALLOW FOR SETTLEMENT. THOROUGHLY COMPACTED SELECTED BACKFILL FROM TRENCH EXCAVATION, FREE OF STONES LARGER THAN 3" IN DIAMETER. COMPACT BACKFILL IN 6" LIFTS. THE SIDES OF TRENCHES SHALL BE SHEETED OR SLOPED TO VOSHA STANDARDS. HDPE PIPE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 3/4" CRUSHED STONE BEDDING FOR CMP, PVC, OR HDPE PIPE. UNDISTURBED SOIL 2 12/22/14 SMMRelocate Storm Detail EN-010LAST REVISED 06/13/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS GRADING A. GENERAL: UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACES WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, COMPACT WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE INDICATED, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. B. GRADING OUTSIDE BUILDING LINES: GRADE AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDING LINES TO DRAIN AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURES AND TO PREVENT PONDING. FINISH SURFACES FREE FROM IRREGULAR SURFACE CHANGES, AND AS FOLLOWS: 1.LAWN OR UNPAVED AREAS: FINISH AREAS THAT ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL TO WITHIN 0.10 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS. LAWNS SHALL BE GRADED SO THAT NO PONDING OCCURS. THE GRADING OF LAWNS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER IF PONDING OCCURS. 2.SIDEWALKS: SHAPE THE SURFACE OF AREAS UNDER WALKS TO LINE, GRADE AND CROSS-SECTION, WITH FINISH SURFACES NOT MORE THAN 0.10 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED SUBGRADE ELEVATION. 3.PAVEMENT: SHAPE THE SURFACE OF AREAS UNDER PAVEMENT TO LINE, GRADE AND CROSS-SECTION, WITH THE FINISH SURFACE NOT MORE THAN 0.10 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED SUBGRADE ELEVATION. PAVEMENT MUST DRAIN SO THAT NO WATER PONDING OCCURS. IF PONDING OCCURS, THE PAVING WILL NOT BE UNACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER. 3 03/13/15 DABReplace Curb Detail 12-052¬Sheet Title Project Title Use of These Drawings 1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended for preliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines or XWLOLWLHVDQGRUDSSURYDOIURPWKHUHJXODWRU\DXWKRULWLHV¬ They are not intended as construction drawings unless noted as such. 2. Only drawings specifically marked ͞For Construction͟ are intended to be used in conjunction with contract documents, specifications, owner/contractor agreements and to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, including EXWQRWOLPLWHGWRWKH$UFKLWHFWLIDSSOLFDEOH¬7KHVH Drawings shall not be used for construction layout. Contact TCE for any construction surveying services or to obtain electronic data suitable for construction layout. 3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are not transferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, and FRSLHVWKHUHRIIXUQLVKHGE\7&(DUHLWVH[FOXVLYHSURSHUW\¬ Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. If errors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought to the 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 all applicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans are SURSHUO\FRRUGLQDWHGZLWKRWKHUDVSHFWVRIWKH3URMHFW¬7KH Owner and Architect, are responsible for any buildings shown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feet DURXQGDQ\EXLOGLQJ¬ 5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains the most current revisions.Project Reference:Scale: Project Number: Date: Drawn By: Project Engineer: Approved By: No. Description Date By Revisions 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COM TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Field Book: Halvorsen Development South Burlington, VT Landscaping Plan L1-01 1" = 20' 14-091 NPC SMM ¬¬ 0 Feet Graphic Scale 20 20 40 60 80 PLANT LIST NOTES: 1.PARKING AREA AND DRIVE 27,000 SF /$1'6&$3(,6/$1'6¬6) 5(48,5(' 57 PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING 4 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES - 3 REQUIRED '(&,'828675((6:,7+,1251($53(5,0(7(52)3$5.,1*$5($6¬ 11 REQUIRED 2.ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 3' OR DEPTH OF LARGEST ROOT BALL, WHICHEVER IS DEEPER. BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF CLEAN FILL AND ORGANIC MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. NO COARSE GRAVEL OR PAVEMENT BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE USED AS BACKFILL IN PLANTING AREAS. LANDSCAPING NARRATIVE: THE CONCEPT FOR THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AROUND THE RECONSTRUCTED BUILDING INCLUDES THE GENERATION OF A NUMBER LANDSCAPE ISLANDS ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING AND PARKING LOT WHERE LITTLE LANDSCAPING CURRENTLY EXISTS. PLANTS SPECIES ARE SELECTED TO PROVIDE BOTH A VISUAL BUFFER FOR THE PARKING AREA, TO ADD TO THE VISUAL INTEREST OF THE SITE AND COMPLIMENT THE BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. THE PROPOSED PLANTS INCLUDE A MIX OF DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREENS VEGETATION, INCLUDING DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES AND SHRUBS, EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER, PERENNIAL PLANTS AND GRASSES. IN ADDITION TO THEIR SELECTION FOR VISUAL INTEREST, DIVERSITY AND SHADE, ONLY SALT TOLERANT PLANTS ARE BEING PROPOSED. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES ADJACENT TO THE SITE, THAT ARE PRESENT ALONG THE HIGHWAY EXIT RAMP AND ALONG BOTH WILLISTON RD. AND DORSET ST., WHICH HAVE BEEN PLANTED AS PART OF RECENT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. TREES BEING PLACED AT THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING AREA ARE INTENDED TO COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN. IN ADDITION, EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON SCREENING BUILT ELEMENTS IN THE IHO OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM THE INTERSTATE. THE LANDSCAPING THAT IS OCCURRING AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE REMOVED WHEN THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH PLANTS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, INSTALLED IN A COHESIVE MANNER WITH SIZES AND QUANTITIES APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE'S SCALE. 08/22/14 L-001LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TREE PLANTING DETAIL 4" SAUCER RIM BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL. IF SOIL IS PREDOMINATELY CLAY OR GRAVEL INCORPORATE ORGANIC MATERIAL AS DIRECTED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANT PIT WIDTH 3X BALL DIA. NOTES:* STAKE ONLY IN EXTREMELY WINDY CONDITIONS AS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT * IF KNOWN, PLANT THIN BARKED TREES WITH THE SAME SUN ORIENTATION OR WRAP WITH WHITE POLYPROPYLENE WRAP * BURLAP: LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE NATURAL BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE SYNTHETIC BURLAP * WIRE BASKETS: CUT AWAY BOTTOM RINGS. PARTIALLY BACKFILL THEN REMOVE REMAINING WIRE. * PLANT TREE TO EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, MAIN ORDER ROOT, AND IN SAME ORIENTATION AS TREE WAS GROWN. DO NOT PLANT TOO DEEP * 3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH (TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED FABRIC. DO NOT PLACE NEXT TO TREE TRUNK6" CLEARANCE 2' DIA. MULCH RING SLOPE GROUND TO DRAIN DIG TREE PIT ONLY AS DEEP AS ROOT BALL L-002LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BALL AND BURLAP SHRUB FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL *LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE BURLAP CONTINUOUS WHEN USED IN BEDS. WEED BARRIER FABRIC TO BE *SHREDDED BARK MULCH AND GROWN WHICH SHRUB HAD PREVIOUSLY *PLANT SHRUB AT SAME DEPTH AT ARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED (TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE 3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH 3" SAUCER RIM FABRIC. DO NOT PLACE CLOSE TO MAIN STEM. PLANT PIT WIDTH 3X BALL DIA. NOTES: BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATED MATERIAL. IF SOIL IS PREDOMINATELY CLAY OR GRAVEL INCORPORATE ORGANIC MATERIAL AS DIRECTED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 BJO09/29/14Add Plantings & Update Plant List 2 BJO11/18/14Update Plantings & Plant List KEY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QUAN.SIZE COMMENTS AF Acer x freemanii Autumn Blaze Maple 5 2 1/2"-3"B&B 'Autumn Blaze' GTI Gleditsia triacanthos Imperial Honeylocust 4 2 1/2"-3"B&B 'Imperial' NYS Nyssa sylvatica Black Tupelo 4 2 1/2"-3"B&B SR Syringa reticulata Ivory Silk 2 2 1/2"-3"B&B 'Ivory Silk'Japanese Tree Lilac AM Aronia melanocarpa Autumn Magic Chokeberry 7 5 gal.CONT. 'Autumn Magic' CAR Clethra alnifolia Red Summersweet 39 3 gal. CONT. 'Ruby Spice' IGS Ilex glabra 'Densa'Inkberry 105 3 gal.CONT. IV Ilex verticillata Jim Dandy & Berry Nice 20 5 gal.CONT. 'Jim Dandy & Berry Nice'Winterberry PF Potentilla fruiticosa Goldstar Cinquefoil 18 3 gal.CONT. 'Goldstar' PMT Potentilla fruiticosa Mango Tango Potentilla 24 3 gal.CONT. 'Mango Tango' PO Physocarpus opulifolius Red Leaf Ninebark 11 5 gal.CONT. 'Diablo' RHA Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 23 3 gal.CONT. RPJM Rhododrendron PJM PJM Rhododendron 12 5 gal.CONT. SMP Syringa meyeri 'Palibin'Dwarf Korean Lilac 10 7 gal. CONT. A A' SECTION A-A' SEE DETAIL SHEET C8-01 3 BJO03/06/15Update Plantings & Plant List 4 03/20/15Update Planting Locations BJO PLANTING BY OTHERS SEE INSET A FOR DETAIL INSET A: LANDSCAPING BY OTHERS PER PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED SOUTH BURLINGTON SP-14-16 ROSA RUGOSA JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS 'PFITZER AUREA' FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANIA 'PATMORE' #SD-15-02 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING HALVORSEN DEVELOPMENT --- 1 DORSET STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-02 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application # #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of; 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’ X 55’ detached accessory building, 1 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on February 17, 2015. Debra Bell represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The project consists of final plat application # #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of; 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’ X 55’ detached accessory building, 1 Dorset Street. 2. The owners of record of the subject properties are Krislin 111, LLC and Larkin Family Partnership; 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 1 – Residential 12 Zoning District. 4. The application was received on January 23, 2015. 5. The plan set submitted consists of a 23 page set of plans, page five (5) is entitled “Halvorsen Development One Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Existing Conditions”, prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 8/22/14. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements C1 Zoning District Required Proposed Existing Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 5.61 acres 5.61 acres Max. Building Coverage 40% 17.1% 17.4% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 67.0% 68.8% ♣ Min. Front Setback (Williston Road) 50 ft. 9.5 ft. ~100 ft. #SD-15-02 2 ♣ Min. Front Setback (Dorset Street) 50 ft. 6.0 ft. ~52 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. ~62 ft. Min. Rear Setback (Corner Lot: Not applicable.) n/a n/a n/a ♣ Front yard coverage (Williston Road) 30% 44.3% 89.0% ♣ Front yard coverage (Dorset Street) 30% 48.0% 54.9% - zoning compliance ♣ -waiver requested The Board, as part of its review of a previous proposal (#SD-13-31) for the new hotel, had found the current front yard coverage along Dorset Street to be 63.8% and found the proposed lowering of the front yard coverage to 48.0% to be acceptable in its progression towards the 30% maximum as only a portion of the site is being redeveloped. Similarly, the Board finds that the existing front yard coverage along Williston Road is 89% and therefore the proposed coverage of 44.3% is a major improvement. The Board also finds that the setback waiver would be appropriate as buildings along Dorset Street have generally been supported to be closer to the street to promote pedestrian-friendly activity. The same is true for Williston Road. See notes below, however, concerning operable entrances. The Board grants Front Setback waivers of 40.5 ft. (resulting in a 9.5 ft. setback) along Williston Road and 41 ft. (resulting in a 9.0 ft. setback) along Dorset Street. The Board grants Front Yard coverage waivers to allow for 44.3% along Williston Road and for 48% along Dorset Street. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, subdivisions shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The subject property is served by public water and public sewer that the proposed conversion from a restaurant to a retail / pharmacy use would not likely require additional water or wastewater for the PUD. This shall be confirmed, and any additional capacity shall be applied for, prior to permit issuance. (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The Board finds that the proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. #SD-15-02 3 (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. 1. Access Prior to approval of the construction of the Homewood Suites hotel the curb cut was 70 feet wide. In approving the plan for the hotel the Board approved a 55 ft. wide entrance. Access to the subject lot is proposed to remain as a 55 ft. foot wide, shared entry and exit drive from Dorset Street. This entry drive will be shared by the existing hotel, the hotel under construction and the proposed retail building. The entry and exit are separated by a 12 ft. wide curb reveal reduction. The applicant has proposed to lower the curb reveal island to 1 ½ inches in height to accommodate delivery vehicles and fire apparatus. The Board finds this acceptable. 2. Circulation & Traffic The Board finds that the change from a restaurant use to a retail use will not result in an increase in p.m. peak hour trips. The applicant has proposed that the southwest entry to the parking lot to be 18 ft. wide and will also stripe the entry to indicate it as an entry only location. The applicant has also indicated that signage will also be installed to direct the retail building users to exit at the SW corner. The Board finds that the applicant has adequately addressed access, circulation and traffic management and that this criterion is met. (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands or unique natural features on the site. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The Board finds the proposed project to be compatible with the planned development patterns of the C1-R12 Zoning District. In response to the Board suggestions at the preliminary plat hearing, the applicant made revisions to the pergola building along Dorset Street and has made minor changes to the architectural features of the western facade of the building. (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. This is among the densest and most urban areas in the City. Large areas of open space would be uncommon and unfitting. Still, there is a large swath of open land along the property’s boundary with the Interstate. No development is permitted in this overlay district. As noted for previous #SD-15-02 4 applications concerning this property, the applicant is also proposing to keep green space along its southern boundary which is shared with the University Mall. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The fire chief has preliminarily examined the proposal with the applicant and given oral guidance. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The PUD has an approved connection to the property to the south. Sidewalks are existing along Dorset Street and Williston Road, and additional sidewalks are proposed to connect the building to the pergola and hotels. Stormwater enhancements are proposed along the western side of the property. See below for discussion of landscaping. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Previous plans and discussions of the property showed a need for a pedestrian connection to the mall property to the south. A connection is shown along the eastern edge of the parking area. The Board finds this acceptable. The Deputy Director of Public Work, Tom DiPietro, submitted comments to staff in an email dated 2/12/15 as follows: I reviewed the plans for Halvorsen Development project that were prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers and last revised on 12/22/14. I would like to offer the following comments: 1.This project is located in both the Potash Brook and Centennial Brook watersheds. These watersheds are listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2.The project area appears to be covered under an existing State of Vermont stormwater permit. The applicant should confirm that the proposed stormwater treatment system complies with State of Vermont permit requirements, specifically as they relate to redevelopment. 3.The project will likely disturb greater than 1 acre of land and will therefore require a stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. The applicant should confirm that they’ve provided sufficient maintenance access to the underground stormwater infiltration gallery. 5.The applicant should consider implementing measures to ensure that the first flush of water entering the underground infiltration gallery is preferentially routed to the “isolator row”. Typically this is achieved by including a small overflow weir in the upstream manhole (DMH2 in this case). #SD-15-02 5 6.The DRB should consider including a condition that requires all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure be properly maintained. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom The Deputy Director of Public Works in an email dated 2/13/15 indicated that with the response from the applicant to his comments, he is now satisfied with the plans. The Director of Public Works indicated in an email dated 2/13/15 that he had no comments on the project. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (A)(10 ) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the proposed use of this property to be in conformance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: 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. Applicant has shown pedestrian connections between buildings and from the sidewalks to the building. The applicant proposed a second operable entrance at the easterly portion of the building façade facing Williston Road. The Board finds that this operable entrance along Williston Road as well as the main entrance facing the parking lot will be two-way operable during all business hours. Parking requirements total 233 spaces continue to be calculated as follows: -For the 71 room hotel with eight (8) employees, 79 spaces are required and are on site. -For the 89-unit extended stay hotel with sixteen (16) employees 97 spaces are required and are on site. -For the proposed 11,242 SF retail store, 57 spaces are required and are proposed. Four (4) parking spaces are marked as handicapped-accessible. #SD-15-02 6 The total proposed parking spaces are 233 which match the amount required. Note that the Board previously approved a 267 space parking plan in a prior proposal which included a restaurant instead of a retail use. (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. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re- used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District….[text omitted to save space] (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. The Board notes that the basic intent of the above section is to regulate and limit the amount of space dedicated to parking between buildings along a street. #SD-15-02 7 The applicant has proposed to add a 55’ x 10’ pergola along Dorset Street which, when deemed to be a “building”, increases the amount of building width in order to comply with the building width to parking area width ratio and to add shrub landscaping along the length of the parking area. The Board finds that the length of this structure is sufficient to meet the standard for building to parking width ratio for the parcel including the hotel, pergola, and proposed new principal building. The landscaping is deciduous and is anticipated to reach a height of 4-6 feet at maturity which should adequately screen the parking. The architecture is consistent with the adjacent primary CVS building. The pergola is also 10’ wide, which is likely sufficient space for human use as described in the definition of building. The Board finds that the pergola as proposed is a building and that this building and landscaping are substantive enough to create an inviting environment and create architectural integration with the property. The Board finds that the proposed pergola building together with the pedestrian circulation, the presence of the building on Dorset and Williston Roads, and the installation of an operable doorway on Williston Road, meet this standard. The Board also finds that the applicant shall reserve space in the pergola to allow for future “wayfinding” or “interpretive” information such as kiosks or panels or signs to provide greater interest to users. The Board finds that as a result of the pergola building and landscaping that criterion (c) above is met. Criterion (d) above also requires that there be sufficient landscaping to “screen the parking from view of the interstate”. The Board finds that this requirement is being met with this proposal. (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 adjoining buildings. The height of the proposed building is two stories with the top floor consisting of a small mezzanine and 28 ft. high which is below the limit of 35 ft. for this zoning district. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (5) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The Board finds that this criterion is met. #SD-15-02 8 (6) 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. The Board finds that this criterion is met. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (1) 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. The Board has already discussed the issues, proposals, and possibilities for shared access with abutting properties. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The Board finds that this criterion is met. 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). The plans show proposed dumpsters or other waste facilities, adequately screened. The Board finds that this criterion is met. OTHER - Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans show adequate snow storage areas for the subject property. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan and itemized budget totaling $25,965. Based on $1,779,020 in building costs, the plans shall include a minimum of $25,490 in new trees and shrubs. This requirement is being met. #SD-15-02 9 The proposed parking areas contain more than twenty (20) parking spaces, and therefore should be landscaped in accordance with Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations. The site plan shows proposed landscaping on the interior of the proposed parking area. The Board finds this criterion to be met. OTHER - Lighting Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30’ above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, and an average of 0.1 foot candles average. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing existing foot candle values at the property. Existing light values due to intersection lighting currently exceeding the maximum standard and the average standard. The lighting plan indicates that the project’s luminaries shall not exceed existing levels. The Board finds this criterion to be met. OTHER - INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT A new dumpster enclosure is proposed within the Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO). This type of use is not contemplated within this district in the regulations. The Board finds that given the context of the proposed development with innovate features such as buildings along the streets, operable entrances, and hidden parking areas, and that the existing encroachment in the IHO District would be reduced with the project, that this new dumpster enclosure would be acceptable if the landscaping requirement discussed above was being met. LEASE LINE ADJUSTMENT The applicant is proposing to make a minor boundary line adjustment between the two parcels within the PUD so that the porte-cochere of the existing Comfort Inn is solely located on the southernmost parcel and so that the pergola associated with the proposed retail store is solely located on the northernmost parcel. For purposes of the LDRs, the two lease lots included in this proposal shall be considered one lot as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. DECISION Motion by __________________, seconded by __________________, to approve final plat application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development subject to the following stipulations: #SD-15-02 10 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval and final wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 4. The Board grants Front Setback waivers of 40.5 ft (resulting in a 9.5 ft. setback) along Williston Road and 44 ft. (resulting in a 6 ft. setback) along Dorset Street. 5. The Board grants Front Yard coverage waivers to allow for 44.3% along Williston Road and for 48.0% along Dorset Street. 6. 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. 7. Both doorways shall remain open for entry and exit during business hours. 8. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan stating that the two lease lots shall be considered as one lot for purposes of the Land Development Regulations. 9. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use or occupancy of the building. 10. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the new retail building will generate zero (0) additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 11. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 12. Prior to the issuance of the zoning permit, the applicant shall provide a complete set of approved plans in a digital format as one (1) PDF format file. 13. The mylar shall be recorded prior to permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 15. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall post a $25,490 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 16. The final plat plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plans: #SD-15-02 11 a. The building elevation plan shall be revised to remove all “CVS/Pharmacy” signs from the building. 10. The final plat plans (Krebs & Lansing survey plat & sheet C2-02) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Brian Breslend – 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 __________________ 2015, 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_07_1200AirportDrive_RobertAudette_subdivide_l ot_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 3, 2015 Plans received: February 12, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-07 ROBERT AUDETTE – 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE Meeting Date: April 7, 2015 Applicant Robert B. Audette 41 Peterson Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Owners Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_07_1200AirportDrive_RobertAudette_subdivide_lot_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-07 of Robert Audette to subdivide a 9,607 sq. ft. lot off from a 770 acre parcel developed with an airport, 1200 Airport Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on February 12, 2015 and offer the following comments: The applicant is proposing to define a 9,607 SF lot which he would then lease from the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport. Staff comments only address the basic requirements to subdivide the property so as to enable it to be more formally leased from the Airport to Mr. Audette. The project will also need to go through Site Plan review to obtain a permit to maintain its use as a driveway, parking area and dumpster storage area. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Airport Industrial District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Airport Industrial Zoning District Required Proposed Existing Min. Lot Size 3 acres 9,607 SF lease 770 acres Max. Building Coverage 40% n/a n/a Max. Overall Coverage 50% n/a n/a Min. Front Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a n/a Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a n/a - zoning compliance The current 770 acre parcel is in compliance with these requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. Compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_07_1200AirportDrive_RobertAudette_subdivide_lot_sketch.doc Compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features on the parcel to be leased. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. No buildings or improvements are proposed. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. This criterion is not applicable. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). According to the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and objectives for this area of the City is as follows: 3. Commercial Centers These areas generally follow the Shelburne Road and Williston Road Corridors. These areas are intended to consist predominantly of commercial uses, however, residential and industrial can be mixed throughout the area. These centers are generally already developed with commercial establishments. Therefore, growth will occur primarily as infill or conversion development. The City encourages mixed-use development in these areas (e.g. mixed residential/commercial or mixed retail/office/restaurant) to encourage pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, services, and shared parking opportunities. These areas are intended to meet both local and regional shopping and employment needs. The project will clarify and support an existing commercial development and is therefore consistent with the Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_07_1200AirportDrive_RobertAudette_subdivide_lot_sketch.doc SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 project will clarify the legal status of an existing, non-permitted use. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The applicant is currently parking vehicles here related to the business use of the abutting property to the south which he owns. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No changes to the building are proposed. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 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. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. (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. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_07_1200AirportDrive_RobertAudette_subdivide_lot_sketch.doc LEASED LOT – NOTICE OF CONDITIONS The applicant is proposing to define a 9,607 SF lot which he would then lease from the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport. For purposes of the LDRs, the lease area included in this proposal shall be considered as part of the one large 770 acre lot owned by the Airport and as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Robert Audette, applicant DescriptionRevisions ByDateThis plat meets the requirements of 27 VSA 1403._____________________________________________ (Signature)# 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COM TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Project Number: Date: Scale: Drawn By: Project Manager: Crd file: Field Book: Approved By: Sheet: J. ROBERT & ANNE AUDETTE 1900 & 1930 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Lease Plat 0 Feet Graphic Scale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tax map no. 1810-1890 FARGNOLI ASSOCIATES v. 446 p. 647 map slide 336 L1LINE DATA TABLE ¬ 1/21/15 14-176 SDT JAD ¬ 186 2014176 LEGEND WILLISTON ROAD 1"=30' CITY OF BURLINGTON BURLINGTON AIRPORT v. 35 p. 445 v. 385 p. 250 SHED BUILDING BUILDING STORAGE BUILDING PAVED DRIVE GRAVEL PAVED PARKING AREA SIGN PAVED PAVED GRAVEL GRAVEL STORAGE BUILDING STORAGE BUILDING STORAGE BUILDING STORAGE BUILDING CONCRETE GATESOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED FOR RECORD ______________________________________A.D. 201_________ at _____________ O'clock ____________ minutes ________ m and recorded in Slide__________________________________ Attest: _____________________________________ Town Clerk SEWER EASEMENT TO CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON v. 130 p. 226 V. 130 P. 228 map slide 58 2.35 ACRES STA TE O F VER M ONT LAND S U R V EYORLICE N S E D SCOTT D. TAYLOR No. 488 AVIAT ION DR IVE GUY MH MH PAVED TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF BANK TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF BANK 4" SQUARE, TOP BROKEN NO. 5 REBAR STICKING UP DOWN 0.1' 1-3/4" O.D. DOWN 0.2' 1" O.D., DOWN 0.3' BENT OVER 4" SQUARE DOWN 0.2' 2-1/2" O.D., UP 0.9' METAL CAP CONC. NO. 5 DOWN 0.3' CITY OF BURLINGTON BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 770 ACRES +_ AIR P O R T D R I V E WILLISTON R O A D AUDETTE PARCEL OVERALL AIRPORT PROPERTY NOT TO SCALEAIRPORT PARKWAYAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. ON THE ______ DAY OF ________________________ 201___, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________ 201___, BY __________________________________________ CHAIRMAN OR CLERK AREA TO BE LEASED TO AUDETTE FROM CITY OF BURLINGTON 9,607.0 SQ. FT.16.00'6 (LEASE LINE GRAVEL tax map no. 1810-1900 THIS PROPERTY IS NOT PART OF THE PUD SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #DR-15-01 DR_15_01_20San Remo Dr_20SanRemoDriveLLC_Initial_mastersignpermit_ffd.doc 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MASTER SIGNAGE PERMIT #DR-15-01 20 SAN REMO DRIVE, LLC – 20 SAN REMO DRIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master signage permit application #DR-15-01 of 20 San Remo Drive, LLC to establish the initial master signage design parameters for all future signs on the property, 20 San Remo Drive. 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 April 7, 2015 and the plans and supporting materials contained in the application file, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. South Burlington Realty Company, LLC filed Design Review application #DR-14-11 of for an initial Master Signage Permit for new signage, 60 San Remo Drive. 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. 2. The application was received on March 5, 2015. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is 20 San Remo Drive, LLC 4. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 7, 2015. The applicant was represented by Bob Diaco. 5. The applicant submitted renderings of the proposed signage which consists of a wall-mounted sign and a door-mounted sign fabricated of dibond. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing this application for a Master Signage Permit, the Board has considered the following: This property lies within Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. The relevant sections of the Sign Ordinance are cited below. SECTION 6. Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (a) Purpose. There is hereby designated and created the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, the boundaries of which are shown on a plan entitled, "Dorset Street/City Center Sign District", dated July 22, 1998, which plan is incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance as #DR-15-01 DR_15_01_20San Remo Dr_20SanRemoDriveLLC_Initial_mastersignpermit_ffd.doc 2 Appendices A and B. This special sign district is designated to reflect the long term goal of the City to develop Dorset Street and the City Center area as an attractive mixed-use, well-designed, integrated focal point for the City. The area is to be a primarily residential, office, retail and municipal core for South Burlington. This special sign district is also intended to promote the intended pedestrian orientation for the future of the district as well as to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety, to encourage the effectiveness and clarity of sign communication, and to maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality within the district. (b) Standards for Design Review. The erection, alteration or relocation of any sign, except for temporary, window and exempt signs, located within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, as depicted on the above referenced plan, shall require design approval by the South Burlington Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. Such design approval shall be required prior to issuance of a sign permit by the Code Officer. In reviewing an application for design approval, the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board shall consider the following: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the 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. (2) Promote 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. (3) Color and 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. (4) 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. The signs will be constructed of 1/8” thick aluminum composite known as “dibond”. This material is designed for long-term exterior use and is waterproof, heat proof and totally resistant to insect infestations. The Board finds that the materials used will be of high-quality and be consistent with the overall industrial materials used on the building itself. Three primary colors, green, red, and white, are proposed. The Board considers the proposed signs to be consistent with the standards above. SECTION 8. Master Signage Permits (a) At such time as a new or amended permit is sought after the effective date of this Ordinance, all properties in the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District seeking a sign permit or permits and all multi-tenant buildings or multi-building complexes located wholly or partially within #DR-15-01 DR_15_01_20San Remo Dr_20SanRemoDriveLLC_Initial_mastersignpermit_ffd.doc 3 the R7-NC district shall submit a complete, new application for a Master Signage Permit to the Design Review Committee, irrespective of the status of past approvals. The new Permit shall not invalidate the provisions of any existing approval, exemption or agreement with respect to signage; rather, it is instead intended to clarify the approved parameters for signage subject to a Master Signage Permit. Upon approval of a new Master Signage Permit, permittees shall use the review and amendment procedures set forth in this Section. (b) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, no permit shall be issued for an individual sign requiring a permit unless and until a Master Signage Permit for the lot on which the sign(s) will be erected has been approved as conforming with the provisions of this Ordinance. In the case of a planned unit development (PUD), a Master Signage Permit shall be required for the entire PUD. An owner of a multi-tenant building or multi-building commercial property located anywhere outside the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, and a sponsor of a project involving interpretive signage or wayfinding, also may apply for a Master Signage Permit as provided herein. (d) Design. (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. The applicant shall comply with the above requirements. 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. 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. The proposed signs are of substantial and sturdy construction and as previously stated the materials are weather-resistant and high quality. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. #DR-15-01 DR_15_01_20San Remo Dr_20SanRemoDriveLLC_Initial_mastersignpermit_ffd.doc 4 (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. The Board finds these criteria satisfied. (f) Free-standing Signs All free-standing signs and the premises surround same shall be maintained by the owner thereof in a clean, sanitary and inoffensive condition, and free and clear of all obnoxious substances, rubbish and weeds. Free-standing signs shall be so designed as to be self-supporting without the need for guy wires, cables, chains, lines, or other similar ancillary supports. Not applicable. DECISION Motion by _____________________, seconded by _________________, to approve Design Review Application #DR-15-01 of 20 San Remo Drive, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. The sign colors approved are green, red and white. 3. 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 #DR-15-01 DR_15_01_20San Remo Dr_20SanRemoDriveLLC_Initial_mastersignpermit_ffd.doc 5 4. Illuminated signs shall be limited to internal or external illumination, and shall comply with the requirements of the Sign ordinance. 5. There are no limitations on font or font type. 6. 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. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend 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 __________________ 2015, 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SP-15-12 35 Joy Drive University of Vermont Medical Center DATE: April 7, 2015 Development Review Board meeting Site plan application #SP-15-12 of University of Vermont Medical Center to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,664 sq. ft. medical office building with approval expand the facility by 5,534 sq. ft. in two (2) phases of 5,065 sq. ft. in phase 1 and 469 sq. ft. in phase 2. The amendment consists of revising condition #11 of site plan approval #SP-15-03 to reduce the estimated traffic generation, 35 Joy Drive. In the Findings of Fact and Decision for #SP-15-03 the Board stated the following with regards to traffic generation: Other – Vehicle Trip Ends Based upon the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th) edition using Land Use Code”630” for Clinic, the average Trip Generation Rate for the Weekday P.M. Peak Hour is 5.18 VTEs per 1,000 SF of gross floor area. The VTE of the existing clinic space is 5.18 x 8,410 SF / 1000 or 43.56 VTEs. Phase I would increase the size of the clinic space to 13,475 SF while Phase I and Phase II would increase the size to 13,944 SF. Total VTE’s respectively for Phase I only and for Phase I and II combined are 69.80 and 72.23, respectively. Therefore, the Board finds that construction of Phase I only will result in an increase of 26.24 VTEs while construction of both Phase I and Phase II will result in an increase of 28.97 VTEs. For condition #11 of the Board stated as follows: For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the addition will generate twenty-six point two-four (26.24) and twenty-eight point nine-seven (28.97) additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour for Phase I only and Phase I and II combined, respectively. The applicant, noting that only 1 study was included in the ITE manual for Land Use Code 630, prepared its own traffic counts and argues that full build out would only generate 31.79 VTEs. The original approval for the building (#SP-99-12) estimated that the building would generate 31.96 VTEs, so there would be no increase in traffic above that which is currently approved. In an email to staff dated April 3, 2015, the Department of Public Works commented as follows with regards to 2 the traffic calculation: Ray, I have reviewed the trip generation information provided by Paul Simon (dated March 25, 2015) provided on behalf of the UVM Medical Center and agree with his methodology and findings. Further, the ITE Land Use Code 630 (Clinic) is an appropriate starting point for this land use. Please let me know if you have any questions. Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer The acceptance of the applicant’s methodology for estimating traffic would result in no additional traffic to be generated for the recently approved expansion Recommendation: The Board should review the information provided by the applicant and the Department of Public Works and decide whether to revise condition #11 of site plan approval #15-03. 25 Crossroad Waterbury, Vermont 05676 T. 802.244.5220 F. 802.806.1010 W. josepharchitects.com UVMMC Joy Drive Traffic Counts – Week 1 – 4:00 to 6:00 pm 3/10/15 Total Day = 13 3/11/15 Total Day = 21 3/12/15 Total Day = 25 Peak Hour = 8 Peak Hour = 17 Peak Hour = 13 Time Entering Site Exiting Site Time Entering Site Exiting Site Time Entering Site Exiting Site 4:00 1 4:00 1 1 4:01 1 4:01 2 4:02 1 4:06 1 4:10 2 4:04 1 4:09 1 4:11 1 4:05 1 4:11 1 4:25 1 4:09 1 4:13 1 4:57 1 4:10 1 1 4:17 1 Subtotal 3 5 4:11 1 1 4:19 1 4:14 1 4:21 1 5:01 1 4:20 1 4:23 1 5:34 1 4:23 1 4:32 1 5:44 1 4:26 1 4:33 1 5:56 1 4:29 1 4:35 1 6:00 1 4:40 1 4:51 1 5:03 1 Subtotal 5 12 5:11 1 1 5:21 1 1 5:10 1 5:22 1 1 5:23 1 5:25 1 5:32 1 5:26 1 5:44 1 5:28 1 5:54 1 5:57 1 6:00 1 Subtotal 5 8 Total 4 9 Total 6 15 Total 6 19 Note: All traffic entering the site turned left off of Joy Drive. All traffic exiting the site turned right onto Joy Drive. This was consistent for all days on site. Bold type indicates heaviest 1 hour period per day. 2 March 20, 2015 25 Crossroad Waterbury, Vermont 05676 T. 802.244.5220 F. 802.806.1010 W. josepharchitects.com UVMMC Joy Drive Traffic Counts – Week 2 – 4:00 to 6:00 pm 3/17/15 Total Day = 36 3/18/15 Total Day = 34 3/19/15 Total Day = 24 Peak Hour = 28 Peak Hour = 29 Peak Hour = 21 Time Entering Site Exiting Site Time Entering Site Exiting Site Time Entering Site Exiting Site 4:00 2 4:02 1 4:03 1 4:02 1 4:03 1 4:05 1 4:03 1 1 4:04 2 4:06 1 4:05 1 4:05 2 4:07 1 4:06 1 4:06 1 4:09 1 4:07 1 4:11 1 4:10 1 4:09 1 4:14 1 4:11 1 4:10 1 4:16 1 4:14 1 1 4:11 1 4:17 2 4:18 1 4:12 1 4:18 1 4:19 1 4:15 2 4:19 2 4:23 1 4:16 1 4:20 1 4:30 1 4:17 1 4:21 1 4:34 1 4:18 1 1 4:25 1 4:35 1 1 4:20 1 4:26 1 1 4:36 1 4:24 1 4:28 1 4:40 1 4:25 1 4:29 1 4:43 1 4:34 1 4:32 1 4:46 1 4:35 1 4:42 1 4:51 1 4:43 2 4:43 1 Subtotal 2 19 4:47 1 4:44 1 4:49 1 4:51 1 5:37 1 4:59 1 4:52 1 5:49 1 Subtotal 7 21 4:53 1 6:00 1 Subtotal 7 22 5:06 1 5:27 1 5:02 1 5:28 1 5:05 1 5:47 1 5:37 1 5:50 1 5:46 1 5.52 1 5:51 1 5:54 1 6:00 1 Total 9 27 Total 7 27 Total 3 21 M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Paul Simon, Project Manager Date: March 25, 2015 Re: Site Plan Review Application Submission for 35 Joy Drive Specific to Traffic Generation Data and Road Impact Fees Project Narrative Enclosed is Site Plan Review application for 35 Joy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. The applicant, University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC), is planning to construct a 5,534SF± building addition at their existing renal dialysis center located at 35 Joy Drive. Among the proposed improvements are a two phased building addition, modifications and redevelopment of an existing paved parking area, added sidewalks, utilities, stormwater management features consisting of a bio-retention facility an infiltration basin, and site landscaping improvements. The Development Review Board approved the 5,534SF addition and described site improvements on February 18, 2015. This subsequent review and application is specific to traffic generation data and road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the use of the latest version of the ITE TRIP GENERATION manual is used as the baseline for the city regulations because it is considered to be an appropriate measurement of the traffic impacts of a particular use category. There are, however, situations when other traffic generation sources may be required by the regulations. Other sources may include local traffic generation studies conducted for the particular use. Local trip generation studies are required when: a) the particular land use is not covered by ITE; b) there are fewer than 4 data points (studies) in the ITE Trip Generation manual; or c) the size of the use falls outside the range of the Trip Generation data points. The proposed use falls under Land Use Code “630” for clinic use in the ITE manual. For this land use there is only one data point; thus according to the ordinance, a local study for trip end data is preferred. Page 2 of 3 Calculating Traffic Generation of the Proposed Use: We understand following a meeting with city staff on March 9, 2015, the existing 8,410sf clinic space includes a grandfathered number of Weekday P.M. Peak Hour (VTE) Vehicle Trip Ends assigned to the property. The assigned allowance for the existing facility includes 43.56 VTE’s based on the ITE Trip Generation Manuel (9th) edition using Land Use Code “630” for Clinic Use. (5.18 x 8,410sf / 1000) The construction of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will result in an increase of 5,534sf. For purposes of the expansion, and because of the lack of data points in the ITE Trip Generation manual, local traffic generation studies were conducted on six (6) weekdays beginning Tuesday March 10, 2015 through Thursday March 19, 2015 (see attachment) between the hours of 4-6PM. The results include the following: 1. Average P.M. peak hour was determined between 4-5PM. The majority of the trips entering and exiting the site between 4-6PM was during the first hour. 2. The average trips entering and exiting the site during the Weekday P.M. peak hour was calculated and equal to 19.17 trips. (8+17+12+28+29+21 = 115 / 6 days = 19.17) 3. The Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate (per 1,000 square feet gross floor area) was calculated and equal to 2.28 (19.17 / (8,410SF / 1,000 = 2.28) Based on the on-site traffic analysis concluded on March 19, 2015, and trip generation rate calculation, the total Vehicle Trip Ends for the entire facility with the full build out of Phase two, equal 31.79 VTE’s. (2.28 x 13,944SF / 1000). Last, for the purpose of calculating road impact fees and recording the balance of VTE’s credited toward any future expansion we provide the following data: 43.56 VTE’s (grandfathered / assigned to the property prior to this application) - 31.79 VTE’s (determined per on-site data for the entire 13,944SF facility) 11.77 VTE’s (credited for any future expansion beyond 13,944SF) Because an 11.77 VTE credit remains for any future developments, there are no road impact fees for the 13,944 proposed expansion. Last, while the results of the traffic generation study in March 2015 concluded an average of 19.17 trips during the P.M. peak hour, the purpose of the proposed expansion includes training patients for home dialysis care. Following patient training, we suspect trips to the facility may decrease as home dialysis care increases. Page 3 of 3 Summary: In summary, we request DRB review and approval of this application for the traffic generation calculation as determined above using on-site data in-lieu of the ITE Trip Generation Manual; and in accordance with the city land development regulations: Appendix B.2 “Calculating the Traffic Generation of the Proposed Use” “When Local Traffic Generation Studies are Required: subsection b) there are fewer than 4 data points (studies) in the ITE Trip Generation manual. Attachments: A: ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th) edition Using Land Use Code “630” for Clinic use. Results include only 1 data point < 4 as recommended in the city regulations with a high Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation rate of 5.18 B: Traffic Study Summary (by Joseph Architects, LLC) Includes six (6) weekdays from March 10, 2015 through March 19, 2015. Weekday studies conducted Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (2 consecutive weeks) Results of study include Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation rate of 2.28 as shown in the calculations above. C: Appendix B.2 Calculating the Traffic Generation (per city regulations) B.2 Calculating the Traffic Generation of the Proposed Use When Local Traffic Generation Studies are required: Subsection b) when: there are fewer than 4 data points (studies) in the ITE Trip Generation manual. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_10_5HolmesRd_FarrellDistributing_Amend_addition _gas_canopy_deck DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 3, 2015 Plans received: March 24, 2015 5 Holmes Road SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-10 Meeting date: April 7, 2015 Owner/Applicant Farrell Distributing Corporation 5 Holmes Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0870-00005 Commercial 2 Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 24, 2015 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Commercial 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 S.F. 584,148 s.f. 584,148 s.f. Max. Building Coverage 40% 25.9% 29.9 % Max. Overall Coverage 70% 55.9% 61.9 % Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 12.7% 24.6 % Min. Front Setback 30 ft > 30 ft 338 ft Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. 68 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. 35 ft. Max. Building Height 40 ft. < 40 ft. 28 ft. Zoning Compliance Site Plan Review Standards 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. Staff considers the proposed building and uses to be consistent with 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. Existing parking at the site is divided as follows: existing spaces are 58 truck spaces and 109 car spaces while proposed parking is 37 truck spaces and 133 car spaces. Based upon a proposed final square footage of 175,000 SF of predominantly warehouse space, 88 car parking spaces are required. This requirement is met. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) …………… (ii) ………….. (iii) ……………… (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); Staff recognizes the desire of the applicant to improve safety on the property by creating a new truck only curb cut and segregating the flow of truck traffic and employee traffic and parking. Staff feels that the proposal meets condition (iv) noted above. However, staff has concerns over the loss of greenspace off the southeast corner of the existing building and the loss of a pedestrian entryway. 2. The Board should discuss the proposed parking alignment and internal circulation and the loss of greenspace in front of the building. (v) ……………………… (vi) …………………… (c) ………………………….. (d) …………………………… (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed addition is 28 ft. high and similar in size to other buildings on the lot. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. A rear addition to the property’s main building is proposed as well as other improvements. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which the City Arborist found acceptable with the exception of a minor detail. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (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. The proposed addition, gas canopy and deck are consistent with the surrounding landscape and with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING others in the vicinity. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 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. No reservation of land is required. 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. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 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 (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The plans show a proposed location for a concrete pad to site a trash compactor. Staff considers this criterion to be met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The plan also details the location of several snow storage areas. In an email staff dated March 27, 2015, the City Arborist provided the following comments: The landscape plan looks fine. There are a fair number of 6-10 existing trees being removed so the landscape budget may need to be checked to make sure it is adequate. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,658,719. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: First $250,000 x 3% = $7,500 Next 250,000 x 2% = $5,000 Balance over $500,000 x 1% = $11,587 Minimum required landscaping budget = $23,587. The applicant has proposed $26,705 in landscaping. However, the applicant is proposing to remove several existing trees on the property. 2. The Board should ask the applicant to calculate the value of the trees that are proposed to be removed and subtract that value from the initially proposed budget of $23,857 to see if the minimum CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING landscaping budget is met. In the event that the minimal budget number is not met, the Board should discuss whether to grant a credit for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree plantings such as the proposed bio-swale. 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, 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 waivers are required. STORMWATER The Public Works Department has not yet commented on the plan. Staff expects these comments to be available at the meeting. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS In an email to staff dated March 25, 2015 the Fire Chief provided the following comments: Dear Ray: Myself and Deputy Chief Francis have reviewed the site plans for Farrell Distributing at 5 Holmes Road. This is for their proposed expansion project. We have the following comments: 1. The fire hydrant relocation plans are good. 2. Fire Department access is good. 3. Landscaping plan does not seem to interfere with fire department access and Emergency equipment deployment. 4. Building plans should be approved by the South Burlington Fire Marshal prior to any construction. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Fire Chief 5. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the recommendations of the Fire Chief. Traffic Generation Based upon a final construction total of a 175,000 SF of predominantly warehouse building (ITE LUC #110), the weekday PM Peak Hour average vehicle trip ends is calculated as follows: 0.32 (trip generation per 1,000 SF g.f.a.) x 175 = estimated number of vehicle trip ends generated by current uses is 87.5 trip ends. The property’s current allocation of trip ends is 153 VTEs as established in a prior Findings of Fact & Decision signed on February 25, 1997. So therefore, no additional traffic is expected from the expansion. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Chris Galipeau, Civil Engineering Associates Farrell Distributing Illustrative Plan South Burlington, VT Scale 1” = 40’ EXISTING BUILDING HOLMES ROADPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FUEL CANOPY Farrell Distributing Co. Illustrative Section EXISTING BUILDING HOLMES ROADNEW ACCESS ROAD PARKING LOT ENTRANCE 0’ 20’ 40’ 60’ PROPOSED CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING BUILDING HOLMES ROAD PARKING LOT ENTRANCE FUEL CANOPY SAV CJG MAB 1" = 50' 14186 C1.0 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN 7 PROJECT LOCATION A C E 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT LEGEND FM OHP OHP OHP G D S T W 100 EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CURB EXISTING FENCE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING SWALE EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING FORCEMAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING STORM EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE D EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING SHUT OFF EXISTING UTILITY POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING GUY WIRE/POLE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODS APPROXIMATE SETBACK LINE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND GENERAL NOTES CALCULATED POINT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:47:58 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 1" = 30'C1.1 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PARTIAL EXISTING SITE PLAN A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:03 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 1" = 30'C1.2 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PARTIAL EXISTING SITE PLAN A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:08 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 1" = 30'C1.3 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PARTIAL DEMOLITION PLAN A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:13 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 1" = 30' LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. C1.4 PARTIAL DEMOLITION PLAN 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:18 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 A C E FM G D S T W S D PROJECT LOCATION C2.0 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED CONDITIONS SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPOSED CONTOUR100 PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROPOSED GUARD RAIL PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED ELECTRIC PROPOSED FORCEMAIN PROPOSED GAS PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED WELL PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN REBAR SET CONCRETE MONUMENT SET PROPOSED HYDRANT PROPOSED SHUT OFF PROPOSED UTILITY POLE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODS PROPOSED SETBACK LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 7 1" = 50' 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. REQ'D.EXISTING DIMENSIONAL SUMMARY 40,000 SFLOT AREA LOT COVERAGE 70% FRONT SETBACK SIDE SETBACK 30' 10' 30'REAR SETBACK 13.4 Acres 55.9% 338' 68' 88' BUILDING COVERAGE 40%25.9% D.M. FARRELL & S. McCONAUGHY REQ'D.EXISTING DIMENSIONAL SUMMARY 40,000 SFLOT AREA LOT COVERAGE 70% FRONT SETBACK SIDE SETBACK 30' 10' 30'REAR SETBACK 1.6 Acres 38.7% 91' 57' 40' BUILDING COVERAGE 40%14.5% HOLMES ROAD PROPERTY, INC. PROPOSED 13.4 Acres 61.9% 338' 68' 35' 29.9% PROPOSED 1.6 Acres 38.7% 91' 57' 40' 14.5% LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30%12.7%30%26.5%24.6%26.5%LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE EXISTING TRUCK CAR FRONT YARD 9 11 REAR & SIDE YARD 0 0 TOTAL 9 11 PARKING SUMMARY HOLMES ROAD PROPERTY, INC. EXISTING PROPOSED TRUCK CAR TRUCK CAR FRONT YARD 9 91 9 128 REAR & SIDE YARD 40 18 10 5 BUILDING INTERIOR 0 0 18 0 TOTAL 58 109 37 133 PARKING SUMMARY D.M. FARRELL & S. McCONAUGHY 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:23 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C2.1 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' A C E CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 1" = 30' PARTIAL PROPOSED SITE PLAN 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:28 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C2.2 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' A C E CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 1" = 30' PARTIAL PROPOSED SITE PLAN 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:33 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C2.3 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' A C E CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 1" = 30' PARTIAL PROPOSED GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:38 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C2.4 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' A C E CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 1" = 30' 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PARTIAL PROPOSED GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:43 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 C2.5 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL PLAN A C E LEGEND FM G D S T W PROPOSED CONTOUR100 PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PAVEMENT PROPOSED GUARD RAIL PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED ELECTRIC PROPOSED FORCEMAIN PROPOSED GAS PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED WATER PROPOSED WELL S PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE D PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN REBAR SET CONCRETE MONUMENT SET PROPOSED HYDRANT PROPOSED SHUT OFF PROPOSED UTILITY POLE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODS PROPOSED SETBACK LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE CJG CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. PROJECT LOCATION 7 1" = 50' 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Site-A.dwg, 3/5/2015 12:48:48 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C3.0 DETAILS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 18" (MIN.) CRUSHED GRAVEL SHOULER COMPACTED SUBGRADE SEPARATION/STABILIZATION FABRIC 212" TYPE II BASE COURSE 112" TYPE IV FINISH COURSE EMULSIFIED ASPHALT 12" CRUSHED GRAVEL - COARSE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.05 6" CRUSHED GRAVEL - FINE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.05 N.T.S. FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION SECTION REVISED 08/01/2014S-016 N.T.S. CURB w/SIDEWALK DETAIL REVISED 08/01/2014S-001 (SIMILAR WITH OUT SIDEWALK) CRUSHED GRAVEL (FINE) DENSE GRADED SUB-BASE MATERIAL NOTES: 1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 18" JOINT BETWEEN SECTIONS. 2.CURBING EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-153 (12" SPONGE RUBBER OR CORK). 3.ASPHALT TREATED FELT TO BE USED BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CONCRETE CURB TOP. 6"5"6"6"9"7"18"CONCRETE OR BRICK PAVERS12" R. TOP COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT BASE COURSE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT NOTES: 1.EXPANSION JOISTS SHALL NOT BE PLACED 2.THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DIVIDED AT INTERVALS OF FIVE FEET BY DUMMY JOINTS. N.T.S. CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL S-002 6"6" SIDEWALK WIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLANS 8" CRUSHED GRAVEL (FINE) 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL REVISED 08/01/2014 N.T.S. TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION S-003 2" TYPE II BASE COURSE SEPARATION/STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE COMPACTED SUBGRADE EMULSIFIED ASPHALT BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT 112" TYPE IV FINISH COURSE 6" CRUSHED GRAVEL - FINE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.05 (FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION SECTION) 12" DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.06 REVISED 08/01/2014 N.T.S. S-014 TRANSITION FROM NEW PAVEMENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT EXIST. TOP COURSE TO BE REMOVED AND OVERLAIN AS PART OF NEW PAVEMENT SECTION SAW CUT PAVEMENT, CLEAN AND COAT WITH EMULSION PRIOR TO PAVING EXIST. BASE MATERIAL EXIST. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 112" TYPE IV FINISH COURSE 212" TYPE II BASE COURSENEW CONSTRUCTION 18" (MIN.) EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT REVISED 08/01/2014 N.T.S. LINE STRIPING DETAIL S-015 5'8' 18' 4" WHITE PAINTED MARKINGS 9' 18' CURBING AND/OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT HANDICAP SIGN HANDICAP PARKING SPACESTANDARD PARKING SPACE 2' ON CENTER TRAFFIC MARKING PAINT TO BE READY-MIXED TRAFFIC PAINT SUITABLE FOR MARKING ON EITHER BITUMINOUS OR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT. READY-MIXED LOW VOC TRAFFIC PAINT SHALL CONSIST OF 100% ACRYLIC TYPE, FAST DRYING TRAFFIC PAINT. REVISED 08/01/2014 2" HIGH LETTERS (TYP.) N.T.S. HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN DETAIL REVISED 8/12/2014M-011 12" (POSTED AT THE HEAD OF EACH HANDICAPPED SPACE)18"COLOR:LEGEND AND BORDER - GREEN WHITE SYMBOL ON BLUE BACKGROUND BACKGROUND - WHITE MATERIAL:AS PER VAOT STANDARD E-143M POST:2" (14 ga.) SQUARE STEEL SIGN POST INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE w/VAOT STANDARD E-164 6"6"CENTER POINT FOR MARKING N.T.S. HANDICAPPED PARKING MARKING DETAIL REVISED 8/12/2014M-012 3'-0" 3'-6" PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO MEET STATE STANDARDS E-191NOTE: 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. N.T.S. DRIVE CURB CUT DETAIL S-007 16'-0" DRIVE CURB CUT (TYP. ) - TO BE FIELD LOCATED 6'-0"6'-0" REINFORCE CONCRETE CURBING AT DRIVEWAY CUTS 112" CURB REVEAL AT CURB CUTS SEE TRANSITION CURB DETAIL BEGIN TRANSITION SLOPE SEE CONCRETE CURB DETAIL SEE ROAD SECTION DETAIL REVISED 08/01/2014 ELEVATIONPLAN 3' BOLLARD (4 TYP.) N.T.S. DUMPSTER / COMPACTOR ENCLOSURE REVISED 08/01/2014M-010 7'-0"7'-0"7'-0"12'-6"(PAVED AREA)12'-0"6'-0"20'-0" OPENING0.2 21'-0" 21'-6" (PAVED AREA) 3'-0"5'-0"5'-0"3'-0" STEEL POST (TYP.) DOUBLE SIDED GATE CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH RED SLAT SCREENING OR APPROVED EQUAL SEE PARKING SECTION DETAIL 8" CRUSHED GRAVEL STEEL POST 6" CRUSHED GRAVEL AT BOTTOM OF POST CONCRETE FILL AROUND POST (TYP.)4'-6"6'-0"6"6"7'-0" O.C. (MAX.)7'-0" O.C. (MAX.) 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:24 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C3.1 DETAILS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. N.T.S. TYPICAL HANDICAP RAMP - TYPE 1 REVISED 08/01/2014M-002 8.3% MAX. SECTION A-A SECTION C-CCCAA SECTION B-B CCB B E.O.P.SIDEWALK SINGLE WALK-STRAIGHT APPROACH TO PARALLEL RAMP 6" MIN. 8" MAX. LEVEL LANDING RAMP 24" MIN. 5.0% MAX. ADJACENT TO RAMP ROADWAY SURFACE DETECTABLE WARNING (IF SHOWN ON PLAN)SIDWALKCURB24" MIN. LEVEL LANDING w/ DETECTABLE WARNING (IF SHOWN ON PLAN) RAMP 8.3% MAX. EXAMPLE 1: SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO CURB 8.3% MAX.E.O.P.6" MIN. 8" MAX. 24" CURB RAMP 5.0% MAX. ADJACENT TO RAMP ROADWAY SURFACE DETECTABLE WARNING (IF SHOWN ON PLAN) 7'-0" MIN. CURB TRANSITION CURB EXAMPLE 2: SIDEWALK AND CURB SEPARATED BY GRASS STRIP CURB 8.3% MAX.GRASS STRIP SIDEWALK CURB RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING (IF SHOWN ON PLAN) N.T.S. HANDICAP RAMP NOTES REVISED 08/01/2014M-004 1.THE DIMENSIONS AND GRADES SHOWN ON THIS STANDARD WILL BE ADHERED TO IN THE DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK RAMPS. WHERE SIDEWALKS RUN ADJACENT TO ROADWAYS ON STEEP (5% OR GREATER) GRADES, RAMP GRADES WILL BE AS FLAT AS POSSIBLE. ( ON LOW SIDE OF DRIVES AND INTERSECTING SIDE STREETS, RAMPS SHALL SLOPE TOWARDS DRIVE OR SIDE STREET @ 2% ) 2.NOMINAL RAMP DIMENSIONS: RAMP WIDTH - 5'-0" MINIMUM RAMP SLOPE - 8.3% MAXIMUM FLARE SLOPE - 10% MAXIMUM RAMP CROSS SLOPE - 2.0% MAXIMUM 3.A LEVEL LANDING (NO GREATER THAN 2.0% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION) SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE TOP OF SIDEWALK RAMPS TO ALLOW FOR STOPPING AND MANEUVERING OF WHEELCHAIRS. 4.LEVEL LANDINGS AT THE BOTTOM OF PERPENDICULAR RAMPS SHALL BE WHOLLY CONTAINED WITHIN MARKED CROSSWALKS. 5.DUMMY JOINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT TRANSITIONS (GRADE CHANGES) AT TOPS AND BOTTOMS OF RAMPS AND FLARES. 6.VERTICAL DROP-OFF EDGES TO RAMPS WILL NOT BE BUILT UNLESS THE RAMP ABUTS AN AREA WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY PEDESTRIANS. 7.NO VERTICAL "LIP" OR "CURB REVEAL" WILL BE PROVIDED WHERE THE RAMP ADJOINS THE ROADWAY. 8.AT MARKED CROSSWALKS, THE FULL WIDTH OF THE RAMP OR LANDING SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PAVEMENT MARKINGS. 9.WHERE POSSIBLE, RAMP FLARES SHOULD BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE DIRECT LINE OF TRAVEL MOST LIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED. 10.SIGNS, POLES, PLANTERS, MAILBOXES, ETC. SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WHERE THEY WILL INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF SIDEWALK RAMPS. 11.WHERE POSSIBLE, SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED WHERE USERS MUST CROSS DROP INLET GRATES, MANHOLE COVERS OR OTHER ACCESS LIDS. IF THIS CANNOT BE AVOIDED THEN GRATE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ADA REQUIREMENTS. 12.CURB DRAINAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PRECLUDE THE FLOW OF WATER PAST THE SIDEWALK RAMP. 13.WHEREVER FEASIBLE, TWO SIDEWALK RAMPS ARE RECOMMENDED IN PREFERENCE TO A SINGLE RAMP. 14.JOINTS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS, HOWEVER EXPANSION JOINTS WITHIN THE SIDEWALK RAMP AREA WILL BE AVOIDED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 15.SIDEWALKS THAT ARE LESS THAN 5' WIDE REQUIRE 5' WIDE BY 5' LONG PASSING AREAS (NO GREATER THAN 2.0% CROSS SLOPE) AT INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 200 FEET. 16.E.O.P. = EDGE OF PAVEMENT 17.THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK CURB RAMP STANDARDS DEPICTED HERE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ALL LOCATIONS. FIELD CONDITIONS AT INDIVIDUAL LOCATIONS MAY REQUIRE SPECIFIC DESIGNS. DESIGNS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SHEET TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE ON ALTERATION PROJECTS AND WHEN STRUCTURALLY PRACTICABLE ON NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS REQUIRED BY THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES. 18.ALL AREAS OF SIDEWALK RAMPS SHALL HAVE EXPOSED AGGREGATE. N.T.S. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE REVISED 08/01/2014M-005 DETECTABLE WARNING PLACEMENT DETECTABLE WARNING DETAILS 1.6" MIN.2.4" MAX.0.65" MIN. BASE TO BASE SPACING SQUARE PATTERN, PARALLEL ALIGNMENT DIRECTION OF TRAVEL FULL WIDTH OF RAMP 6" MIN.8" MAX.24"BROOM FINISH ADJACENT SURFACES (TYP.) ADJACENT SURFACE OF RAMP / LEVEL LANDING (SEE DETECTABLE WARNING NOTE #5) 50% MINIMUM TO 65% MAXIMUM OF BASE DIAMETER 0.9" MIN. 1.4" MAX.0.2"DETECTABLE WARNING NOTES 1.DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES SHALL BE PAID FOR AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. 2.CONCRETE ADJACENT TO ALL DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL HAVE A BROOM FINISH. 3.THE COLOR OF THE DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL PROVIDE A VISUAL CONTRAST TO THE SURROUNDING SURFACE AND SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS. 4.TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE ALIGNED ON A SQUARE GRID IN THE PREDOMINANT DIRECTION OF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. 5.FOR SURFACE APPLIED TRUNCATED DOME PRODUCTS, A MAXIMUM 0.25" VERTICAL CHANGE IN LEVEL IS ALLOWED. FOR CHANGES IN LEVEL BETWEEN 0.25" AND 0.50", A BEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM 1:2 SLOPE IS REQUIRED. CHANGES IN LEVEL GREATER THAN 0.50" MUST BE TREATED AS A RAMP - 8.3% MAXIMUM SLOPE. 6.SEE THE TOWN FOR A LIST OF ACCEPTABLE DETECTABLE WARNINGS MANUFACTURERS FOR ANY WARNINGS TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. RETAINING WALL SECTION @ NEW ADDITION N.T.S. SECTION A-A N.T.S. BOLLARD DETAIL S-011 CONCRETE FILLED (ROUNDED TOP) CONCRETE 67((/3,3( 67$1'$5' SHOP PRIMED) THE FINISH COAT (COLOR) SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE ARCHITECT OR OWNER PAVEMENT 18"5'-0"3'-0"REVISED 08/01/2014 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:31 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C3.2 DETAILS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. ST-011 N.T.S. END SECTION DETAIL REVISED 01/14/2015 A A 3 1 A-A 24" MI N . CULVERT & END SECTION TYPE I STONE FILL MATCH DITCH SECTION 8' TYPE I STONE FILL (18" MIN. THICKNESS) CONTINUE STONE FILL IF REQUIRED END SECTION CULVERT STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 500X OR APPROVED EQUALDIA.N.T.S. STONE LINED DITCH REVISED 08/01/2014ST-012 3:1 SEE GRADING 1PLAN N.T.S. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY TO BE USED PRIMARILY WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 18" TO 24" (SEE GRADING PLAN) EXISTING GRADE STABILIZATION FABRIC TYPE II STONE FILL STONE FILL TYPE I, 12" THICK MIN. TYPE II, 24" THICK MIN. 2' MIN. 6'12"18" M IN . REVISED 12/16/2014ST-016 1.4' FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW N.T.S. PERMANENT STONE CHECK DAM 3' TYPE I STONE TYPE I STONE BOTTOM OF WET SWALE NOTES: N.T.S. TYPICAL STORM TRENCH REVISED 08/01/2014ST-003 D+2' PAVED 6" 6"COVER PER PLANAPPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS STORM LINE, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE AND SIZE PIPE BEDDING UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK TOPSOIL, RAKE, SEED & MULCH UNPAVED 1. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL AND BEDDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 90% (95% UNDER ROADWAY SURFACES) OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED IN THE STANDARD PROCTOR TEST (ASTM D698). 2.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON FROZEN SUBGRADE. 3.APPROVED BACKFILL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY STONES MORE THAN 12" IN LARGEST DIMENSION (6" IN ROADWAYS, 1 1/2"" MAXIMUM DIAMETER WITHIN 24" OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PIPE), OR CONTAIN ANY FROZEN, WET, OR ORGANIC MATERIAL. 4.TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPLETELY DEWATERED PRIOR TO PLACING OF PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL AND KEPT DEWATERED DURING INSTALLATION OF PIPE AND BACKFILL. 5.IN TRENCHES WITH UNSTABLE MATERIALS, TRENCH BOTTOM SHALL FIRST BE STABILIZED BY PLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRIC THEN CRUSHED STONE (3/4" MAXIMUM). 6.THE SIDES OF TRENCHES 4' OR MORE IN DEPTH ENTERED BY PERSONNEL SHALL BE SHEETED OR SLOPED TO THE ANGLE OF REPOSE AS DEFINED BY O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 7.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF CRUSHED STONE WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 34". SUBMIT A SAMPLE TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. D NOTES: PAVED N.T.S. D D+2' 6" 6" TYPICAL WATER TRENCH DETAIL6'-0" MIN. COVER1. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL AND BEDDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 90% (95% UNDER ROADWAY SURFACES) OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED IN THE STANDARD PROCTOR TEST (ASTM D698). 2.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON FROZEN SUBGRADE. 3.APPROVED BACKFILL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY STONES MORE THAN 12" IN LARGEST DIMENSION (6" IN ROADWAYS, 1 1/2"" MAXIMUM DIAMETER WITHIN 24" OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PIPE), OR CONTAIN ANY FROZEN, WET, OR ORGANIC MATERIAL. 4.TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPLETELY DEWATERED PRIOR TO PLACING OF PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL AND KEPT DEWATERED DURING INSTALLATION OF PIPE AND BACKFILL. 5.IN TRENCHES WITH UNSTABLE MATERIALS, TRENCH BOTTOM SHALL FIRST BE STABILIZED BY PLACEMENT OF FILTER FABRIC THEN CRUSHED STONE (3/4" MAXIMUM). 6.THE SIDES OF TRENCHES 4' OR MORE IN DEPTH ENTERED BY PERSONNEL SHALL BE SHEETED OR SLOPED TO THE ANGLE OF REPOSE AS DEFINED BY O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 7.BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF CRUSHED STONE WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 34". SUBMIT A SAMPLE TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. 8.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL TRACER WIRE ALONG ALL SECTIONS OF NEW WATER LINE. TERMINATE TRACER WIRE AT ALL VALVE BOXES AND HYDRANTS. COORDINATE INSTALLATION WITH TOWN AND ENGINEER. APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS 2" RIGID INSULATION WHEN DEPTH OF PIPING IS LESS THAN 6'-0" WATER LINE, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE AND SIZE CRUSHED STONE BEDDING UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK TOPSOIL, RAKE, SEED & MULCH UNPAVED REVISED 08/01/2014W-001 D/2 THOROUGHLY COMPACTED SAND BEDDING INSTALL UTILITY LOCATOR RIBBON OVER WATER MAIN APPROX. 2' BELOW SURFACE TRACER WIRE (VERIFY TYPE WITH TOWN/ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION) NOTES: N.T.S. HYDRANT ASSEMBLY DETAIL 1. ALL FITTINGS ARE TO HAVE MEGA-LUG RETAINER GLANDS. 2.PRIOR TO POURING THRUST BLOCKS ALL FITTINGS ARE TI BE WRAPPED WITH 4 mil POLYETHYLENE. REVISED 08/01/2014W-004 6" MIN.6'-0" MIN. COVER24"-28"NOTE: WHEN LOCATED BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND CURB THE FACE NOZZLE SHALL BE PLACED 1' TO 8' FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB. WHEN LOCATED BEHIND THE SIDEWALK THE NOZZLE SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN 4' AND 6' FROM EDGE OF SIDEWALK. 3/4" CRUSHED STONE BEDDING (MIN. 12" THICK) CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK (SIZE DETERMINED BY SOIL CONDITIONS) CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK (SIZE DETERMINED BY SOIL CONDITIONS) UNDISTURBED SOIL ANCHOR COUPLING OR SPOOL PIECE WITH MEGA-LUG GLANDS BREAKAWAY FLANGE TO BE SET TO MATCH GROUND LINE AWWA HYDRANT, VALVE AND APPURTENANCES AS PER SPECIFICATIONS ADD WINTER MARKING FLAGS (SPRING SUPPORTS) 1" PC PIPE FOR UNDERGROUND TRACER WIRE FINISH GRADE ANCHOR TEE 6" WATER LINE ADJUSTABLE IRON VALVE BOX w/COVER MARKED "WATER" PLUG HYDRANT DRAIN N.T.S. TYPICAL UNDERDRAIN SECTION REVISED 08/01/2014ST-009 3 4" WASHED STONE (USE HINESBURG SAND & GRAVEL DRAINAGE STONE. NO LIMESTONE) 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 140NS OR APPROVED EQUAL STABILIZATION FABRIC MIRAFI 500X OR APPROVED EQUAL PAVEMENT *SLOPE ALL PIPE TO DRAIN @ 1% MIN. *SEE PLANS FOR INVERT ELEVATION 12" MIN. FOR UNDERDRAIN12" MIN.CRUSHED GRAVEL - COARSE CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE - FINE REVISED 7/25/2014ST-002b N.T.S. 2x2 CATCH BASIN PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION) HDPE OUTLET PIPE (SEE PLAN FOR SIZE) 6" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL SEAL w/ HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR, OR CAST-IN-PLACE FLEXIBLE M.H. SLEEVES FINISH GRADE SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED 24" x 24" C.I. GRATE w/4 FLANGED FRAME (OR APPROVED EQUAL) PRECAST CONCRETE w/ MONOLITHIC BASE WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND LIFT HOLES w/ NON-SHRINK GROUT) * USE 30" SQ. STRUCTURE / GRATE WHERE PIPE SIZE DICTATES18"SUMP6"8" *2'-0" SQ.BASERISER4"N.T.S. TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE REVISED 01/09/2015ST-001 FINISH GRADE 48" MIN. SEE SITE PLANS 24"6"MIN.12"SUMP4'-0" MIN.BASE AS REQ'D1' TO 4'BARRELSECTION12" MIN. SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED & SEAL JOINT ADJUST TO GRADE w/ PRECAST RISER SECTIONS (BRICKS SHALL NOT BE USED) WATERTIGHT JOINTS USING MASTIC OR RUBBER GASKET COAT EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE MANHOLE w/ A WATERTIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) CAST-IN-PLACE FLEXIBLE MANHOLE SLEEVES PRECAST CONCRETE OR POURED IN PLACE BASE SECTION 6" MIN. CRUSHED STONE BEDDINGUNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK POLYPROPYLENE MANHOLE STEPS @ 8" O.C. &21(6(&7,2125 TRAFFIC COVER (HEAVY DUTY) FOR SHALLOW MANHOLES LEBARON FRAME & COVER LC266 TYPE 'C' OR EQUAL (ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE) 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:36 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C3.3 DETAILS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. N.T.S. GRASS LINED DITCH REVISED 08/01/2014ST-014 1 3 1 3 EXISTING GRADE TOPSOIL EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN DITCHED w/ PROFILE GRADES EXCEEDING 5%. STAPLE AS PER MANUF. SPECS. 12" MIN. N.T.S. 1,250 GALLON HEAVY DUTY OIL SEPARATOR S-013 OIL SEPARATOR TESTING braced to prevent blowout. into the tank shall be suitably plugged and the plugs 1. Exfiltration Leakage Test: All pipes and other openings At the end of this period, the tank shall be refilled if the Contractor so wishes, to allow for absorption. The tank shall then be filled with water to the top If the Contractor elects to backfill prior to testing, approved by the Engineer and the tank retested. exceeds the allowable rate, repairs shall be made as not exceed four gallon/vertical foot/day. If leakage depth for 24 hours. The leakage for each tank shall amount shall be converted to gallons per vertical foot the riser, measuring the volume of water added. This test period, the tank shall be refilled to the top of time of at least four hours begun. At the end of the to the top of the riser, if necessary, and the measuring The separator shall be tested by the following procedure: incumbent upon the Contractor to determine the reason below the bottom of the tank throughout the test. Furthermore, the Contractor shall take any steps leaks through the joints or through the concrete. that all loss of water during the test is a result of as leaking plugs, absorption, etc. It will be assumed leakage allowance will be made for unknown causes such for any failure of the test. No adjustment in the the testing shall be at his own risk, and it shall be of the riser section. A period of time may be permitted, necessary to assure the Engineer that the water table is -seal the empty tank and apply a vacuum to 5 inches (100mm) of mercury. The tank is approved if 90% of vacuum is held for 5 minutes. Vacuum test in accordance with ASTM C1227-03, Standard Specification for Precast Concrete Septic Tanks, except as noted below: 2. or FINISH GRADEFINISH GRADE WATER OIL INLET NOTE: H-20 DESIGNED PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURE. SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED & SEAL JOINT 12" CONCRETE RISERS FOR ADJUSTMENT NEENAH LIFTMATE WITH HINGED MANHOLE COVER (MODEL R-1743-LM) AND FRAME OR EQUAL (TYPICAL) 4" SCH 40 PVC FROM FLOOR DRAIN 1,250 GALLON PRECAST CONCRETE TANK 6" COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE THREADED PLUG FOR INSPECTION GASKETED FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS (PSX OR CAST-IN-PLACE) 4" SDR 35 PVC or SCH 40 4" SDR 35 PVC 5'-4"1'-8"3'-8"6"11' x 6'3"REVISED 08/01/2014 SEE SITE PLANS FOR CURB CUT ELEVATIONS. CURB CUT ELEVATION TO BE 12" BELOW EDGE OF PAVEMENT REVISED 1/29/2015ST-004 CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE SUB-BASE MATERIAL CRUSHED GRAVEL CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE 1 3 1 2 N.T.S. BIORETENTION AREA SECTION 3 INCHES HARDWOOD MULCH MAINTAIN 6" CURB REVEAL AROUND BIORETENTION AREA EXISTING SUBGRADE OR SUITABLE FILL OR ONSITE MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER INSTALL STONE OUTFALL PAD AT CURB CUTS, SEE DETAIL 6" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL 12" PLANTING MIX 40% SCREENED COMPOST 60% CONCRETE SAND (ASTM 33) 18" CONCRETE SAND (ASTM 33) CRUSHED GRAVEL SUB-BASE MATERIAL 18" MIN.24" X 24" SEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR PLANTING PLAN AND DETAILS SOIL NOTES: 1.PLANTING MIX SHALL HAVE A PH BETWEEN 5.2 AND 7.0. 2.CONCRETE SAND AND PLANTING MIX SHALL BE "BUCKET TAMPED" ONLY. DO NOT OVER COMPACT CATCH BASIN, FRAME, AND GRATE REFER TO TYPICAL CB DETAIL REVISED 1/29/2015ST-004a 8" SECTION PLAN 3' EXTEND STONE TO BASE OF SLOPE (APPROX. 5') N.T.S. STONE OUTFALL PAD IN BIORETENTION AREA 3 INCHES HARDWOOD MULCH 2' WIDE CURB CUT 3" MINUS ANGULAR STONE SEPARATION GEOTEXTILE N.T.S. WET POND OUTLET STRUCTURE 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:41 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 A C E AS SHOWN C3.4 SAV CJG MAB 14186 PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS Introduction This project is subject to the terms and conditions of the authorization from the State of Vermont to discharge construction related storm water runoff. Coverage under the State Construction General Permit 3-9020 is required for any construction activity that disturbs 1 or more acres of land, or is part of a larger development plan that will disturb 1 or more acres. This project has been deemed to qualify as a Low Risk Site which is subject to the erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) standards set for in the State of Vermont's Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control The following narrative and implementation requirements represent the minimum standard for which this site is required to be maintained as regulated by the State of Vermont. Any best management practices (BMP's) depicted on the project's EPSC Site plan which go beyond the Handbook requirements are considered to be integral to the management of the site and represent components of the municipal EPSC approval for the project which shall be implemented. The EPSC plan depicts one snap shot in time of the site. All construction sites are fluid in their day to day exposures and risks as it relates to minimizing sediment loss from the site. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to implement the necessary BMP's to comply with the Low Risk Handbook standards outlined on this sheet based on the interim site disturbance conditions which may or may not be shown on the EPSC Site Plan. 1. Mark Site Boundaries Purpose: Mark the site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. Delineating your site will help to limit the area of disturbance, preserve existing vegetation 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 any boundary within 50 feet of a stream, lake, pond or wetland, unless the area is already developed (existing roads, buildings, etc.) 2. Limit Disturbance Area Purpose: Limit the amount of soil exposed at one time to reduce the potential erosion on site. Requirements: The permitted disturbance area is specified on the site's written authorization to discharge. Only the acreage listed on the authorization form may be exposed at any given time. How to comply: Plan ahead and phase the construction activities to ensure that no more than the permitted acreage is disturbed at one time. Be sure to properly stabilize exposed soil with seed and mulch or erosion control matting before beginning work in a new section of the site. 3. Stabilize Construction Entrance Purpose: A stabilized construction entrance helps remove mud from vehicle wheels to prevent tracking onto streets. Requirements: If there will be any vehicle traffic off of the construction site, you must install a stabilized construction entrance before construction begins. How to install Rock Size: Use a mix of 1 to 4 inch stone Depth: 8 inches minimum Width: 12 feet minimum Length: 40 feet minimum (or length of driveway, if shorter) Geotextile: Place filter cloth under entire gravel bed Maintenance: Redress with clean stone as required to keep sediment from tracking onto the street. 4. Install Silt Fence Purpose: Silt fences intercept runoff and allow suspended sediment to settle out. Requirements: Silt fence must be installed: x on the downhill side of the construction activities x between any ditch, swale, storm sewer inlet, or waters of the State and the disturbed soil * Hay bales must not be used as sediment barriers due to their tendency to degrade and fall apart. Where to place: x Place silt fence on the downhill edge of bare soil. At the bottom of slopes, place fence 10 feet downhill from the end of the slope (if space is available). x Ensure the silt fence catches all runoff from bare soil. x 0D[LPXPGUDLQDJHDUHDLVõDFUHIRUIHHWRIVLOWIHQFH x Install silt fence across the slope (not up and down hills!) x Install multiple rows of silt fence on long hills to break up flow. x Do not install silt fence across ditches, channels, or streams or in stream buffers. How to install silt fence: x Dig a trench 6 inches deep across the slope x Unroll silt fence along the trench x Ensure stakes are on the downhill side of the fence x Join fencing by rolling the end stakes together x Drive stakes in against downhill side of trench x Drive stakes until 16 inches of fabric is in trench x Push fabric into trench; spread along bottom x Fill trench with soil and pack down Maintenance: x Remove accumulated sediment before it is halfway up the fence. x Ensure that silt fence is trenched in ground and there are no gaps. 5. Divert Upland Runoff Purpose: Diversion berms intercept runoff from above the construction site and direct it around the disturbed area. This prevents clean water from becoming muddied with soil from the construction site. Requirements: If storm water runs onto your site from upslope areas and your site meets the following two conditions, you must install a diversion berm before 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 matting immediately after installation. 3.Stabilize the flow channel with seed and straw mulch or erosion control matting. Line the channel with 4 inch stone if the channel slope is greater than 20%. 4.Ensure the berm drains to an outlet stabilized with riprap. Ensure that there is no erosion at the outlet. 5.The diversion berm shall remain in place until the disturbed areas are completely stabilized. 6. Slow Down Channelized Runoff Purpose: Stone check dams reduce erosion in drainage channels by slowing down the storm water flow. Requirements: If there is a concentrated flow (e.g. in a ditch or channel) of storm water on your site, then you must install stone check dams. Hay bales must not be used as check dams. How to install: Height: No greater than 2 feet. Center of dam should be 9 inches lower than the side elevation Side slopes: 2:1 or flatter Stone size: Use a mixture of 2 to 9 inch stone Width: Dams should span the width of the channel and extend up the sides of the banks Spacing: Space the dams so that the bottom (toe) of the upstream dam is at the elevation of the top (crest) of the downstream dam. This spacing is equal to the height of the check dam divided by the channel slope. Spacing (in feet) = Height of check dam (in feet)/Slope in channel (ft/ft) Maintenance: Remove sediment accumulated behind the dam as needed to allow channel to drain through the stone check dam and prevent large flows from carrying sediment over the dam. If significant erosion occurs between check dams, a liner of stone should be installed. 7. Construct Permanent Controls Purpose: Permanent storm water treatment practices are constructed to maintain water quality, ensure groundwater flows, and prevent downstream flooding. Practices include detention ponds and wetlands, infiltration basins, and storm water filters. Requirements: If the total impervious* area on your site, or within the common plan of development, will be 1 or more acres, you must apply for a State Storm water Discharge Permit and construct permanent storm water treatment practices on your site. These practices must be installed before the construction of any impervious surfaces. How to comply: Contact the Vermont Storm water Program and follow the requirements in the Vermont Storm water Management Manual. The Storm water Management Manual is available at: www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm *An impervious surface is a manmade surface, including, but not limited to, paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, roofs, driveways, and walkways, from which precipitation runs off rather than infiltrates. 8. Stabilize Exposed Soil Purpose: Seeding and mulching, applying erosion control matting, and hydroseeding are all methods to stabilize exposed soil. Mulches and matting protect the soil surface while grass is establishing. Requirements: All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilization within 7, 14, or 21 days of initial disturbance, as stated in the project authorization. After this time, any disturbance in the area must be stabilized at the end of each work day. The following exceptions apply: x Stabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the area within the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours. x Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet or greater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches). All areas of disturbance must have permanent stabilization within 48 hours of reaching final grade. How to comply: Prepare bare soil for seeding by grading the top 3 to 6 inches of soil and removing any large rocks or debris. Seeding Rates for Temporary Stabilization April 15 - Sept. 15 AUG. 15, 2014- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre) Sept. 15 - April 15 AUG. 15, 2014- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acre Seeding Rates for Final Stabilization:Choose Mulching Rates April 15 - Sept.15 AUG. 15, 2014 Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.) Sept.15 - April 15 AUG. 15, 2014 Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.) Erosion Control Matting As per manufacturer's instructions Hydroseed As per manufacturer's instructions 9. Winter Stabilization Purpose: Managing construction sites to minimize erosion and prevent sediment loading of waters is a year-round challenge. In Vermont, this challenge becomes even greater during the late fall, winter, and early spring months. 'Winter construction' as discussed here, describes the period between October 15 and April 15, when erosion prevention and sediment control is significantly more difficult. Rains in late fall, thaws throughout the winter, and spring melt and rains can produce significant flows over frozen and saturated ground, greatly increasing the potential for erosion. Requirements for Winter Shutdown: For those projects that will complete earth disturbance activities prior to the winter period (October 15), the following requirements must be adhered to: 1.For areas to be stabilized by vegetation, seeding shall be completed no later than September 15 to ensure adequate growth and cover. 2.If seeding is not completed by September 15, additional non-vegetative protection must be used to stabilize the site for the winter period. This includes use of Erosion Control Matting or netting of a heavy mulch layer. Seeding with winter rye is recommended to allow 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 open areas vulnerable to wind. Requirements for Winter Construction If construction activities involving earth disturbance continue past October 15 or begin before April 15, the following requirements must be adhered to: 1.Enlarged access points, stabilized to provide for snow stockpiling. 2.Limits of disturbance moved or replaced to reflect boundary of winter work. 3.A snow management plan prepared with adequate storage and control of meltwater, requiring cleared snow to be stored down slope of all areas of disturbance and out of storm water treatment structures. 4.A minimum 25 foot buffer shall be maintained from perimeter controls such as silt fence. 5.In areas of disturbance that drain to a water body within 100 feet, two rows of silt fence must be installed along the contour. 6.Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and ice dams. 7.Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must be installed ahead of frozen ground. 8.Mulch used for temporary stabilization must be applied at double the standard 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 of disturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, with the following exceptions: x If no precipitation within 24 hours is forecast and work will resume in the same disturbed area within 24 hours, daily stabilization is not necessary. x Disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as house foundations or open utility trenches. 10.Prior to stabilization, snow or ice must be removed to less than 1 inch thickness. 11.Use stone to stabilize areas such as the perimeter of buildings under construction or where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated. Stone paths should be 10 to 20 feet wide to accommodate vehicular traffic. 10. Stabilize Soil at Final Grade Purpose: Stabilizing the site with seed and mulch or erosion control matting when it reaches final grade is the best way to prevent erosion while construction continues. Requirements: Within 48 hours of final grading, the exposed soil must be seeded and mulched or covered with erosion control matting. How to comply: Bring the site or sections of the site to final grade as soon as possible after construction is completed. This will reduce the need for additional sediment and erosion control measures and will reduce the total disturbed area. For seeding and mulching rates, follow the specifications under Rule 8, Stabilizing Exposed Soil. 11. Dewatering Activities Purpose: Treat water pumped from dewatering activities so that it is clear when leaving the construction site. Requirements: Water from dewatering activities that flows off of the construction site must be clear. Water must not be pumped into storm sewers, lakes, or wetlands unless the water is clear. How to comply: Using sock filters or sediment filter bags on dewatering discharge hoses or pipes, discharge water into silt fence enclosures installed in vegetated areas away from waterways. Remove accumulated sediment after the water has dispersed and stabilize the area with seed and mulch. 12. Inspect Your Site Purpose: Perform site inspections to ensure that all sediment and erosion control practices are functioning properly. Regular inspections and maintenance of practices will help to reduce costs and protect water quality. Requirements: Inspect the site at least once every 7 days and after every rainfall or snow melt that results in a discharge from the site. Perform maintenance to ensure that practices are functioning according to the specifications outlined in this handbook. In the event of a noticeable sediment discharge from the construction site, you must take immediate action to inspect and maintain existing erosion prevention and sediment control practices. Any visibly discolored storm water runoff to waters of the State must be reported. Forms for reporting discharges are available at: www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm TEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL N.T.S. N.T.S. CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAIL 20' (6m) RROADWAYAA STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S. STONE CHECK DAM STRUCTURE N.T.S. 30 36 41 50 66 100 15 18 20 25 33 48 MAXIMUM WATER DEPTH OVER ROCK (mm) 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 150 75 N.T.S. SILT FENCE DETAIL NOTES: 1. INSTALL MIRIFI ENVIROFENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL OR AS DETAILED HEREIN. 2. INSTALL SILT FENCES AT TOES OF ALL UNPROTECTED SLOPES AND AS PARALLEL TO CONTOURS AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FILLED OR UNPROTECTED SLOPES CREATED DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED ON THE FINAL PLANS. CURVE THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UP INTO THE SLOPE. REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN ACCUMULATED TO HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SILT FENCES ARE TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL SLOPES ARE STABILIZED. 3. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BE OVERLAPPED BY 6", FOLDED AND STAPLED. D-50 OF ROCK (MM) DOWNSTREAM FLOWLINE SLOPE OF STRUCTURE (m/m) 10' 10' 2.5' METAL POST 4 x 4 WOOD POST SPACING 212 X 212 WOOD WOOD POST 30"18"60cm (2 ft. MAX.) 15cm TO 45cm (0.5 TO 1.5 ft.) DIFFERENCE 12'. MIN.50' MIN. EXISTING GRADE NATIVE MATERIAL PLASTIC ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE 75mm (3 in.) MIN. COARSE ROCK 0.35 m/m OR FLATTER FLOW LINE SLOPE ROCK SET IN 10cm (4 in. MIN.) TRENCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF COARSE ROCK PLACED IN CHANNEL FLOW LINE IS 15cm (0.5 ft.) SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW END POINTS 'A' MUST BE HIGHER THAN THE FLOW LINE POINT 'B' AA B A SECTION A-A DIVERSION RIDGE REQUIRED WHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2% ROADWAY 2% OR GREATER SPILLWAY B PLACE DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE SUCH THAT POINT 'B' IS APPROXIMATELY LEVEL WITH THE LOWEST GROUND ELEVATION OF THE UPSTREAM STRUCTUREFILTER FABRIC TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCH OR NETTING SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES INSTALLED ON DOWN GRADIENT SIDE SANDBAGS OR CONTINUOUS BERM OF EQUIVALENT HEIGHT DIVERSION RIDGE SUPPLY WATER TO WASH WHEELS IF NECESSARY 2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSE AGGREGATE MIN. 8" (150mm) THICK PLAN VIEWNOTES: 1.THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAY REQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 2.WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3.WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH CRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT BASIN. NOTE: USE SANDBAGS OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS TO CHANNELIZE RUNOFF TO BASIN AS REQUIRED 36" MIN.12" MIN.POST 2"8"FILTER FABRIC TO BE MIRAFI 100X OR APPROVED EQUAL FILTER FABRIC TO BE CLIPPED, BACKFILLED AND TAMPED 8" BELOW GRADE STEEL OR WOOD STAKES (SEE CHART AT RIGHT) SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL N.T.S. 2. ATTACH SILT FENCE AND EXTEND IT TO THE TRENCH. 3. STAPLE THE SILT FENCING TO THE END POSTS. BACKFILL TRENCH. 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8" TRENCH, SET POST DOWNSLOPE. $1*/( UPSLOPE FOR STABILITY AND SELF CLEANING POSTS SILT FENCE 12"MIN.8"COMPACTED BACKFILL 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 5 HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:46 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C4.0 SPECIFICATIONS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 DAVID M. FARRELL HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL 02/25/2015 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:51 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C4.1 SPECIFICATIONS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 DAVID M. FARRELL HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 02/25/2015 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:21:56 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ´³ AS SHOWN C4.2 SPECIFICATIONS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 DAVID M. FARRELL HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 02/25/2015 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:22:01 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ¥ AS SHOWN C4.3 SPECIFICATIONS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 DAVID M. FARRELL HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 02/25/2015 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:22:06 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN C4.4 SPECIFICATIONS A C E SAV CJG MAB 14186 DAVID M. FARRELL HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS FARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP. HOLMES ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 02/25/2015 02/25/15 CJG LOCAL SUBMITTAL P:\AutoCADD Projects\2014\14186\1-CADD Files-14186\Dwg\14186 - Detail-Spec.dwg, 3/5/2015 9:22:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 February 2015, in the Conference Room of the South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Gibbs, S. Vock, D. Shenk, D. Marshall, P. Boisvert, J. Greene, P. Simon, E. Farrell, A. Parker, C. Carpentier, L Barker, T. McKenzie, D. Bell, D. Fenstermacher, R. Dean, J. Owens, M. DeCrescente, J. Menden, D. Hillman, T. burke, B. smith, B. Hillman, J. Hodgsen, B. Rabinowitz 1. Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued conditional use application #CU-14-11 of Brad Rabinowitz to amend a previously approved plan to expand a single family footprint. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the landscaping plan, 2) raising the elevation of the top of wall at the edge of the patio, and 3) revising the driveway layout, 17 Twin Brook Court: Mr. Rabinowitz said they changed everything outside of the permeable permit to comply with shoreland regulations. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-14-11. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Site plan application #SP-15-02 of Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Latter-day Saints to amend a previously approved plan for a 275 seat place of worship. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing stormwater management improvements, and 2) revising the landscaping plan due to the stormwater improvements, 400 Swift Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 FEBRUARY 2015, PAGE 2 Mr. Gibbs said this is a 2.5 acre site. In order to meet state requirements, they have to make the proposed improvements. There is a dry swale on either side of the driveway. Stormwater from the parking lot will go through the swales to be discharged into the system. They are taking down some trees which will be replaced. As part of the plan, they are upgrading the dumpster enclosure and adding one handicapped parking space. The plan has been reviewed by the Stormwater Superintendent. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-02. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-15-01 and #DR-14-05 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC, for a planned unit development to: 1) remove an existing single family dwelling, 2) construct four 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 3) establish boundary line with adjoining property, 135 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Shenk reviewed the changes since the last hearing including: both 6-foot and 7-foot wide porches (the porch closest to Hinesburg Rd. is 7 feet); adding gutters, enclosing the rear steps, adding an Arborvitae hedgerow on the Iby Street side (the hedge is on the applicant’s property but on the other side of the fence). Neighbors are in favor of this, reducing the lighting plan from 10-foot to 8-foot poles, providing a 20-foot recreation easement along Hinesburg Road. They have also responded to some Public Works comments. With the encouragement of staff, they are using 5 feet of city land for the project. The city won’t use it, and the aim was to have the applicant use it to improve Market Street. After the DRB has approved the plan, it will go to the City Council for their process. Ms. Parker asked about plantings near the fence. Mr. Shenk said it will be hedge that is green all year. Mr. Carpentier liked the design changes and the back porches. He was concerned with where deliveries will take place (as vehicles might block Market St.) and where visitors will park. The applicant said there is room on the street for parking and no regulation against it. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 FEBRUARY 2015, PAGE 3 Mr. Barker asked where snow will be placed. The applicant said there is a designated area for snow storage which he indicated. Mr. Barker was also concerned with snow melting and water getting into their basement. Mr. Vock said all flow is away from Iby Street. Mr. Barritt added there is every indication that the water on the applicant’s property will be taken care of. Mr. Miller then moved to close #SD-15-01 and #DR-14-05. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of: 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’x 55’ detached accessory structure, 1 Dorset Street: Ms. Bell noted the Fire Chief wants the island to be flush so they can drive fire trucks over it. She showed members details of how this will be accomplished. Ms. Bell then noted changes made to elevations on the Interstate site of the building. The applicant noted that because this is the pharmacy side of the building, they can’t have windows for security reasons. They have therefore varied the kinds of brick to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Bell added that there will also be landscaping to break up that side of the building with plantings. Ms. Bell said they worked with staff regarding the secondary structure. They created more visual interest with arches and a gable. Mr. Barritt felt it was an improvement. Mr. Parsons asked about landscaping in front of this structure. Ms. Bell said it will be 4-6 feet high and send out shoots to create a thicket. She showed what a driver would see from the road. Mr. Wilking objected to the regulation which results in the need for the second building. He felt landscaping could have been just as effective. Mr. Barritt asked about a sign on the building to direct drivers to the signalized intersection. Mr. Belair said such a sign would not be subject to the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Smith felt there should be more green space at the Dorset St. /Williston Rd. corner and that you should be able to see around the corner as this is the gateway to the city. Ms. Bell said DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 FEBRUARY 2015, PAGE 4 they had to push the building up so parking could be in the rear. The building is 40 feet off the pavement at the corner. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-15-03 of University of Vermont Medical Center to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,664 sq. ft. medical office building. The amendment consists of expanding the facility by 5,5334 sq. ft. in two phases of 5,065 sq. ft. in phase 1 and 469 sq. ft. in phase 2, 35 Joy Drive: Mr. Simon identified the building as a dialysis center. The proposed expansion will be used as a facility to train patients to do their dialysis at home. This reduces hospital stays, reduces infection and provides independence. They have met with staff for a technical review and also met with the abutter (Catholic Diocese). A low chain link fence is recommended between the properties because of cut- through traffic and the drop from one property to the next. The applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the back with the fence. Mr. Simon said trip ends will actually be reduced as people will be doing their treatments at home. There is more parking required than needed. The applicant proposes not to do all of it but to designate an area where parking could be added if needed. The applicant noted that with regard to stipulation #7, the configuration proposed is the same as the existing configuration and the Fire Chief has no problem getting through the parking lot now. Members agreed to change the stipulation to read: The applicant shall provide the Administrative Office with confirmation from the fire Chief that the fire truck access is acceptable. Mr. Greene then reviewed the lighting including location of poles and 2 new lights on the retaining wall. Existing lights will be switched out to match the new LEDs. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-03. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 FEBRUARY 2015, PAGE 5 9. Continued preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-41 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide an undeveloped lot of 39.7 acres into four lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 29.1 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Marshall said there will be parking on one side of the street only. This will be signed. Mr. Barritt asked about street lights. Mr. Marshall said there will be a light at the intersection but none in the business park. In the draft decision, #3A, the Department of Public Works was added as well as the Fire Department. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-41. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application k#SD-14-42 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two general office buildings of 18,500 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft., 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Marshall said they changed the orientation slightly since sketch plan review in order to screen parking from the road. There is also stormwater infrastructure between the building and the road. Building one will be built in Phase I, building 2 later on. They are building more parking than required for Phase 1. Staff is suggesting more advanced design to mitigate the impervious area in case building 2 doesn’t get built. Mr. Marshall explained how that would integrate with the stormwater system for best management. The City Arborist has asked for a continuous planting strip along the bio-swale. Members were OK with parking and mitigation. Members had no issue with the 5.5 foot height waiver. Mr. Marshall reviewed the 2 rec paths and crossing of Randall Street to another rec path. Mr. Belair said they will need to see on the plan what will be built in Phase 1 and what is for Phase 2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 17 FEBRUARY 2015, PAGE 6 Members asked to continue the hearing to get details of the bio-swale and phasing. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-42 until 3 March 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Continued sketch plan application #SD-14-43 of F&M Development Co, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in eight buildings, 2) a 91-unit congregate housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of 1) resubdividing lots #1 and #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a four foot fence on lot #10, 3) after the fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell noted that Mr. Kochman is OK with the removal of the berm and the fence. Mr. Farrell also noted they get a lot of requests for an off-leash (attended) dog area but few requests for garden space. There will still be a small garden space for those who want to use it. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-43. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Minutes of 3 February 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 3 February 2015 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. ________________________________, Clerk ________________________________, Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 3, 2015 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 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, J. Wilking, B. Breslend, D. Parsons ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, R. Roesler, D. Bell, S. McIntyre, D. Pratt, D. Brent, J. Owens, P. Kahn, P. O’Leary, G. Allen, R. White, S. Katz, A. Hergenrother, D. Marshall, A. Coppa, A. Demetrowitz, B. Nedde, M. Fritz, A. Cooke, S. McClellan, K. Whitby, L. Murphy, B. Farley, K. Noonan, 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner announced that agenda item 5, Technology Park Campus, was to be removed from the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda No comments or questions 3. Announcements: No announcements. 4. Consider reopening final plat application #SD‐15‐02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of; 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’ X 55’ detached accessory structure, 1 Dorset Street Mr. Roesler provided a brief overview of the request to re‐open the hearing. Mr. Miller moved to re‐ open the hearing. Mr. Wilking seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. 5. Consider reopening site plan application #SP‐14‐60 of Technology Park Campus, LLC to construct a 3‐story 54,459 sq. ft. general office building, 88 Technology Park Way. This item was removed from the agenda. 6. Sketch plan application #SD‐15‐05 of Champlain Water District for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 2.1 million gallon water storage tank. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 200 ft. high communications tower, and 2) constructing a 216 sq. ft. support building, 1215 Dorset Street. [note, this item was moved to follow item 7 on the agenda] Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action was taken. 2 7. Final plat application #SD‐15‐04 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) the subdivision of a 31.87 acre parcel developed with one (1) single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 5.0 acres and 26.87 acres and, 2) developing the 5.0 acre parcel with nine (9) single family dwellings, 1675 Dorset Street. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Bill Miller moved to close the hearing, seconded by Jennifer Smith. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Conditional use application #CU‐15‐01 of Richard B. White to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,574 sq. ft. by constructing two (2) additions of 5’ X 8’‐10” & 19’ X 19’‐6” and constructing a 19’ X 27’ 2‐story detached accessory structure to contain a 772 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Bill Miller moved to continue the hearing to March 17, seconded by Jennifer Smith. The motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued preliminary & final plat application #SD‐14‐42 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two (2) general office buildings of 18,500 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft., 284 Meadowland Drive. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. Bill Miller moved to close the hearing, seconded by John Wilking. The motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch plan application #SD‐15‐03 of Champlain Housing Trust for a planned unit development to convert a 24 room motel to a 20 unit multi‐family dwelling, 1200 Shelburne Road. Mr. Barritt opened the hearing. The Board and the applicant discussed the project. The public was invited to comment on the application. No action was taken. 11. Minutes of March 4, and November 4, 2014, and February 17, 2015 Bill Miller moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 2015, seconded by John Wilking. The motion passed unanimously. 12. Other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 17, 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 March 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Frisbie, C. Collins, T. Chittenden, D. Albrecht, D. Seff, M. Scollins, S. Dopp, J. Behnke, C. Snyder, D. & P. Warshaw, M. Courcelle, G. Cummings, R. Roesler, D. Bell, D. Hernberg, E. Milizia, B. Alverez, P. Wolcott, A. Bolger, D. Camaiani, J. Larkin, C. Lisman, 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: It was noted that the applicant for item #8 had just requested a continuance. Members agreed to deal with that when the item came up. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-15-06 of Sterling Construction, Inc., to create three footprint lots, 119, 123 and 127 South Jefferson Road: The applicant showed the division of lots on the plan. The property is located at the corner of Frost Street & Madison Lane. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-06. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-15-06 of The Village at Dorset Park Homeowners Association to amend a previously approved plan for a 167 unit residential complex. The amendment consists of upgrading the community stormwater system, Swift Street Extension: Mr. Collins noted the retention ponds were built in the ‘80s when there will different standards from now. The Village at Dorset Park has been working with the city so the city can take over permitting and maintenance of the ponds. One of the requirements for this to happen is that the ponds be brought up to standard. There are three ponds. 2 The plan is to line the side slopes of the ponds with stone to correct some undermining, possibly attributable to moles or other animals. They will also do a few upgrades and clear out areas where pipes discharge into the ponds. Tom DiPietro will check all the lines before anything is accepted by the city. There will be a safety fence around the ponds, replacing the old fencing. The new fence will be split rail with a mesh backing to keep animals and children from getting into the ponds. The Association is also working with the State to meet State regulations. Someone from the State will also sign off on the project. Trees in the areas of impact will be identified. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-06. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Miscellaneous Application #MS-15-01 of Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., for the installation of residential gas lines for condominiums in the Twin Oaks development with proposed impacts to 68 sq. ft. of wetland and 5,750 sq. ft. of wetland buffer zone, Twin Oaks Terrace: The applicant explained that they will be installing residential gas lines to serve the Twin Oaks condos. She showed where the lines would tie into existing lines to bring service into the community. She also showed wetland areas which were delineated by an ANR specialist. The project will not involve going into the wetland or destroying any trees, but because of a culvert, there is a disturbance of 68 feet where they will be drilling and creating a space where they need to work safely. There is a wetland buffer behind the complex that may or may not be drilled (it may be safer to open dig in that area). They have met with the City Arborist and he had comments regarding preservation of trees. He is OK with their preservation plans. Mr. Belair noted the applicant has a state permit, and staff has no concerns with the project. Mr. Miller moved to close #MS-15-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder noted they have revised the location of the public park. They still need to meet with the Leisure Arts and Park people regarding the location, etc. They need to add a garden space and will do that. 3 They will provide an easement for the rec path along the eastern line which is where it was on the previously approved sketch plan. They don’t propose to build the path since it doesn’t connect to anything to the north or south. There are now only 2 home sites on the private road. There will be interruptions of the sidewalk along Vale Drive as garages will be front-loaded. They will provide documents regarding TDRs at final plat. Changes to the plan include: At the corner of Spear and Spear Meadows Drive, there will be a carriage home of single family home fronting on Spear Street. Mr. Snyder showed the location of the proposed park next to an existing open space area. Mr. Snyder noted that Vale Drive neighbors were concerned with pass-thru traffic, so there are now as many 90 degree turns as possible to discourage that and slow traffic down. The homes on Vale Drive will now be duplexes with garages in front (set back 8 feet). They have kept single family/carriage homes #1-13. They will be one-story with a roof above. They are about 1600-2000 sq. ft. The triplexes are 2-story with garages in back, 1500-1700 sq. ft. The storm water area is not yet finalized. Mr. Barritt noted that unit #39 impinges on the wetland and will also interrupt a view corridor. Mr. Snyder said the existing tree line already impacts the view. Mr. Parsons asked if the backs of the triplexes can access the sidewalk. Mr. Snyder said they can. Mr. Barritt asked about parking for the triplexes. Mr. Snyder said there are 2-car garages for each unit. Cars can also be parking in the driveways. There could be some guest parking in an open area. Mr. Barritt asked about on-street parking. Mr. Belair said that is up to the applicant. Mr. Barritt asked if there will be curb cuts for every duplex unit. Mr. Snyder said some may be combined. Mr. Parsons said he would like to see a strip to delineate the spaces. Mr. Albrecht said staff is trying to reduce the number of curb cuts on Vale Drive and suggested units #37 and #38 come off Spear Meadow. Mr. Snyder said that would change the dynamic. He noted that entrances to those homes are on the side. Mr. Barritt questioned the length of Vale Drive. Mr. Albrecht said it could be broken up with a clear pedestrian crossing. Mr. Barritt noted that staff recommends TDRs be done at preliminary plat, not final. Mr. Snyder said they have no problem having options for preliminary and clear ownership by unit #32. 4 Mr. Barritt noted that the mix of housing styles is very important. He felt the triplexes should be tastefully done to be congruous with the neighborhood. Mr. Wilking felt the community gardens should be convenient to the housing. He was OK with the park, now that it’s been expanded. Mr. Parsons felt it would make sense to have the gardens in the buffer area. Mr. Seff, representing some of the neighbors, said they have many concerns. The primary one is density and the TDR by-law. Mr. Barritt said the Board cannot comment on TDRs, other than the fact that other developments have used them. Mr. Seff notes that sketch plan application asks where TDRs are coming from, and that question hasn’t been answered. Mr. Belair said that is not a requirement, just for some information. Mr. Seff said TDRs have been interpreted as “automatic.” They feel it is up to the board to determine if they can be used and how many. Since they feel the density is inappropriate, they are asking the Board to limit TDRs. They also feel the TDR by-law wasn’t properly drafted. Dr. Scollins said he never imagined he’d have 5 houses abutting his property. He felt the proposed development was very incompatible here. He also noted the rec path will have to come out further to avoid large trees. He said it should be built now or it will probably never be built. He felt the location of the park was “a joke” as the area is so swampy and only the southeast corner is usable where it is 9-10 feet higher. Mr. Warshaw, a Pinnacle resident, noted that TDRs are designed to save natural resources and that the Board can grant all or part of the TDR request. He also noted the Southeast Quadrant regulations have a statement that existing development should be protected from inappropriate development. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-37 until 19 May 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-15-01 of Richard B. White to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,574 sq. ft. by constructing two additions of 5’x 8’x10’ and 19’x 19’-6” and constructing a 19’x 27’ 2-story detached accessory structure to contain a 772 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue: Mr. Barritt noted the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-15-01 to 7 April 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-15-05 of Glenn Cummings to construct a 10,500 sq. ft. mixed use commercial/industrial building to include an umbrella approval, 2 Ethan Allen Drive: 5 Mr. Cummings showed the lot. The plan is to build a warehouse type of building. They have agreed on a mix of uses with staff and are asking for an umbrella permit for those uses. They are agreeable to complying with the City Arborist’s requests. Mr. Cummings noted they have revised plans that address the concern with pedestrian movement. Mr. Belair noted staff hadn’t seen these plans. Mr. Courcelle showed the plan to finish the existing sidewalk and paint an area in front of the parking spaces to indicate the sidewalk. He also showed the location of a bike rack. They will still meet the coverage requirements. The applicant then showed the landscaping plan and identified a storm water pond. He indicated a wetland adjacent to the property. They will not impinge on this or on the wetland buffer. Snow storage will be to the left of the dumpster. Mr. Cummings showed this on the plan. Mr. Courcelle noted they will need a storm water permit but not a construction storm water permit. They will confirm the size of both infiltration basins. After a brief discussion, Mr. Cummings asked for 12 peak hour trip ends. Mr. Belair was OK with this. Mr. Miller then moved to close #SP-15-05. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Reopen final plat application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites) and an 89-room hotel. The amendment consists of: 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’x55’ detached accessory structure, 1 Dorset Street: Mr. Roesler said they are asking to move some lot lines and to move the pergola 29 feet to the north (to avoid straddling the lease line). Landscaping will shift with the pergola. They have also been asked to remove landscaping that is over the lease line. Ms. Bell noted they have a $500 landscaping “cushion.” Mr. Belair said staff may want to check on this with the arborist. He noted staff does not have to agree to move the landscaping as this is a PUD. Mr. Barritt said he would like it to stay and suggested the applicant talk with the landlord. Members agreed they wanted to keep the landscaping. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-02 until 7 April. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date