Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/05/2017 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 December 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (by phone), F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, B. Doucevicz, A. Palmer, M. Lawrence, M. Capotrio 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-27 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a 16,596 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 9,500 sq. ft. (Lot #1) and 7,096 sq. ft. (Lot #2), and to join lot #2 with the 7,273 sq. ft. lot located at 5 Maryland Street, 12 Ledoux Terrace: Mr. Marshall showed the entire parcel and indicated the piece to be sold to the Airport. He also showed a photo indicating the absence of homes in the area and also the land in the area owned by the Airport. Mr. Kochman asked who owns the property now. Mr. Marshall said Mr. & Mrs. Holmes, and they will continue to live in the property closer to the street. Mr. Wilking reminded the applicant that all the property is zoned residential. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-17-76 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 4,970 sq. ft. single story building for general office use, 41 Rye Circle: Mr. Marshall noted this plan has appeared before the DRB before; however, the applicant did not pull a permit within the required 6 months because the proposed tenant pulled out. They have a new tenant now. Mr. Marshall showed a plan of the area, noting a number of commercial lots that have been approved. He indicated the rec path and an internal walkway. This development will be in-filling as part of the Master Plan. Mr. Kochman asked what will be seen from Route 116. Mr. Marshall showed the landscaping plan. He indicated that the back side will not have a doorway to the street. He also showed the elevations of the front and rear of the building. The distance from the traveled way to the building is a bit less than 70 feet, and there are stormwater swales along that area. Mr. Doucevicz said the building will have vinyl clapboard siding with stone work beneath. He cited the design differences between buildings in the development. Mr. Behr noted that he drives by there frequently and the two existing buildings are very nice and fit nicely together despite their different design. He had no issues with this plan. Ms. Smith asked if there will be signage to direct people to parking areas. Mr. Doucevicz said there will. They will put a place holder where the signage will be. The north parking area will be mostly used by employees. Members then reviewed staff comments: Mr. Marshall said they have no issue with the requirement for water permits. They also have adequate space for trash, recycling, and compost. Mr. Doucevicz indicated the trash enclosure at the stone house building, and said the one for this building will be the same concept. Ms. Keene said staff has received a supplemental plan showing lighting/poles. Mr. Belair noted the regulations allow poles to be up to 30 feet. Mr. Marshall said these will be lower. Ms. Keene said the applicant is proposing between 12 and 18 feet. With regard to spillage of light onto the Rye property, Mr. Marshall said the spillage would be onto Rye Circle. Mr. Wilking stressed the need for employees to have a lighted way to the parking lot. Mr. Miller said they are within the limit for spillage. Mr. Marshall said they have updated the plan to show evergreen screening around the utility cabinets. With regard to bicycle parking, Mr. Marshall said there will be locked structure for bicycles. He showed the location on the plan. Mr. Kochman asked about the surface for snow storage. Mr. Marshall said it will be grass. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SP-17-76. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC, to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road: Mr. Marshall reviewed the long history of this project. He said they are now back again with an application with instructions from the Court, including waivers approved by the Court. He showed an overhead photo of the area and identified the piece for this development and the piece of land acquired by the city as part of the legal settlement. Mr. Marshall also noted revisions to the driveway due to the sale of property. Mr. Wilking asked the width of the road. Mr. Marshall said it is 24 feet. Mr. Wilking asked if it can be narrower to be less intrusive as it is now only a driveway. Mr. Marshall said the Fire Department would want a minimum of 20 feet. He felt a narrower road was an interesting idea. Ms. Keene noted in the past the DRB wanted 30 feet. The Court allowed 24 feet. She didn’t feel there would be a problem going narrower if all parties agreed. Mr. Marshall then showed a plan identifying all the trees on the property and infrastructure along the roadway. He showed the portion of the golf course that abuts the property and the tree limits. He also noted that some trees were lost in the recent windstorm. Mr. Lawrence said they are attempting to save as many trees as possible. Houses will have smaller footprints than usual to help make this possible. Mr. Lawrence noted that 3 of the trees that went down in the storm were proposed to be saved. They will be providing street trees and planting evergreens around the project. Ms. Keene reminded the Board that they can review only those things that are different form the Court’s decision, and the standards are those for 1999 and 2001. Mr. Wilking said he would like to hear from an attorney about reducing the road with and also possibly changing the access road location. Mr. Kochman said any change to the Court order would have to be approved by all interested parties, and those will have to be identified. Mr. Marshall felt the change Mr. Wilking wants would put one house too close the road. Mr. Marshall indicated that the pump station will be private. They are OK with the comments of the Public Works Director. All water mains will be 8 inches. They are also OK with the Fire Chief’s comments. Staff requested the landscaping plan to be revised to show the turnaround. Mr. Marshall had no issue with that. They will also provide a plan showing the July 19, 2017 subdivision. Mr. Miller noted receipt of letters from two “interested parties” which will become part of the record. Mr. Kochman suggested writing to interested parties from the court stipulation to ask them to approve narrowing the road. Mr. Belair suggested continuing the hearing to see what they can legally do. Mr. Miller also noted receipt of letter regarding trees taken down. Mr. Marshall said some of those trees had died; others were taken down to accommodate air movement in the area by the golf course. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant complied with Court ordered tree preservation. Ms. Keene said the only question involves a few trees within the tree preservation area. Mr. Miller read from the Court document. Mr. Lawrence said it is his belief that they did not take down any trees that were on the tree preservation plan. He will verify that. Ms. Keene said staff agrees that the trees removed were not in the tree preservation plan but the question is whether those trees were subject to the “Tree Preservation Handbook.” Mr. Lawrence said the stumps he saw were not recently cut. Mr. Marshall also noted that things that were not stipulated in 2001 may have grown up in the ensuing years. Street names will go to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-28 to 19 December 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-17-26 of Alan Palmer for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft. medical and general office building. The amendment consists of converting 10,444 sq. ft. of general office use to nine two-bedroom dwelling units, and redistributing the uses in the south section of the building such that 11,400 sq. ft. are medical offices and the remaining 17,531 sq. ft. are general office, 20 Kimball Avenue: Mr. Wilking noted that he is a neighbor of this property. Mr. Palmer had no issue with Mr. Wilking serving on the board for the hearing. Mr. Palmer then reviewed the history of the building. He now feels so much office space is not needed and that this is a good place for some residential use. They have reduced the original request to 9 units. Ms. Keene noted that the applicant is requesting some hardscape elements be attributed to the landscaping requirement. Mr. Palmer showed pictures of what they are proposing, including $11,000 worth of sculpture. Members were OK with the request. Ms. Keene also noted staff is requesting stabilization time-lines indicating how long earth will be exposed without being stabilized be included as conditions of the approval. Mr. Palmer had no issue with that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-26. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 3 October, 17 October, 7 November, 21 November 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 3 October, 17 October, 7 November, and 21 November as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: a. Request for Extension: Mr. Belair noted the applicant for #SD-16-30, Ms. Capotrio, has requested a 6-month extension to that approval. He noted that the original approval was extended for 6 months even though 12 months would have been allowed; however, regulations allow for only one extension. After a brief discussion, Mr. Wilking moved to amend the extension to #SD-16-30 from the original 6 months to 12 months, so that the total extension is 12 months. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Meeting Scheduling: Members were asked if they can attend the scheduled 2 January 2018 meeting. Members said they can. Members agreed to have their summer break on 3 July instead of in August. c. Joint Meeting: Members agreed to a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on 30 January 2018 (a 5th Tuesday). As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on December 19, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SD-17-27 Staff Comments 1 1 of 3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 16, 2017 Plans received: October 4, 2017 BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-17-27 Agenda Item #5 Meeting Date: December 5, 2017 Location Map SD-17-27 Staff Comments 2 2 of 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued sketch plan application #SD-17-27 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a 16,596 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 9,500 sq. ft. (lot #1) and 7,096 sq. ft. (lot #2), and to join lot #2 with the 7,273 sq. ft. lot located at 5 Maryland Street, 12 Ledoux Terrace. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Residential 4 district. The Development Review Board reviewed a version of the application on August 23, 2017 (#SD-16-16). Board comments at that time were that the newly created lot must have frontage. This issue has been addressed in this application by proposing to join the newly created lot #2 to the existing lot located at 5 Maryland Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on October 4, 2017 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The current application is to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. The first lot will retain the existing dwelling unit and accessory buildings, while the newly created vacant second lot is proposed to be joined to an existing lot fronting on Maryland Street. The lot fronting on Maryland Street, and all lots abutting the second lot, are owned by the City of Burlington. Ledoux Terrace and Maryland Street comprise a loop connected to Airport Drive which likely sees little through traffic. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss the purpose of the subdivision with the applicant. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Density The R4 district has a minimum lot size of 9,500 sq. ft. and a maximum density of four (4) units per acre. The proposed size of Lot #1 is 9,500 sq. ft. Lot #2 will be less than the minimum lot size, but when combined with the 5 Maryland Street, will exceed the minimum lot size. The combined acreage of Lot #1, Lot #2 and 5 Maryland Street is 0.55 acres. With the combined development potential for two (2) units, this subdivision meets the density and minimum lot standards for the district. Setbacks & Lot Dimensions The existing dwelling unit is located within the front yard setback, and the existing garage and shed are located within the side yard setback. The degree of non-conformity will not be changed by the proposed subdivision. The existing building coverage is 10.6% and the proposed building coverage for Lot #1 is 18.6%. Both of these values are below the allowable maximum of 20% building coverage. The existing lot coverage is 14.8% and the proposed lot coverage for Lot #1 is 25.9%. Both of these values are below the allowable maximum of 40% lot coverage. RECOMMENDATION SD-17-27 Staff Comments 3 3 of 3 Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACELOCATION MAPNOT to SCALEP1Clayton & Gail Holmes12 LEDOUX TERRACESOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT MINOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLANRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF _____________,20____, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAIDRESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSONTo the best of my knowledge and belief this plat depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me as described in "SurveyNotes" above, based upon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existing boundaries shown are insubstantial conformance with the records, except as noted.This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403,"Recording of Land Plats". This statement valid only whenaccompanied by my original signature and seal.____________________________________________________Rebecca Gilson VT LS 109314- Survey Notes -1. Purpose of this survey is to retrace, monument, document and subdivide the boundaries ofan existing parcel of land deeded to Clayton Holmes and Gail Holmes by quit claim deeddated October 8, 2009 recorded Vol. 899, Pg. 246 of the City of South Burlington LandRecords AND to retrace and document a vacant parcel of land deeded to the City ofBurlington by warranty deed dated January 27, 2010 recorded Vol. 917, Pg. 179 and mergethe northern portion of the Holmes parcel with the existing City of Burlington parcel. Otherneighboring property lines and buildings shown MAY be approximate only, and are shownfor information purposes only.2. Field survey was conducted during spring of 2016 and consists of a closed-loop traverseutilizing a robotic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on or adjacent to the site(Reference Frame NAD83 (2011, Epoch 2010)).3. Iron pipes shown as “found” are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods with outsidediameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markers found are goodunless otherwise noted. Corners denoted “Proposed” shall typically consist of 5/8”diameter rebar capped with aluminum disks stamped “Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597”,and typically set flush with existing grade.PROJECTLOCATION2n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 921 Pg. 15Holmes, C. & G.12 Ledoux TerraceVol. 899 Pg. 246n/fRessler, D.20 Ledoux TerraceVol. 564 Pg. 10- Referenced Plats or Plans -A. "Proposed Sub-Division; Maryland Street Extension"; prepared by Webster-Martin,Inc.; January 1963; Map Slide 41.9.B. "Plan of Sunrise Park; Owned by Peterson & Barber"; prepared by Hoag & Assoc.Inc.; February 1956; Map Slide 17.2.C. "Study Plan No. 3 of the Land of Mr. & Mrs. Martello"; prepared by Hoag & Assoc.Inc.; July 1959; Map Slide 40.3 & 40.4.Proposed Lot 19500 Sq. Ft.0.22 AcresAdjustment Area(to be Merged with5 Maryland Street)7096 Sq. Ft.0.16 AcresLEGENDEGABUTTER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.)WIRE FENCEEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING GASEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINESUBJECT PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUND/REBAR FOUNDXXBURLINGTONINTERNATIONALAIRPORT2n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1225 Pg. 210n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1186 Pg. 304n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1188 Pg. 243FORMER PROPERTY LINES (APPROX.)PICKET/VINYL FENCECHAINLINK FENCESTOCKADE FENCEXXXXCAPPED REBAR PROPOSEDCALCULATED POINTIPF/RBFn/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1207 Pg. 185n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 415 Pg. 168n/fBurlington, City ofBurlington, City of5 Maryland StreetVol. 917 Pg. 179n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1185 Pg. 20n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1015 Pg. 314n/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1149/ Pg. 192Shed = 98 Sq. FeetGarage = 245 Sq. FeetDriveway = 692 Sq. FeetDeck = 395 Sq. FeetHouse = 942 Sq. FeetSide Porch = 40 Sq. FeetFront Porch = 44 Sq. FeetTotal = 2456 Sq. FeetTotal Area Proposed Lot 1 = 9500 Sq. Feet25.9%- Coverage Calculations -CRPRIGHT OF WAY LINESETBACKAPPLICANT:BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT1200 AIRPORT DRIVE #1SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403Garage = 245 Sq. FeetDecks & Porches = 479 Sq. FeetHouse = 942 Sq. FeetShed = 98 Sq. FeetBuilding Coverage Overall CoverageTotal = 1764 Sq. Feet18.6%4. Not being within the scope of this survey, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. hasconducted no investigation whatsoever respecting whether or not the property andeach component thereof is in compliance with state or local permits.5. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon oradjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only.Buried utilities shown are depicted based solely on surface indications. Actuallocations may vary. Contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction.6. Ledoux Terrace is a 50' wide public right-of-way. Vol. 30, Pg. 171.7. Parcels lie in "Residential 4" Zoning District and is also inside the "Transit OverlayDistrict".8. Parcels do not lie within any floodplain as determined by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) or as mapped by the City of South Burlington.Proposed Lot 214369 Sq. Ft.0.33 Acres- Area Calculations -LOT 112 Ledoux Terrace EXISTING = 16596 Sq. Ft. 0.38 AcresLESS = 7096 Sq. Ft. 0.16 Acres TOTALPROPOSED = 9500 Sq. Ft. 0.22 AcresLOT 25 Maryland Street EXISTING = 7273 Sq. Ft. 0.17 AcresPLUS = 7096 Sq. Ft. 0.16 Acres TOTALPROPOSED = 14369 Sq. Ft. 0.33 Acresn/f"NOW OR FORMERLY"n/fBurlington, City of WEXISTING WATER (APPROX.)SEXISTING SANITARY SEWER (APPROX.) SP-17-76 Staff Comments 1 of 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-17-76_41 Rye Cir_Rye Assoc_Site Plan_2017-12-05.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 1, 2017 Plans received: October 30, 2017 41 Rye Circle Site Plan Application #SP17-76 Agenda Item #6 Meeting date: December 5, 2017 Owner/Applicant Rye Associates, LLC, c/o Dousevicz Construction Suite 201 20 Carmichael Street Essex, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 1473-00041 Southeast Quadrant – Village Commercial 0.571 acres Location Map SP-17-76 Staff Comments 2 of 10 PROJECT DESCRPTION Site plan application #SP-17-76 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 4,970 sf single story building for general office use, 41 Rye Circle. PERMIT HISTORY The subject property is part of an approved Planned Unit Development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, a general office building, a personal instruction and personal service building, and the general office building which is the subject of the current application. The most recent PUD amendment was approved in June 2016 (SD-16-07), which included site plan approval for a 4,726 sq. ft. general office building on Lot 2. That approval included a condition to obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months for the building on Lot 2. This deadline passed without the applicant obtaining a zoning permit, therefore they are reapplying for site plan approval for the Lot 2 building. Compared to the prior approval, the currently proposed building has a slightly larger footprint, the entrances have been reconfigured, and modifications have been made to the site sidewalks and parking spaces. The PUD also obtained site plan approval for the personal instruction and personal service building on Lot 3 in January 2017 (SP-16-80), which is currently under construction. Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. CONTEXT The subject property is a through-lot located between Hinesburg Road and Rye Circle within the Rye Meadows PUD. It is located just north of the northern limit of the Dorset Park view protection district. This segment of Hinesburg Road is served by an existing sidewalk and recreation path within Rye Meadows and is in an area planned for recreation paths connecting north to south along Hinesburg Road and east to west via Swift Street Extension and Meadowland Drive. It is located in an area planned for medium to higher intensity mixed use development. There is a chain of wetlands located within the Rye Meadows PUD, though no wetlands are located on the subject property. COMMENTS A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The SEQ-VC Zoning District table below represents an analysis of the requirements as applied to Lot 2 (location of the new general office building) only. SEQ-VC Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 24,859 sq. ft.1 Ö Max. Building Height 50 ft. <31 ft.2 Max. Building Coverage 15% 20.1%1 Max. Overall Coverage 30% 50.1%1 Ö Min. Front Setback (Rye Circle) 20 ft. 25 ft. Ö Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. 57.6 ft. Ö Min. Side Setback 20 ft. >20 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A Ö Zoning compliance 1. Waiver approved in preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 and final plat application #SD-14-15. 2. Building height calculation at mid-point of roof not provided, however roof peak is within allowable height SP-17-76 Staff Comments 3 of 10 B) SEQ-VC SUB-DISTRICT; SPECIFIC REGULATIONS Land Development Regulations Section 9.10D apply to non-residential land uses in the SEQ-VC sub-district. (1) Building Orientation: Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. The proposed building has a primary building entry on Rye Circle and secondary entries onto the parking lot to the South. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Building Façades (a) Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (b) Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. The primary façade has several windows and an entry as well as a sidewalk to the street. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (c) Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. The entries are emphasized with gabled awnings. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (d) All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. The proposed building is one story. There are textural elements proposed along the bottom portion of the building and breaks in the building wall varying its depth. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (e) Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. The proposed building has a gabled roof. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (f) Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. The proposed building has a similar appearance to the buildings on Lots 1 and 3. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Building Setbacks. New buildings with commercial uses must be built within a build-to-zone established no less than fifteen feet (15’) and no more than twenty feet (20’) from the edge of the curb. The area between the building and the curb shall provide for convenient pedestrian access via sidewalk or recreation path; see Section 9.10(C)(1) above. Parking is prohibited between the building and the sidewalk. The Board approved a request for waiver of this standard as part of approval MP-13-01. (4) Parking (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these Regulations, each non-residential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance with Section 13.1(N)(3). The Development Review Board may allow on-street parking within 500 linear feet of the nearest building line of the use to count towards the use’s parking requirements. The 4,970 sq. ft. general office building is required to have 15 parking spaces. 21 parking spaces are provided on Lot 2. Snow storage is located adjacent to the dumpster enclosure south of the proposed building. The PUD uses SP-17-76 Staff Comments 4 of 10 shared parking to meet the parking requirements as a whole. The applicant has provided the following table summarizing their parking approach. Staff considers this criterion met. Lot Building Square Footage Required Parking Provided Off-Street Parking 1 5,100 15 13 2 4,970 14 21 3 6,290 18 22 1, 2 & 3 Combined 16,360 47 55 (b) The provisions of Section 13.1 notwithstanding, the DRB may allow shared parking anywhere within the VC district, regardless of linear distance from the proposed use. The subject parcel meets the required parking standards without using shared parking. The PUD as a whole uses shared parking to meet the parking requirements for the three commercial lots. Staff considers this criterion met. C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 9.13 of the Land Development Regulations, all development in the Southeast Quadrant (except single family residences and two-family residences on a single existing lot) must be reviewed using the Planned Unit Development standards in Section 15: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. 1) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide documentation of any necessary permits related to water and wastewater from the appropriate permitting agencies. (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 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. An erosion control plan has been submitted. The applicant’s engineer provided the following additional information via email on November 28, 2017. Hi Marla, A state construction general permit has been obtained for the project area, the permit covers the entire Rye Meadows development including but not limited to the construction of 20,000 GSF in 5 commercial buildings and supporting road and utility infrastructure. The permit expires in 2019. Billy Roberts Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Staff considers this criterion met. SP-17-76 Staff Comments 5 of 10 (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Board found this criterion met as part of final plat approval SD-14-15. Staff considers that no elements of the project affecting compliance with this criterion have been modified. (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. Staff considers there are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features in the area that would be affected by this project. The Board found this criterion met for the PUD as a whole as part of final plat approval SD-14-15. Staff considers this criterion met. (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 applicant has provided renderings of the building indicating that it will be similar, but not identical, to the existing adjacent commercial buildings. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. Staff considers there are no open space areas on this portion of the PUD that would be affected by this project. (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 Deputy Fire Chief reviewed the plan on November 30, 2017 and provided the following comment. Commercial structures will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshall’s office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes. (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 Board found this criterion met on an overall basis as part of final plat approval SD-14-15. A review of site-specific facilities is included below under Site Plan Review Standards. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan states that priority should be given to the preservation of open space areas within the quadrant “outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.” The SEQ-VC is an area specifically designated for development and therefore the proposed commercial building is consistent with the Plan. The Board found this criterion met as part of final plat approval SD-14-15. D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS SP-17-76 Staff Comments 6 of 10 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. The Board found this criterion to be met as part of final plat approval SD-14-15. 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 commercial portion of the PUD uses shared curb cuts and parking areas to encourage transitions between the site. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. Parking is located to both sides of the building. No parking is proposed facing the street. Staff considers this criterion met. (b) - (d) (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. The proposed building is similar to the adjacent commercial buildings. Staff considers this criterion 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. (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 building is similar to the adjacent commercial buildings and is integrated into the surrounding topography and landscaping. Staff considers this criterion 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: 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. SP-17-76 Staff Comments 7 of 10 The property shares a curb cut with the building at 27 Rye Circle and a curb cut with the building at 89 Rye Circle, thus limiting curb cuts onto adjacent roads. Staff considers this criterion met. B. Utility Services. 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. All utilities are proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion 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). A dumpster is proposed at the eastern end of the parking area on the south side of commercial Lot 2. It will be located on a concrete pad, be accessed via hinged doors, and enclosed with screen board or another material. It is unclear from the plans whether space for composting, which is a requirement, will be provided within this enclosure. 2) Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they have provided adequate enclosure space for trash, recycling and compost. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the buildings in the portion of the project seeking site plan approval is estimated at $596,650 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget is $13,466.70 as calculated below. The applicant is proposing $13,500 in landscaping. Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Minimum Landscaping Budget $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $966.50 Minimum Landscaping $ $13,466.50 Proposed Landscaping $370,002 The City Arborist indicated on November 9, 2017 in an email to staff that there are no comments on the proposed plantings. Staff considers this criterion met. F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is SP-17-76 Staff Comments 8 of 10 reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. The PUD has obtained a State Individual Stormwater Discharge Permit (permit no. 7017-INDS), expiring November 23, 2019. No changes have been made to the stormwater management system since final plat approval. Staff considers this criterion met. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. The dimensions of parking and driveways meet the standards of Section 15.12 and 13.01. Staff considers this criterion met. E. OTHER 1. Traffic Generation Using values from the 10th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual, the proposed 4,970 square foot general office building would generate 5.72 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 2. Lighting Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations addresses exterior lighting as follows. A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. SP-17-76 Staff Comments 9 of 10 There is one pole light on the north side of the proposed building and one on the south side within the property, as well as one light pole on Lot 3, illuminating the parking areas. The provided photometric plan does not take into consideration the effect of the light pole on Lot 3. Poles are shown to be 12 feet to 18 feet tall and to have forward throw fixtures. The lighting calculation summary describes four (4) light poles but only three are shown on the plan. Further, it is unclear to staff based on the plans which fixtures are which height and where the fourth fixture is located. These are the same fixtures which were provided for Lot 3, which at that time were determined to be downcast and shielded. Components are made of aluminum. 3) Staff recommends the Board require the plans be modified to clarify how many lights there are and which light pole is which height. 6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure. The proposed building on Lot 2 will have one (1) building-mounted light on the western elevation, two (2) mounted on the southern elevation, and one (1) mounted on the eastern elevation. There will be one (1) recessed LED light mounted on the ceilings of each entry canopy. Details for the proposed light fixtures are not provided. The provided photometric plan shows that there will be some spillage of the site lighting into Rye Circle. All of these fixtures will be mounted at less than 30 feet in height. 4) Staff recommends the Board require the plans be modified to demonstrate that the building-mounted light fixtures will be shielded and downcast. Staff further recommends the Board consider whether the proposed spillage into Rye Circle, which is in the direction of the nearest residences, is warranted. 3. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. 4. Utility Cabinets/HVAC Units The plans should show any existing or proposed utility cabinets and/or ground mounted HVAC units. Per Section 13.18(B)(4) of the LDRs any such units would be required to be landscaped with evergreens of sufficient height and density to be screened from the surrounding property. The proposed landscaping plan shows deciduous shrubs surrounding the utility cabinets. 5) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plans to show evergreen screening around the utility cabinets. 5. Bicycle Parking The proposed 4,970 sq. ft. office building requires four (4) short term and two (2) long term bicycle parking spaces according to the provisions of Section 13.14. The applicant has provided six (6) short term spaces which meet the short-term bicycle parking requirements. The applicant has not provided any bicycle parking spaces which meet the long-term parking requirements. SP-17-76 Staff Comments 10 of 10 6) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the floor plan to show two (2) long-term secure bicycle parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner STSEQ-VCDISTRICT200'CURRENT VCDISTRICTLINEDISTRICTI & O DISTRICTI & O DISTRICTXXXXTST ST STSTST ST ST ST ST RYE CIRCLELANDON RD.HINESBURG RD. 41 RYE CIRCLE LOT 2 27 RYE CIRCLE LOT 1 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONC. CURB PROPOSED PAVEMENT EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO BE RELOCATED (SEE LIGHTING PLAN) (3) EXISTING PARKING SPACES REDUCED TO 2 SPACES EXISTING CURB TO BE REMOVED 89 RYE CIRCLE LOT 3 91 RYE CIRCLE LOT 4 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON CONC. PADPROPOSED BIKE RACK 12" HDPE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE ADDITIONAL STREET PARKING PROPOSED CONC. CURB TURN-AROUND SPACE w/ NO PARKING SIGN TURN-AROUND SPACE w/ NO PARKING SIGN 15" HDPEBIOSWALE PROPOSED HVAC AND UTILITY CABINETS EXIST. HVAC CABINETS EXISTING ELECTRICAL CABINET (TYP.) EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING  “  “ “ “11 11 10 3 DSM DSM SAL 1" = 30' 11202 C1.0 FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED OVERALL SITE PLAN A C E 4.21.2016 DSM/ACL UPDATED PLAN 1.UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 5.ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 6.MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE AND OPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALS INCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOP DRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED. 9.IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND ANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. 10.THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE 0.1 FEET. 11.ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. 12.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWN AUTHORITIES. 13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS. 14.EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT AN APPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW. 15.IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ON THE ITEM IN QUESTION. 16.PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. 17.IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TO TWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL. 18.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICES INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING. 19.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILE WHERE APPLICABLE. 20.THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES OR RAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL NOTES LEGEND FM E G ST S T W 100 EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CURB EXISTING FENCE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING GUARD RAIL EXISTING SWALE WETLANDS WETLANDS BUFFER EXISTING ELECTRIC EXISTING FORCEMAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING STORM EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER EXISTING TELEPHONE EXISTING WATER FM G ST 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 STREAM EXISTING WELL PROPOSED WELL 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 S PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE D PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND 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 COMMERCIAL LOT 1, 2 & 3 COVERAGES: ZONE: SEQ - VC DISTRCT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 54% MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 21% LOT LOT SIZE LOT COVERAGE BUILDING COVERAGE LOT 1 LOT 2 26137 SF 24859 SF 51.0% 50.1% 21.2% 20.1% SEQ-NR DISTRICT SEQ-VC DISTRICT 4.25.2016 DSM/ACL ADDED BIOSWALE 5.10.2016 DSM/SAL ADDED HVAC/UTILITY CAB., E911 5.12.2016 DSM/SAL REVISIONS PER CITY REVIEW 6.16.2016 DSM/SAL ADDED EXISTING ELECTRICAL CABINETS 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED BLDG, SIDEWALK & HVAC LOT 3 25260 SF 60.7%25.3% 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:38:56 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 UDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDW W W ETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCETCSSS S S W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G G SSSGGGGGGGGGGGGGSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTRELOCATE LIGHT POLE RYE CIRCLEGAS SERVICE 6" WATER SERVICE ETCETC NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 5.0'5.0'18'24'18'R=5'R=5'R=5'EX. 2" HDPE GAS MAINEX. 8" PVC SEWEREX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. 8" D.I. WATER MAINEX. 5" PRIMARYEX. 6" D.I. WATER SERVICE EX. GAS SERVICE EX. (2) 3" SECONDARYEX. GAS SERVICE 22.0'8.0' 9.0' 9.0'9.0'18.0'NEW BIKE RACK EX. SMH #2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=399.9 INV. OUT=399.8 EX. GAS SERVICE EX. 6" SEWER SERVICE (2) 3" CONDUITS FOR ELEC., TEL. & CABLE SERVICE 41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING F.F. EL. 409.6 EXISTING YD #1 LOT 2 RIM=408.25 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25 EXISTING YD #2 LOT 2 RIM=407.3 INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0 NEW DMH LOT2 INV. IN (15")=400.8 INV. IN (6")=401.3 INV. OUT=400.7TRANSITION CURB SS6" SDR 35 PVC SEWER SERVICE 1/4"/FT. SLOPE MIN. EX. SMH RIM=408.0 INV.=401.1 CORE NEW HOLE IN EX. SMH FOR 6" PVC AT INV.=401.3 INVERT AT BUILDING =402.8 NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 12" HDPE12" HDPETRANSITION CURB CLEANOUTE EEXISTING CB #2 LOT2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=402.2 INV. OUT=402.1 TRANSITION CURB EXISTING CB #1 LOT2 RIM=408.9 INV. IN=404.9 INV. OUT=404.8 12" HDPETRANSITION CURB (TYP.) 15" HDPE 6" SDR 35 PVC 6" PERF. SDR 35 PVC INV.=401.5 BIOSWALE TOP OF STONE ELEV.= 405.5 BIOSWALE TOP BERM=406.5 CROSS HATCHING PAVEMENT MARKING (TYP.) NO PARKING SIGN (TYP.) SNOW STORAGE NEW HVAC AND UTILITY CABINETS (TYP.) NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK UDUDUDUDUDUDETCETCST R = 5 ' EX. CB #12 RIM=405.9 INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD) INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+407.4 TRANSITION CURB (TYP.) + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 DSM DSM SAL 1" = 10' 11202 C2.0 FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED SITE & UTILITY PLAN A C E MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED BLDG, SIDEWALK & HVAC 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:38:44 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SEUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD407408408407STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST410408407408STSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTRYE CIRCLEHINESBURG RD.EX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+408.28 +408.9 +409.48 +409.58 +409.42 +408.2 41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING F.F. EL. 409.6 +BC408.65 +409.35+409.35 +409.6 +409.6 +408.88 +409.0 +409.0 +409.0 +409.0 +409.6 +409.6 +BC407.5 +TC407.9 +BC407.4 +406.5 +408.0 EXISTING YD #1 LOT 2 RIM=408.25 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25 EXISTING YD #2 LOT 2 RIM=407.3 INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0 NEW DMH LOT2 RIM=406.4 INV. IN (15")=400.8 INV. IN (6")=401.3 INV. OUT=400.7409409 409 TRANSITION CURB12" HDPE12" HDPE407 TRANSITION CURB +409.4 4 0 9 +407.7 +407.4 EXISTING CB #2 LOT2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=402.2 INV. OUT=402.1 +BC408.5 4074 0 7 408 408 407TRANSITION CURB 408 408EXISTING CB #1 LOT2 RIM=408.9 INV. IN=404.9 INV. OUT=404.8 12" HDPETRANSITION CURB (TYP.) 15" HDPE 406 6" SDR 35 PVC 6" PERF. SDR 35 PVC INV.=401.5 BIOSWALE TOP OF STONE ELEV.= 405.5 BIOSWALE TOP BERM=406.5 406.3++406.5 +405.5 +BC/TC408.9 +409.4 + BC/TC408.81++408.6 SNOW STORAGE +409.6 NEW HVAC AND UTILITY CABINETS (TYP.) DSM DSM SAL 11202 C2.1 FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN A C E 1" = 10' 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED BLDG, SIDEWALK & HVAC 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:38:32 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 EEETCETCETCETCETC STUDUDUDUDUD UDUDUDUDTN/F EAST MOUNTAIN VIEW, LLC N/F SPHINX DEVELOPMENT, LLC N/F SPANIEL PROPERTIES, LLC AND AVALANCHE DEVELOPMENT, LLC INV.=408.0 NEW CB #14 RIM=409.0 INV. (6"UD)=406.0 INV. IN (18"N)=402.7 INV. OUT (18"S)=402.6 NEW CB #13 RIM=408.27 INV. IN (18"N)=402.3 INV. OUT (18"S)=402.2 1(: ‘&% RIM=405.49 INV. IN (18"N)=400.1 INV. IN (15"E)=400.5 INV. IN (12"W)=400.5 INV. OUT=400.0 NEW CB #12 RIM=405.9 INV. (6"UD)=402.9 INV. OUT=400.9 NEW CB #4A RIM=399.5 INV. IN (18")=395.5 INV. OUT (18")=395.4 NEW 24' HDPE W/FES #5 INV.=403.3 NEW 24' HDPE W/FES #4 INV.=403.7 NEW 24" HDPE W/FES #6 INV.=397.5 FF= 401.2 NEW CB #9A RIM=402.5 INV. =397.5 NEW CB #10 RIM=403.85 INV. (6"UD)=400.85 INV. IN (18"N)=398.5 INV. OUT (18"S)=398.4 NEW CB #9 RIM=403.0 INV. (6"UD)=400.0 INV. IN (18")=397.0 INV. OUT (18")=396.9 NEW CB #4B RIM=402.7 INV.(18")=397.2 10" HDPE FOUNDATION DRAIN 4 0 0407 407408400 408406F.F. 411.7 407405F.F. 410.5B-401.5F.F. 409.5 B-400.5 F.F. 409.7 B-400.7 F.F. 410.0 B-401.0 407406403404 405 406 405405404403405407407406404 403 40313TYPE "C2"19 TYPE "E" 15 TYPE"D"UDUDUDNEW YD #9 RIM=402.4 INV. OUT (12")=398.0 ,19 “ 408 408 408 399 F.F. 406.3F.F. 405.0 F.F. 408.8F.F. 407.527 TYPE "C1" X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PROPERTIES, LLC 1st-404.0117TYPE "A"1st-404.0125TYPE "C"1st-405.5127TYPE "A"1st-403.7123TYPE "A"1st-405.0 115 TYPE "B" 1st-403.3 119 TYPE "C" SEE SHEET C3.2 ENLARGED PLAN OF CMMERCIAL LOT 27 SEE SHEET C3.3 ENLARGED PLAN OF THE 4-PLEX BUILDINGS 1st-404.0 B-395.0 FF= 402.0 1st-403.6B-394.6ST ST ST STSTSTST S T STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST STSTSTST STSTSTST410408407408STSTST ST STSTSTSTSTRYE CIRCLEHINESBURG RD.EXISTINGSIDEWALKEXISTINGPAVEMENTEX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. CB #12 RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD) INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. 6" UNDERDRAINEXISTING YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25 EXISTING YD #2 LOT 2 RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0409409 409 12" HDPE407 NEW DMH 5,0 “$'-867 TO FINISH GRADE INV. IN=399.8 INV. OUT=399.7 15" HDPE W/FES INV=399.015" HDPE15" HDPESTONE PAN 40 9 EXISTING CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8 INV. IN=402.2INV. OUT=402.1 407 40 7 408 408 407408 408EXISTING CB #1 LOT2 RIM=408.9 INV. IN=404.9 INV. OUT=404.8 15" HDPE 406 6" SDR 35 PVC 6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5 BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5 BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5 EXISTING ON-STREETPARKING “ “ “  “ SNOW STORAGE NEW HVAC AND UTILITY CABINETS (TYP.) DSM DSM SAL 11202 C2.1A FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' OVERALL PROPOSED GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN A C E 1" = 30' 91 RYE CIRCLE COMMERCIAL LOT 4 41 RYE CIRCLE COMMERCIAL LOT 2 89 RYE CIRCLE COMMERCIAL LOT 3 27 RYE CIRCLE COMMERCIAL LOT 1 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED BLDG, SIDEWALK & HVAC 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:38:21 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SESTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTRYE CIRCLEHINESBURG RD.41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING F.F. EL. 409.6 EXISTING YD #1 LOT 2 RIM=408.25 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25 EXISTING YD #2 LOT 2 RIM=407.3 INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.012" HDPEEXISTING CB #2 LOT2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=402.2 INV. OUT=402.1 EXISTING CB #1 LOT2 RIM=408.9 INV. IN=404.9 INV. OUT=404.8 15" HDPE 6" SDR 35 PVC 6" PERF. SDR 35 PVC INV.=401.5 BIOSWALE TOP OF STONE ELEV.= 405.5 BIOSWALE TOP BERM=406.5 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.05 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.12 + 0.15 + 0.13 + 0.09 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.04 + 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.06 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.17 + 0.31 + 0.41 + 0.35 + 0.20 + 0.10 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.05 + 0.08 + 0.12 + 0.15 + 0.14 + 0.10 + 0.06 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.05 + 0.13 + 0.32 + 0.72 + 1.06 + 0.85 + 0.41 + 0.17 + 0.07 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.16 + 0.31 + 0.43 + 0.38 + 0.22 + 0.11 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.06 + 0.15 + 0.44 + 1.11 + 1.75 + 1.35 + 0.59 + 0.21 + 0.08 + 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.06 + 0.12 + 0.30 + 0.70 + 1.09 + 0.91 + 0.45 + 0.18 + 0.07 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 3.78 + 4.77 + 3.93 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.15 + 0.41 + 1.05 + 1.74 + 1.42 + 0.63 + 0.23 + 0.08 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.05 + 0.06 + 0.07 + 0.06 + 0.00 + 3.91 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 3.55 + 4.60 + 3.75 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.02 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.06 + 0.09 + 0.13 + 0.14 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 4.46 + 3.59 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.03 + 0.06 + 0.11 + 0.18 + 0.27 + 0.31 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.07 + 0.06 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.16 + 0.32 + 0.51 + 0.62 + 0.00 + 0.14 + 0.11 + 0.08 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.05 + 0.10 + 0.21 + 0.44 + 0.76 + 0.94 + 4.28 + 0.27 + 0.21 + 0.14 + 0.08 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.05 + 0.10 + 0.22 + 0.45 + 0.78 + 0.97 + 4.72 + 0.48 + 0.35 + 0.21 + 0.11 + 0.06 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.04 + 0.08 + 0.17 + 0.33 + 0.55 + 0.00 + 3.27 + 0.69 + 0.48 + 0.27 + 0.14 + 0.07 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.06 + 0.11 + 0.20 + 0.29 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.72 + 0.50 + 0.28 + 0.14 + 0.07 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.07 + 0.10 + 0.14 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.55 + 0.39 + 0.23 + 0.12 + 0.06 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.04 + 0.05 + 0.07 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.34 + 0.33 + 0.25 + 0.16 + 0.09 + 0.05 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.18 + 0.17 + 0.14 + 0.09 + 0.06 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.09 + 0.09 + 0.07 + 0.05 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.05 + 0.04 + 0.04 + 0.03 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 E E E CD E D C D C E D E E E CDE E D C E E E D E DE E D C E E DSM DSM SAL 11202 C2.2 FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN A C E 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 116 89 1" = 10' 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/MAB REVISED LIGHTING PLAN LIGHTING LEVEL LEGEND LIGHTING CALCULATION SUMMARY 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 DXF file created by LitePro 2.030 on 11/29/2017 3:14:16 PM CALCULATION SUMMARY AREA NAME DIMENSIONS GRID / TYPE # PTS SPAC GROUP AVE MAX MIN MAX/MINAVE/MIN New Area 209.75x183.56Ft New Grid / H-H 1279 5.00 <+> 0.08 4.77 0.00 N/A N/A Rye Associates Planned Unit Development (11202) LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TYP SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LAMP LUMENS MOUNTING/BALLAST LLF QTY C12 RAB LIGHTING IN 3(4) 2867 0.85 GN12 RAB LIGHTING, I 12' GOOSE NECK 2(1) "GN" GNLED13N B/FLOOD REF/FROSTED LENS (1) 665 0.85 GN16 RAB LIGHTING, I 16' Goose Neck 1(1) "GN" GNLED13N B/FLOOD REF/FROSTED LENS (1) 665 0.85 GN18 RAB LIGHTING, I 18' GOOSE NECK 1(1) "GN" GNLED13N B/FLOOD REF/FROSTED LENS (1) 665 0.85 AREA SUMMARY SCHEDULE AREA NAME I/O DIMENSIONS LUMS / <ASMS>WATTS / SQ FT QTY New Area OUT 209.75x183.56Ft 0.00 1<C12 > (3) <GN12> (2) <GN16> (1) <GN18> (1) (1) "CAN" CLED26 or PLED26 (w/ center reflector & clear flat P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:37:10 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 S EUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUD408408406407ST410408407408EX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. SMH #2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=399.9 INV. OUT=399.8 EX. 6" SEWER SERVICE EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING F.F. EL. 409.6 409409 409 407 4 0 9 4074 0 7 408 408 407408 408406 GtH 2-TmD6-SjL 2-HaA GtH GtH 4-TmD 2-PoS 3-HaA 2-TmD 2-PoS 3-HaA 5-RP 2-HaA 5-TmD 2-TmD 4-SnS 3-TmD 7-SjL2-PoS 5-HaA 2-SnS 1-HpP 2-TmD 3-SbA 1-HpP BHc MiL BHc GtH BHs BHs 2-CaH 1-RP GtH BHs 2-PoS 3-VcS SNOW STORAGE 1-RP NEW HVAC AND UTILITY CABINETS (TYP.) DSM DSM SAL 11202 L1.0 SEPT., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN A C E 1" = 10' DET-L-004 N.T.S. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL REVISED 03/02/2015DET-L-004 SHRUB PLANTINGPLANTING NOTES: 1.EXCAVATE A PIT WHICH IS AT LEAST TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL AND SAME DEPTH - NO DEEPER. 2.REMOVE ALL STRING AND/OR WIRE WRAPPED AROUND TRUCK. 3.REMOVE ALL STRAPS, ROPES, WIRE, AND/OR STRINGS USED TO LIFT THE ROOTBALL. 4.REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND/OR WIRE FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL. 5.TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SET FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. DO NOT TOUCH THE ROOT FLARE OF THE TREE MULCH 3" DEPTH TILLED AND LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL UNDISTURBED SOIL CREATE A SOIL SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL ROOTBALL TILLED AND LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL 2 TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL DET-L005 N.T.S. TREE PLANTING DETAIL REVISED 02/18/2015DET-L005 Tree PlaningPLANTING NOTES: 1.EXCAVATE A PIT WHICH IS AT LEAST TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL AND SAME DEPTH - NO DEEPER. 2.REMOVE ALL STRING &/OR WIRE WRAPPED AROUND TRUNK. 3.3. REMOVE ALL STRAPS, ROPES, WIRE, &/OR STRINGS USED TO LIFT THE ROOTBALL. 4.REMOVE ALL BURLAP &/OR WIRE FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. 5.TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SET FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE. 2 - 2"x4" STAKE W/ LONG TAPER MIN. 18" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL UNDISTURBED SOIL TILLED AND LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL MULCH 3" DEPTH DO NOT TOUCH THE ROOT FLARE OF THE TREE CREATE A SOIL SAUCER WITH TOPSOIL ROOTBALL TILLED AND LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL STAKE 2 TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL DSM ADDED PLANTING DETAILS DSM REVISED LANDSCAPING DSM REVISED LANDSCAPING DSM REVISE SITE LAYOUT DSM REVISE SITE LAYOUT DSM REVISE SITE LAYOUT DSM REVISE SITE LAYOUT/LANDSCAPING 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:38:03 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 SESTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTST STRYE CIRCLEHINESBURG RD.41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING F.F. EL. 409.6 EXISTING YD #1 LOT 2 RIM=408.25 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25 EXISTING YD #2 LOT 2 RIM=407.3 INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0 INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0 NEW DMH LOT2 RIM=406.4 INV. IN (15")=400.8 INV. IN (6")=401.3 INV. OUT=400.7409409 409 TRANSITION CURB12" HDPE12" HDPE407 15" HDPETRANSITION CURB 4 0 9 EXISTING CB #2 LOT2 RIM=406.8 INV. IN=402.2 INV. OUT=402.1 4074 0 7 408 408 407TRANSITION CURB 408 408EXISTING CB #1 LOT2 RIM=408.9 INV. IN=404.9 INV. OUT=404.8 12" HDPETRANSITION CURB (TYP.) 15" HDPE 406 6" SDR 35 PVC 6" PERF. SDR 35 PVC INV.=401.5 BIOSWALE TOP OF STONE ELEV.= 405.5 BIOSWALE TOP BERM=406.5 SNOW STORAGE EROSION CONTROL MATTING BETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALK CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION (TYP.) INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AREA INSTALL SILT FENCE EROSION CONTROL MATTING BETWEEN PAVEMENT AND SWALE EROSION CONTROL MATTING BETWEEN PAVEMENT AND SWALE INSTALL SILT FENCE INSTALL SILT FENCE DSM DSM SAL 11202 C3.0 FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' PROPOSED EPSC PLAN A C E 1" = 10' 10.21.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED HDCP PARKING 12.6.2016 DSM/SAL REVISED BLDG, SIDEWALK & HVAC 10.26.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 11.29.2017 DSM/BRR REVISED BLDG & SIDEWALK 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 89 116 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:37:52 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 AS SHOWN 11202 C3.1 A C E DSM DSM SAL ESPC DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS 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. Specific BMP's which are critical to allowing the project to be considered a Low risk site include the items checked below: x Limit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any one time. x There shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earth exposure in any location before temporary or final stabilization is implemented. 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 --- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre) Sept. 15 - April 15 --- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acre Seeding Rates for Final Stabilization:Choose Mulching Rates April 15 - Sept.15 -- Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.) Sept.15 - April 15 -- Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.) Erosion Control 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 N.T.S. CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAIL REVISED 08/01/2014E-002E-002 Constr FenceWOOD POST 30"18"EXISTING GRADE NATIVE MATERIAL PLASTIC ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE REVISED 08/01/2014E-004E-004 Constr. Ent20' (6m) RROADWAYAA STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S.12'. MIN.50' MIN. SECTION A-A DIVERSION RIDGE REQUIRED WHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2% ROADWAY 2% OR GREATER SPILLWAY FILTER FABRIC 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 VIEW NOTES: 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 REVISED 08/01/2014E-003E-003 Silt FenceN.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. 10' 10' 2.5' METAL POST 4 x 4 WOOD POST SPACING 212 X 212 WOOD 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) REVISED 08/01/2014E-005E-005 StockpileTEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAIL N.T.S. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCH OR NETTING SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES INSTALLED ON DOWN GRADIENT SIDE REVISED 08/01/2014E-007E-007 Infilt SectSILT 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*/(ƒ UPSLOPE FOR STABILITY AND SELF CLEANING POSTS SILT FENCE    ƒ12"MIN.8"COMPACTED BACKFILL FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:09:11 PM, gcarter AS SHOWN 11202 C3.2 A C E DSM DSM SAL ESPC DETAILS N.T.S. FOR PERIMETER CONTROL REVISED 12/19/2014E-010E-010 Silt Fence Perimeter ControlCorrect - Install J-hooks 0.3 ACRE Discreet segments of silt fence, installed with J-hooks or `smiles' will be much more effective.1 ACREIncorrect - Do Not layout "perimeter control" silt fences along property lines. All sediment laden runoff will concentrate and overwhelm the system.0.3 ACRE0.3 ACR E SILT FENCE PLACEMENT N.T.S. STRAW ANCHORING REVISED 12/19/2014E-012E-012 Straw AnchoringNOTES: 1.ROUGHEN SLOPE WITH BULLDOZER. 2.BROADCAST SEED AND FERTILIZER. 3.SPREAD STRAW MULCH 3" (212 TONS PER ACRE) 4.PUNCH STRAW MULCH INTO SLOPE BY RUNNING BULLDOZER UP AND DOWN SLOPE. 'TRACKING' WITH MACHINERY ON SANDY SOIL PROVIDES ROUGHENING WITHOUT UNDUE COMPACTION. N.T.S. TYPICAL INSTALLATION REVISED 12/19/2014E-011E-011 Grass Lined ChannelINTERMITTENT CHECK SLOT LONGITUDINAL ANCHOR TRENCH GRASS-LINED CHANNEL TYPICAL INSTALLATION WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS OR TURF REINFORCEMENT MATS PREPARE SOIL AND APPLY SEED BEFORE INSTALLING BLANKETS, MATS OR OTHER TEMPORARY CHANNEL LINER SYSTEM EXCAVATE CHANNEL TO DESIGN GRADE AND CROSS SECTON NOTES: 1.DESIGN VELOCITIES EXCEEDING 2 FT./SEC/ REQUIRE TEMPORARY BLANKETS, MATS OR SIMILAR LINERS TO PROTECT SEED AND SOIL UNTIL VEGETATION BECOMES ESTABLISHED. 2.GRASS-LINED CHANNELS WITH DESIGN VELOCITIES EXCEEDING 6 FT./SEC. SHOULD INCLUDE TURF REINFORCEMENT MATS.6"6"6"DESIGNDEPTHOVERLAP 6" MINIMUM OVERCUT CHANNEL 2" TO ALLOW BULKING DURING SEEDBED PREPARATION LONGITUDINAL ANCHOR TRENCH SHINGLE-LAP SPLICED ENDS OR BEGIN NEW ROLL IN AN INTERMITTENT CHECK SLOT BERM ISOMETRIC VIEW TYPICAL SLOPE SOIL STABILIZATION STAPLES REINFORCEMENT MATS EROSION BLANKETS & TURF 12"4' N.T.S. SLOPE INSTALLATION E-009E-009 Slope Erosion BlanketsNOTES: 1.SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, CLODS, STICKS AND GRASS. MATS/BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT. 2.APPLY PERMANENT SEEDING BEFORE PLACING BLANKETS. 3.LAY BLANKETS LOOSELY AND STAKE OR STAPLE TO MAINTAIN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH. MATS/BLANKETS SHOULD BE INSTALLED VERTICALLY DOWNSLOPE.TAMP SOIL O V E R M A T / B L A N K E T MIN. 4" OVERLAP 6"112"112"12"REVISED 08/01/2014 REVISED 08/01/2014E-006E-006 Check DamSTONE 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 D-50 OF ROCK (MM) DOWNSTREAM FLOWLINE SLOPE OF STRUCTURE (m/m) 60cm (2 ft. MAX.) 15cm TO 45cm (0.5 TO 1.5 ft.) DIFFERENCE 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 B PLACE DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE SUCH THAT POINT 'B' IS APPROXIMATELY LEVEL WITH THE LOWEST GROUND ELEVATION OF THE UPSTREAM STRUCTURE N.T.S. CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION REVISED 12/19/2014E-013E-013 Catch Basin ProtectionGROUND PLAN CROSS-SECTION (W/ FABRIC)18" MIN.18"BURY FABRIC 12" MIN. FILTER FABRIC WOODEN OR METAL STAKES PLACED AROUND CATCH BASIN WOODEN OR METAL STAKES PLACED AROUND CATCH BASIN FILTER FABRIC SECURELY FASTENED TO STAKES OVERLAP JOINTS TO THE NEXT STAKE FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:09:31 PM, gcarter AS SHOWN 11202 C4.0 SITE DETAILS A C E DSM DSM SAL N.T.S. CURB w/SIDEWALK DETAIL REVISED 10/07/2015S-001 (SIMILAR WITH OUT SIDEWALK)S-001 CurbCRUSHED 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 PROVIDE 12" MIN. SUBBASE MATERIAL BEHIND CURB AND TO WITHIN 6" OF FINISHED GRADE FOR GRASSED SURFACES LIMITS OF SUBBASE FOR CURB W/OUT SIDEWALK CONCRETE CURB NOTES: 1.EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL NOT BE PLACED 2.THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DIVIDED AT INTERVALS OF FIVE FEET BY DUMMY JOINTS. 3.NO DEICER SHALL BE APPLIED TO SIDEWALK UNTIL AT LEAST 30 DAYS OF AIR DRYING TIME HAS OCCURRED. N.T.S. CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL S-002S-002 Conc Walk6"6" SIDEWALK WIDTH AS SHOWN ON PLANS 8" COMPACTED CRUSHED GRAVEL (704.05 FINE) 5" THICK CONCRETE SIDEWALK (8" THICK AT DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS) UNDISTURBED SOIL OR APPROVED COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL REVISED 9/17/2015 4" MINIMUM TOPSOIL, SEED AND MULCH ALL SIDESLOPE - USE EROSION MATTING (WHEN REQUIRED) TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION N.T.S. TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION S-003S-003 Pave Sec-Shoulder6" CRUSHED GRAVEL - FINE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.05 2" TYPE II BASE COURSE SEPARATION/STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE COMPACTED SUBGRADE (FULL DEPTH CONSTRUCTION SECTION) EMULSIFIED ASPHALT BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT 112" TYPE IV FINISH COURSE 12" DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE AOT SPECIFICATION 704.06 12" MINIMUM CRUSHED GRAVEL SHOULDER REVISED 11/10/2014 3 1 OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS 4" MINIMUM TOPSOIL, SEED AND MULCH ALL SIDESLOPE - USE EROSION MATTING (WHEN REQUIRED) TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION, PARTICULARLY ON LOW SIDE OF ROADWAY N.T.S. TRANSITION CURB DETAIL S-006S-006 Trans Curb7"6'-0"1"FACE OF CURB END TRANSITION SLOPE BEGIN TRANSITION SLOPE TOP OF CURB (SEE PLAN FOR TYPE OF CURB) FINISHED GRADE OF ROAD PAVEMENT REVISED 08/01/2014 N.T.S. S-014S-014 Pavement TransitionTRANSITION 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 08/13/2015 N.T.S. LINE STRIPING DETAIL S-015S-015 Parking Space Striping9'9' 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 12/09/2014 CENTER POINT FOR MARKING N.T.S. HANDICAPPED PARKING MARKING DETAIL REVISED 4/07/2015S-015a 3'-0"S-015a HC Pave Marking3'-6" PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO MEET STATE STANDARDS E-191NOTE: 2" HIGH LETTERS (TYP.) N.T.S. HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN DETAIL REVISED 4/07/2015S-015b 12"S-015b HC SignSIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE HEAD OF EACH HANDICAPPED SPACE. MOUNTING HEIGHT IS 60" MINIMUM TO BOTTOM OF SIGN.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"FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:09:51 PM, gcarter AS SHOWN 11202 C4.1 UTILITY DETAILS A C E DSM DSM SAL NOTES: PAVED N.T.S. D D+2' 6" 6" TYPICAL SEWER TRENCH DETAIL5'-0" MIN. COVER (PLOWED AREAS)4'-0" MIN. COVER (TYPICAL)6" 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 FOR WASTEWATER LINES SHALL CONSIST OF CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVEL WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 34". SUBMIT A SAMPLE TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. 8.ALL JOINTS TO BE INSPECTED BY OWNER/ENGINEER/TOWN PRIOR TO BACKFILL. APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS 2" RIGID INSULATION WHEN DEPTH OF PIPING IS LESS THAN MINIMUM NOTED 4" WIDE MAGNETIC "SEWER" TAPE INSTALLED APPROX. 2' BELOW SURFACE SEWER LINE, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE AND SIZE PIPE BEDDING UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ROCK TOPSOIL, RAKE, SEED & MULCH UNPAVED REVISED 12/29/2014SWR-001SWR-001 Trench(SEE SITE PLAN)5'-0" MIN. COVER OVER FORCE MAINSN.T.S. TYPICAL CLEANOUT DETAIL REVISED 10/22/2015SWR-007SWR-007 COCONCRETE CRADLE w/ 3 MIL POLYETHYLENE PLACED BETWEEN PIPE & CONCRETE 4" SDR 35 PVC 4" SDR 35 PVC ƒ:<( FLOW *CLEANOUT TO BE INSTALLED AT INTERVALS OF NOT MORE THAN 100 FEET, AND UPSTREAM OF BEND(S) IN BUILDING SEWER(S) WHEN CHANGE IN ',5(&7,21(;&(('6ƒ 86(/21*6:((3 ),77,1*6:+(1(;&((',1*ƒ GRASS PAVEMENT CLEANOUT BOX INDEPENDENT OF PIPE PVC CAP 6" D.I. VALVE BOX TOP SECTION w/ COVER MARKED "CLEANOUT" N.T.S. SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION REVISED 08/01/2014SWR-003 PLANELEVATION FLOW USE 4"x8' PVC PIPE TO MARK LOCATION AND DEPTH OF SERVICE CONNECTION. EXTEND FROM PLUG TO 6" MIN. ABOVE FINISH GRADE. - CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3 LOCATION TIES TO END OF LATERAL TO BE INCLUDED ON "AS-BUILT" DRAWINGS. (IF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CONCURRENT WITH LATERAL) - SEE TYPICAL TRENCH FOR BEDDING AND BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS. 4" 22 12ƒ25ƒ(/%2: ROTATED AS REQUIRED SEWER MAIN EXISTING SEWER MAIN 4" 22 12ƒ25ƒ(/%2: ROTATED AS REQUIRED 4" MIN. SDR 35 PVC SEWER SERVICE, CONTINUE AS PER PLAN AND INSTALL PVC CAP. SEE SITE PLAN FOR SLOPE AND ELEVATIONS (MIN. SLOPE = 1/4" PER FT.) ƒ:<(6$''/(&211(&7,21 (COORDINATE PREFERRED CONNECTOR w/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT) (@ EXISTING SEWER MAIN) STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP SWR-003 Service Con-EXNOTES: 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 12/29/2014W-001 D/2 INSTALL UTILITY LOCATOR RIBBON OVER WATER MAIN APPROX. 2' BELOW SURFACE TRACER WIRE (VERIFY TYPE WITH TOWN/ENGINEER PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION)W-001 Trench(SEE SITE PLAN) N.T.S. THRUST BLOCK DETAILS REVISED 2/23/2015W-003 NO BACKFILLING WILL BE ALLOWED UNTIL ANY CONC. THRUST BLOCKS HAVE SET SUFFICIENTLY, AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND/OR LOCAL WATER DEPT. PLACE 3 MIL (MIN.) POLYETHYLENE SHEET BETWEEN ALL CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS AND PIPE AND/OR FITTINGS TO PREVENT BOND. NOTE:W-003 ThrustNOTE: THRUST BLOCK SHALL BE USED AT ALL BENDS, TEES & REDUCERS EFFECTIVE BEARING AREA UNDISTURBED SOIL UNDISTURBED SOILUNDISTURBED SOIL MINIMUM ONE FULL LENGTH OF PIPE PLUG UNDISTURBED SOIL BURIED GATE VALVE (WITH CONCRETE SUPPORT VALVE & ANCHOR N.T.S. WATER SERVICE CONNECTION REVISED 2/23/2015W-006W-006 Serv Con1" MAX.6'-0" MIN.6'-0" MIN.6" MIN. UNDISTRUBED SOIL 4"x8"x16" SOLID CONCRETE BLOCK CURB STOP ADJUSTABLE IRON CURB BOX w/ LID MARKED "WATER" - CONTRACTOR TO COORD. FINAL CURB STOP COVER WITH LOCAL WATER DEPT. PROPERTY LINE OR EASEMENT BOUNDARY STATIONARY ROD INSTALL A GOOSE NECK LOOP WATER MAIN TYPE 'K' COPPER SERVICE OR AS SHOWN ON PLANS CORPORATION (SEE PLAN FOR SIZE) FINISH GRADE NOTE: 1. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL TAPPING SADDLE, CORPORATION, AND CURB STOP REQUIREMENTS. N.T.S. WATER/SEWER CROSSING REVISED 6/15/2015W-007W-007 Water-Sewer CrossingWATER MAIN PROFILE VIEW18"MIN.18"MIN.GRAVITY SEWER OR FORCE MAIN (JOINTS TO BE ENCASED) GRAVITY SEWER OR FORCE MAIN PLAN VIEW WATER MAIN SEWER MAIN10' MIN.10' MIN.10' MIN.10' MIN.SINGLE 20' LENGTH OF WATER QUALITY PIPE ENCASEMENT IF SEPARATION IS BETWEEN 12" TO 18" THE GRAVITY SEWER or FORCE MAIN JOINTS SHALL BE CONCRETE ENCASED WHEN LOCATED ABOVE THE WATER MAIN REFERENCE: VT. WATER SUPPLY RULE CHAPTER 21, APPENDIX A, SECTION 8.6 NOTES: 1. AT CROSSINGS, ONE FULL LENGTH OF WATER/STORM PIPE SHALL BE LOCATED SO BOTH JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR FROM THE WATER/STORM AS POSSIBLE. 2.IF THE STORM MAIN IS OVER THE WATER MAIN, THE FIRST STORM PIPE JOINTS ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATER MAIN MUST BE CONCRETE ENCASED. SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE WATER AND STORM PIPES MAY BE REQUIRED. 3.WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE 18" SEPARATION, THE STORM MATERIALS SHALL BE WATER MAIN PIPE OR EQUIVALENT AND SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS. 4.WATER MAINS AND STORM LINES OR MANHOLES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. THIS DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE. N.T.S. WATER/STORM CROSSING REVISED 12/23/2014W-007AW-007A Water-Storm CrossingL/2 POINT OF CROSSING JOINT MINIMUM 18" SEPARATION BETWEEN OUTSIDE OF PIPES WATER OR STORM LINE L/2 L/2 L/2 WATER OR STORM LINE FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:10:08 PM, gcarter AS SHOWN 11202 C4.2 STORM DETAILS A C E DSM DSM SAL NOTES: N.T.S. TYPICAL STORM TRENCH REVISED 08/01/2014ST-003 D+2'ST-003 Storm TrenchPAVED 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 N.T.S. TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE REVISED 01/09/2015ST-001ST-001 Typ MHFINISH 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) N.T.S. TYPICAL CATCH BASIN @ CURB REVISED 9/24/2015ST-002ST-002 Typ CB(SIMILAR WITHOUT CURB) PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC. C478 (LATEST EDITION)18"SUMPHDPE OUTLET PIPE (SEE PLAN FOR SIZE)12"MAX.24"x24" 48" MIN. SEE PLANS 6" MIN. CRUSHED GRAVEL SEAL w/ HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR, OR CAST-IN-PLACE FLEXIBLE M.H. SLEEVES ADJUST TO GRADE w/ CONCRETE RISERS BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT (14" / FT. SLOPE MIN.) SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED LEBARON LK120 (LK120A FOR DESIGN GRADES >5%) C.I. GRATE w/ 3 FLANGED FRAME (OR APPROVED EQUAL). RIM TO BE SET 1" BELOW NORMAL CROSS SECTION ELEV.) HIGH STRENGTH NON-SHRINK GROUT CONCRETE CURB PRECAST CONCRETE w/ MONOLITHIC BASE WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN. WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET (SEAL EXTERIOR JOINTS AND LIFT HOLES w/ NON-SHRINK GROUT) N.T.S. YARD DRAIN DETAILS REVISED 08/01/2014ST-008ST-008 Yard Drain18" CAST IRON GRATE INLINE DRAIN SECTION 18" INLINE DRAIN SIZE: AS SHOWN ON PLAN STORM DRAIN GRATE COVER IS REVERSIBLE; ONE SIDE STICKS OUT AS IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT. ONE SIDE IS FLUSH AS IS SHOWN ON THE LEFT. DRAIN AREA = 98.7 SQ. INCH GRATE HAS H-20 (HEAVY TRAFFIC) DOT RATING QUALITY: MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A48 - CLASS 30B PAINT: CASTINGS ARE FURNISHED WITH A BLACK PAINT CAST IRON GRATE "X" ADAPTOR ƒ(/%2: TEE RISER ADAPTORS AVAILABLE 4" THRU 18" CAST IRON H-20 RATED GRATE DRAIN BASIN AND INLINE DRAIN BY NYLOPLAST USA, INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL 4" - 18"4"-9"12"N.T.S. TYPICAL UNDERDRAIN SECTION REVISED 12/16/2014ST-009ST-009 Underdrain34" WASHED STONE (NO LIMESTONE) 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC SEE ROAD SECTION *SLOPE ALL PIPE TO DRAIN @ 1% MIN. *SEE PLANS FOR INVERT ELEVATION 18" MIN. FOR UNDERDRAIN12" MIN. *N.T.S. GRASS LINED DITCH REVISED 10/07/2015ST-014ST-014 Grass Ditch1 3 1 3 EXISTING GRADE TOPSOIL EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN DITCHES w/ PROFILE GRADES EXCEEDING 5%. STAPLE AS PER MANUF. SPECS. 12" MIN. 2' MIN. WIDTH ST-011 N.T.S. END SECTION DETAIL REVISED 01/14/2015ST-011 End SectionA 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. TYPICAL BIOSWALE DETAIL5 6" OF 4" MINUS ROUNDED RIVER STONE 18" OF CONCRETE SAND (ASTM 33) 4" OF 38" PEASTONE 20" OF 34" DRAINAGE STONE 6" PERFORATED PVC (SLOPE TO YARD DRAIN) FILTER FABRIC 4" MIN. TOPSOIL 3 1 3 1 3" AVERAGE PONDING (0" AT UPHILL END, 6" AT YARD DRAIN) 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 SEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR PLANTING PLAN AND DETAILS TREE PLANTING SOIL LIMITS 12" MIN.FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:10:35 PM, gcarter AS SHOWN 11202 C4.3 -- MISC. DETAILS 10/27/17 BRR UPDATED BIKE RACK DETAIL A C E DSM DSM SAL N.T.S. POLE LIGHT DETAIL REVISED 12/19/2014L-002L-002 Pole Light2. 1.24"5'-0" MIN.16'-0"20'-0"3"x FOREWARD THROW 15"x21" SQUARE ALUMINUM FIXTURE w/ 250w MH LAMP, DARK BRONZE FINISH x SPAULDING SE1-250M-FT w/ PHOTOELECTRIC CONTROL AND CUTOFF SHIELD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) x FOREWARD THROW 18"x26" SQUARE ALUMINUM FIXTURE w/ 400w MH LAMP, DARK BRONZE FINISH x SPAULDING SE11-400M-FT w/ PHOTOELECTRIC CONTROL AND CUTOFF SHIELD (OR APPROVED EQUAL) PAVEMENT SURFACE NON-TAPERED SQUARE ALUMINUM POLE - DARK BRONZE FINISH HAND HOLE w/ COVER ANCHOR BOLTS & TEMPLATE BY LIGHT POLE SUPPLIER SEE LIGHT POLE BASE DETAIL FINISH GRADE N.T.S. POLE LIGHT BASE DETAIL REVISED 12/19/2014L-003L-003 Pole LIght Base24"(MIN.)5'-0" MIN.3"#3 TIES @ 12" O.C. GALV. STEEL TO PVC CONDUIT CONNECTOR SCH 80 PVC FROM POLE TO POLE w/ SEPARATE GROUND WIRE PAVEMENT SURFACE POLE AND LAMP AS PER LIGHTING SCHEDULE HAND HOLE w/ COVER ANCHOR BOLTS & TEMPLATE BY LIGHT POLE SUPPLIER BOLT OR CADWELD GROUND WIRE TO POLE FINISH GRADE 34" CONDUIT FOR #6 BARE COPPER GROUND WIRE (4) #5 VERTICAL 34"x10' COPPER WELD GROUND ROD BOND TO CONDUIT, BASE & POLE 24" PRECAST LIGHT POLE BASE (ROUND or TAPERED) RU‘ 0,1 &$67,13/$&( - 5,000 psi @ 28 DAYS - REINFORCING AS SHOWN 2' MIN. CURB N.T.S. GAS LINE TRENCH DETAIL REVISED 08/01/2014M-006M-006 Gas TrenchGAS MARKING TAPE SHALL BE 12" BELOW FINISH GRADE APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS GAS PIPE MIN. 6" SAND OR FINE GRAVEL ON ALL SIDES OF CONDUIT IN AREAS OF ROCKY SOIL24" MIN.36" MIN.N.T.S. ELECTRICAL TRENCH - PRIMARY REVISED 08/01/2014M-007M-007 Elec. Trench PrimaryELECTRICAL CABLE MARKING TAPE SHALL BE PLACED 8" TO 12" BELOW FINISH GRADE APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS TELEPHONE CABLE MIN. 4" SAND OR FINE GRAVEL ON ALL SIDES OF CONDUIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 24" MIN.40" MIN.CONDUIT SHALL BE ENCASED IN A 4" ENVELOPE OF CONCRETE UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. FOR INSTALLATION UNDER THE TRAVEL PORTION OF THE ROAD. B. WITHIN 10' OF WATER, SEWER, GAS AND DRAIN CROSSING. N.T.S. ELECTRICAL TRENCH - SECONDARY REVISED 08/01/2014M-008M-008 Elec Trench Secondary24" MIN.24" MIN. 12" MIN. APPROVED BACKFILL THOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN 8" LIFTS ELECTRICAL CABLE MARKING TAPE SHALL BE PLACED 8" TO 12" BELOW FINISH GRADE TELEPHONE CABLE MIN. 4" SAND OR FINE GRAVEL ON ALL SIDES OF CONDUIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT N.T.S. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE REVISED 08/01/2014M-005M-005 Detect Surf.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. N.T.S. HANDICAP RAMP NOTES REVISED 08/01/2014M-004M-004 HC Ramp Notes1.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. REVISED 8/9/2015M-015aM-015a Bike rackOR APPROVED EQUAL 22"1 7/8"36"N.T.S. BIKE RACK (PARK-IT BIKE RACKS) NOTE: BIKE RACKS SHALL BE SURFACE MOUNTED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:10:49 PM, gcarter NONE C5.0 SITE SPECIFICATIONS A C E 11202 DSM DSM SAL FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:11:05 PM, gcarter A C E NONE C5.1 SITE SPECIFICATIONS 11202 DSM DSM SAL FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:11:29 PM, gcarter A C E NONE C5.2 SITE SPECIFICATIONS 11202 DSM DSM SAL FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:11:45 PM, gcarter A C E NONE C5.3 SITE SPECIFICATIONS 11202 DSM DSM SAL FEB., 2016 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' 41 RYE CIRCLE SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT FOX RUN LANE HINESBURG RD.M E A D O W L A N D D R . LOT #2 RYE MEADOW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC 21 CARMICHAEL ST ESSEX, VERMONT 05452 116 89 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 2\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Details.dwg, 11/29/2017 3:12:03 PM, gcarter SD-17-28 Staff Comments 1 of 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_28_Golf Course Rd_JAM_subdivision_final_2017-11-21.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 16, 2017 Plans received: October 19, 2017 Golf Course Road/Long Drive Subdivision Final Plat Application #SD 17-28 Agenda Item #7 Meeting date: December 5, 2017 Owner/Applicant JAM Golf, LLC 1227 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-01227 SEQ - NRP 68.91 acres Location Map SD-17-28 Staff Comments 2 of 7 PROJECT DESCRPTION Continued final plat application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road. PERMIT HISTORY On August 21, 2009, the Vermont Environmental Court issued a decision granting preliminary approval for the proposed subdivision. This decision was based on the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations with amendments through January 4, 1999 and the South Burlington Zoning Regulations with amendments through April 16, 2001. As part of the subsequent September 11, 2009 V.R.C.P. 58 Judgement Order, the applicant is remanded to the City Development Review Board (DRB) for further proceedings. This final plat application falls under the category of further proceedings, and is subject to the same subdivision and zoning regulations as the preliminary approval. The related Master Plan Settlement (most recently amended March 27, 2017) affirmed the applicable standards. The 2009 decision and judgement order grant a number of waivers and conditions which apply to this final plat application, as follows. 1. The following waivers of the requirements of the Zoning and/or Subdivision Regulations are granted: a. The reduction of i. The frontage for proposed lot 3 to 42.5 feet. ii. The width of the private road serving proposed lots 4, 5 and 6 to 18 feet, plus 2 feet of mountable curb on each side of the private road. iii. The width of the public road to 24 feet. iv. The length of the sidewalk along the public road extending from Golf Course Road to the driveway for proposed Lot 2. 2. [pertains to submission materials for final plat] 3. If the Development Review Board approves Applicant’s application for final plat approval, Applicant shall record in the South Burlington Land Records a Notice of the following conditions: a. Applicant annually shall provide the City with certification from a qualified consulting arborist as to compliance with the tree preservation plan and the landscape planting plan on each lot as well as on the retained project property beyond the lots, specifically listing any areas of noncompliance. b. Prior to implementation of any field changes to the tree preservation plan, Applicant shall notify the City Administrative Officer and obtain a determination regarding the need for further application and approval. c. Applicant shall obtain approval from the Administrative Officer prior to maintenance work on trees and underbrush located outside the clearing limits depicted on the plan admitted as Exhibit 21 in the record of the above-captioned matter. See paragraph 269 of the Appellant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. d. The lot owner(s) shall abide by the terms of the tree preservation handbook for his/her/their lot. e. All lights on the exterior of any building or on any of the lots shall be downcast and shielded fixtures. f. No additional street lighting may be installed without amendment of any approval of the final plat approval 4. [pertains to schedule for final plat application] CONTEXT The subject property is known as Golf Course Parcel F. It is planned to be subdivided into ten (10) residential lots, each to be developed with a single family dwelling, and one lot developed with an existing golf course, which represents the bulk of the acreage of Parcel F. The Project is located within the existing golf course in proximity to already-developed residential areas. It is served by an existing recreation path and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of very low intensity development consisting principally of open space. Two stormwater ponds consisting of the SD-17-28 Staff Comments 3 of 7 headwaters to an unnamed tributary to Potash Brook are located within the subject property, as well as several areas of wetlands. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant against the pertinent Subdivision and Zoning Regulations and offer the following comments. Because the Project was granted preliminary approval, the Board has the authority to review only those elements of the Project which have changed since preliminary approval. Staff notes that major elements which have changed include the following. The applicant is preparing a review of changes since preliminary plat and will describe additional changes, if any, that staff did not note, at the hearing. Staff has not considered the impact of any changes presented by the applicant which are not included in the below list. Layout and Grading Changes 1. The curb radii have changed at the entrance to Long Drive from Golf Course Road and at the entrance to Short Drive from Long Drive. The former radii have been reduced, while the latter have been enlarged. 2. Long Drive has been realigned from approximately station 2+00 to 3+50 to accommodate existing lot #87 which has been developed since preliminary approval. 3. Grading on Long Drive below station 3+50 is more dramatic to accommodate existing lot #87 which has been developed since preliminary approval. 4. Grading on the Long Drive cul-de-sac has been slightly modified. 5. Building outlines have been added to the plan, and driveway locations have been revised to accommodate the building outlines. 6. Two stone walls have been added at the Lot 4 driveway, one to retain an existing tree and the second to reduce the extent of required grading. Utility Changes 7. The water line and hydrants on Long Drive have been relocated from the south side of the road to the north side of the road. 8. A water line stub and blowoff valve has been added beyond the Short Drive hammerhead to accommodate a future water line extension. 9. A sewer pump station has been added for Lot #10 and the sewer pump station serving Lots #7, 8 and 9 has been relocated. 10. A drain manhole has been added to the cul-de-sac. 11. The electric line and boxes layout has been reconfigured. 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS Note: The standards applicable to the Project were written around the time that the DRB came into existence. Accordingly, some references to Planning Commission review still exist in the applicable standards. Legal counsel advised that with the advent of the DRB, review for compliance with these standards is the responsibility of the DRB regardless of which Board was referenced in the standards. a) Will not result in undue water or air pollution. In making this determination the Planning Commission shall at least consider (1) the availability and capacity of municipal sewer facilities or the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to support waste disposal adequately, (2) the elevation of land above sea level and in relation SD-17-28 Staff Comments 4 of 7 to the floodplains, (3) protection of ground and surface waters, and (4) all applicable regulations of the health department and other State agencies. The applicant is proposing three (3) sanitary sewer pump stations, one of which was not approved in the preliminary application and one which is relocated. It is not clear from the plans whether the applicant is proposing for the new and relocated pump stations to be public or privately owned. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on November 15, 2017 and requests the following. 1. If the pump stations are to remain private, the plans be revised to show the proposed access to each of the pump stations. 2. If the pump stations are to become public, a. Revise the plans to include a 20-foot unencumbered easement with a curb drop down at the street. Access needs to have structural support for the City’s vactor truck live and dead loads. b. Revise the plans to include A way to turn around the vactor truck at the pump station location c. Provide sufficient information to review the design of the pump station 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they intend to make the pump stations public or private, and that the Board adopt the relevant recommendations of the Public Works Director accordingly. b) Will have sufficient water available for the reasonable forseeable needs of the development. No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since preliminary approval. Staff considers this criterion to be met. c) Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may result. No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since preliminary approval. Staff considers this criterion to be met. d) Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways, existing or proposed. No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since preliminary approval. Staff considers this criterion to be met. e) Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide educational services and facilities No changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since preliminary approval. Staff considers this criterion to be met. f) Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of the City to provide municipal or governmental services and facilities The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing 8-inch water line in Golf Course Road. Prior to submitting the final plat application, the applicant coordinated with the South Burlington Water Department to discuss the layout of the water line. At that time (June 2001), the Water Department noted that they would like to see the water line looped. The applicant has adjusted the final plat application to accommodate a future water line connection to Park Road. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on 11/15/2017 and offers the following comments. SD-17-28 Staff Comments 5 of 7 Marla, I have reviewed the Master Plan for the referenced project (as shown on sheet MP-1, Exhibit B Master Plan, prepared by CEA dated January 2013, last revised July 6, 2015) and offer the below comments on the full build out of the water infrastructure. 1. The Long Drive Subdivision (10 units) can be built and served by a single water line coming off Golf Course Road. 2. When the Lot 108 Area (18 units) is built the water line from the Long Drive Subdivision must be connected into the Lot 108 Area’s water lines that will connect back up to Park Road. 3. When the Park Road Area (15 units) and Wheeler Parcel (32 units) are developed the existing water line that circles Park Road and Golf Course Road must be extended west to connect to these projects and/or the Dorset Street water line. 4. Completing the above will allow this entire area to be fully looped to ensure the highest water quality is available to all the properties and to create the standard redundancy that we have built throughout the city in our water infrastructure to ensure reliable, uninterrupted service. Please let me know if you have any questions. Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works 2. Staff recommends the Board adopt the Director of Public Works comments as conditions of this approval. To comply with Champlain Water District’s standards for water line layout, the water line on Long Drive must be 8-inches minimum and the water line on Short Drive must be 2-inches minimum. The plans omit to call out a water line size. 3. Staff recommends the Board require the plans be revised to indicate the size of the proposed water mains. The deputy fire chief reviewed the plans on 11/15/2017 and requests the following as it pertains to the revised roadway layout. 1. The southern curb radius from Golf Course Road onto Long Drive appears to be approximately 24-feet. Revise the curb to be mountable or adjust the radius to meet the minimum radius for fire apparatus. 3. Staff recommends the Board adopt the recommendations of the Deputy Fire Chief. g) [invalidated by courts] h) Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, is aesthetically compatible with surrounding developed properties and site characteristics, and will protect rare and irreplaceable natural areas and historic sites This criterion was the subject of environmental and supreme court appeals. In deference to the sensitivity of this criterion, the submitted plans provide extensive landscaping detail. Staff notes that the landscaping plans show an outdated layout for the terminal end of Short Drive and for some of the driveway configurations and thus the proposed effect cannot be evaluated. Staff further notes that some trees within the proposed building footprints SD-17-28 Staff Comments 6 of 7 appear to be hatched with the shading identified in the legend as “Existing Tree to be Saved.” Though Staff appreciates that it appears the applicant is minimizing removal of existing trees, a clear landscape plan is necessary to facilitate future inspections in compliance with preliminary plat condition #3a. 4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit revised landscape plans showing the proposed hammerhead turn-around and proposed driveway configurations, and that the tree shading and legend be updated for clarity. i) [invalidated by courts] j) Will provide efficient layout and high-quality installation, construction, and maintenance of streets and public facilities and will conform with the City’s street and utilities plan. See discussion under criteria a) and f) above as it pertains to conformance with the City’s utility plans. k) Will provide for cooperation with adjoining properties in the extension of roadways, drainage facilities, and utility lines. As discussed under criterion f) above, the Applicant has proposed a stub to allow for future water line connection. No other changes affecting the Project’s conformance with this criterion have been made since preliminary approval. Staff considers this criterion to be met. l) [invalidated by courts] 2. Other a) Staff notes that the Board approved an amended planned unit development consisting of subdividing a 69.87 acre lot (Parcel F) into two (2) lots of 47.99 and 21.88 acres on July 19, 2017. The submitted plat plans do not show the entirety of Parcel F. 5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit a revised plat showing the entirety of Parcel F and reflecting the July 19, 2017 subdivision. b) Staff notes that the final decision should carry forward waivers and conditions of the preliminary plat approval. 6. Staff recommends the Board adopt the waiver and conditions of the 2009 preliminary plat decision and judgement order. Further, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update and submit the landscaping plan for each lot as referenced in the Tree Preservation Handbook to facilitate annual certifications. c) The applicant has proposed the name Short Drive for the private section of roadway and Long Drive for the public section of roadway. Staff is coordinating with the State E911 board to determine if the proposed roadways must have one name or two. Once this determination is made, the applicant should submit a letter to the Planning Commission requesting review of the proposed street name or names. Staff will provide E911-compliant street numbers for each lot when the names are assigned. 7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Commission requesting review of the proposed street name(s). RECOMMENDATION SD-17-28 Staff Comments 7 of 7 Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner EStone Wall Stone Wa l l WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone WallStone GENERAL NOTES:1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. The Contractor shall field verify all utility conflicts. All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3. The Contractor shall maintain as-built plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project. 4. The Contractor shall repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction. 5. All grassed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established. 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits. 7. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities. 8. If the building is to be sprinklered, backflow prevention shall be provided in accordance with AWWA M14. The Site Contractor shall construct the water line to two feet above the finished floor. See mechanical plans for riser detail. 9. The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for all items and materials incorporated into the site work. Work shall not begin on any item until shop drawing approval is granted.10. In addition to the requirements set in these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work in accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards.11. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 0.1 feet.12. Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be the Contractor's responsibility.13. The Contractor shall coordinate all work within Town Road R.O.W. with Town authorities.14. The Contractor shall install the electrical, cable and telephone services in accordance with the utility companies requirements.15. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off- site location. All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw.16. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the item in question.P:\AutoCADD Projects\1995\95270\95270C2-1.dwg, 11/15/2017 1:56:02 PM 1 Marla Keene From:LAGW (Lisa Angwin) <lagw@novonordisk.com> Sent:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:57 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:Comment Letter Hi Marla, Please see comment letter below and thank you for providing it to the board on our behalf during the DRB meeting tomorrow night. ________________________________________________________________________________ ___ Don and Lisa Angwin, as abutting property owners, are seeking greater clarity regarding trees that have died or fallen down since the original plan was submitted. Are there plans to have these trees replaced and if so will they be replaced with a tree of comparable size? Thank you! ______________________________ Lisa Angwin AD Regional Execution Novo Nordisk Inc. 800 Scudders Mill Road Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536 USA 802-922-5914 (direct) lagw@novonordisk.com This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the addressee(s) stated above only and may contain confidential information protected by law. You are hereby notified that any unauthorized reading, disclosure, copying or distribution of this e-mail or use of information contained herein is strictly prohibited and may violate rights to proprietary information. If you are not an intended recipient, please return this e-mail to the sender and delete it immediately hereafter. Thank you.   Michael & Heather Provost 170 Golf Course Road South Burlington, VT 05403 802.862.5624 provostvt@comcast.net Dear South Burlington Development Review Board, We are writing this letter as we are unable to attend the DRB meeting tonight regarding the final plat application of JAM Golf, LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel and we’d like our concerns to be on record. We have owned our home on lot 86‐170 Golf Course Road since 2008. We would like to have more information from the developer on how this project affects our lot and driveway. Plans call for reconstruction of our existing driveway as necessary. What does that mean? We’d like additional details please. What type of sub base, how many inches of asphalt, etc. Does the current landscaping stay? We have several river birches and other landscaping that line the shared entrance currently. Are there plans for that to remain in place? We would like the opportunity to sit down with the developer to discuss these concerns before a final decision is made. We have tried to reach out in the past and have never heard back from them. Our other concern is the court ordered tree preservation plan for the wooded area behind our home which lies between holes 13 & 14. We would like to make sure this is fully enforced. Has this been in effect? Several trees were cut down last winter/spring by Barrett’s Tree Service on quite a few areas of the golf course. They spent a number of days in the wooded area between holes 13 & 14 clear cutting trees. Was the city aware of this? We’re not sure how many trees that show on this plan were removed. Is the developer required to replace trees if they were removed? Was there a zoning permit required for the removal of those trees? There is a fairly strict tree preservation plan in place and we want to ensure it’s adhered to. We look forward to hearing from you to continue discussions of this project. Respectively yours, Michael & Heather Provost   SD-17-26 Staff Comments 1 of 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_26_20Kimball_Palmer_PUD_final_2017-11-21.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 15, 2017 Plans received: October 16, 2017 20 Kimball Avenue Final Plat Application #SD 17-26 Agenda Item #8 Meeting date: December 5, 2017 Owner/Applicant Alan D. Palmer 20 Kimball Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0980-00020 Commercial 1 – Limited Retail 1.878 acres Location Map SD-17-26 Staff Comments 2 of 7 PROJECT DESCRPTION Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-17-26 of Alan Palmer for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft. medical and general office building. The amendment consists of converting 10,444 sq. ft. of general office use to nine (9) two-bedroom dwelling units, and redistributing the uses in the south section of the building such that 11,400 sq. ft. are medical offices and the remaining 17,531 sq. ft. are general office, 20 Kimball Avenue. PERMIT HISTORY In 2005, the property received site plan approval to convert 795 square feet of general office to medical office (#SP-05- 61). At that time the applicant demonstrated that they had one more parking space than the minimum required number of spaces. The conversion generated an additional 1.76 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. In May 2017, the Board reviewed a sketch plan application to convert 10,444 sq. ft. of general office to 10 residential units, and to construct a 1,800 sq. ft. penthouse addition to contain two dwelling units. The application also included a proposal to create an outdoor space for tenants. At the time of sketch plan, Staff recommended the applicant increase the size of the outdoor space by using shared parking to reduce the number of parking spaces. The applicant was also requesting a height waiver to construct the penthouse, which is not contemplated in the current application. Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. CONTEXT The subject property is located on Kimball Avenue in an area built out with a number of similar office buildings. The Project is located east of the recently approved O’Brien Home Farm project. There is a sidewalk on Kimball Avenue immediately adjacent to the Project, which connects to a recreation path on Kennedy Drive. There is also a recreation path farther to the east on Kimball Avenue which is planned to connect to Kennedy Drive in the future. Potash Brook, a waterbody impaired for stormwater, flows from east to west to the rear of the property, and the segment of Potash Brook immediately behind the property is conveyed through an existing culvert. COMMENTS A) Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Commercial 1 – Limited Retail Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. non- residential 81,810 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 17% No change Max. Overall Coverage 70% 48.7% 48.6% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 60 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 67 ft. No change Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 45 ft. No change Building Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 35 ft. No change Proposed to be in compliance SD-17-26 Staff Comments 3 of 7 B) Section 12.01C(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general standards for all site plan applications located within ten (10) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of a drainage way. (a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below. (b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and shall not be mowed. (c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date of these regulations. (d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property. (ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt. (e) The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within the stream buffer is prohibited. Potash Brook has been culverted to the rear of the property. There is an existing drainage way tributary to Potash Brook located immediately adjacent to the property line, within ten (10) feet of the limits of the project, therefore the requirements of Article 12 apply. The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the paved parking area with a gravel and landscaped recreation area within the stream buffer. Snow storage is proposed to be located outside of the stream buffer area. Staff considers these criteria met. C) 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. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan identifies the future land use near the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Kimball Road as an area of medium to higher intensity mixed use. Staff considers this criterion met. 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. No new buildings are proposed. Parking is discussed below. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Parking: (a) (not applicable) (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more SD-17-26 Staff Comments 4 of 7 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.) to (iii.) (not applicable) (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). The Project consists of re-assigning uses to an existing building. After construction of the recreation area, 132 parking spaces will remain. The applicant has submitted a shared parking analysis using the methodology described in 13.01E(2). Staff calculates that the shared parking analysis provided is incorrect in that it over-calculates the required number of residential spaces and under-calculates the required number of office spaces. However, using corrected values, the maximum shared parking spaces required is 132, which is equivalent to the number of parking spaces required, therefore staff considers this criterion met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No new buildings are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No newly installed exterior utility services are proposed. Staff considers this criterion 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. (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. No new buildings are proposed. The applicant is proposing to use common sculptural elements at the front of the building and in the recreation area to the rear. Staff considers this criterion 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. 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. The property shares a curb cut with the building at 30 Kimball Avenue and the building at 275 Kennedy Drive, thus limiting curb cuts onto adjacent roads. Staff considers this criterion met. 2. Utility Services. 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. No newly installed exterior utility services are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. SD-17-26 Staff Comments 5 of 7 3. 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). No changes are proposed to the existing dumpster enclosure, which is in compliance with this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. 4. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the buildings in the portion of the project seeking final plat approval is estimated at $157,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget for projects with a building construction cost up to $250,000, is 3% of the building construction cost, or $4,710. Due to damage being caused to the building, the applicant has removed an 8-inch cedar from the front of the property, the presence of which was included in the prior site plan approval for the property. The applicant has provided a methodology for calculating the value of the 8-inch cedar. Using the methodology provided, staff calculates the replacement value to be $583.96. Combined with the required plantings for the current PUD, the applicant is required to provide $5293.95 in landscaping value. The applicant is proposing $1,844 in plantings. The applicant is requesting that the cost of the hardscape elements of the recreation area and the sculptures to the front of the property be applied to the required landscape value. The applicant has provided a breakdown of the costs of the various hardscape elements. 1) Staff recommends the Board approve a portion of the hardscape value to the required landscape value. The City Arborist indicated on November 9, 2017 in an email to staff that there are no comments on the proposed plantings. D) Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general standards for all subdivisions. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The Applicant has provided preliminary allocation letters for both water and wastewater for the proposed project. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. SD-17-26 Staff Comments 6 of 7 The anticipated area of disturbance associated with the project is limited to approximately 2,600 square feet. The applicant must comply with the minimum standards for erosion control, including stabilization timelines in Section 16.03B and topsoil requirements of Section 16.04A. 2) Staff recommends the Board include the stabilization timelines of Section 16.03B and topsoil requirements of Section 16.04A as a condition of approval. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. The Project does not alter access, circulation or traffic management. See discussion of the shared curb cut related to Site Plan Review Standards above. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. The Project abuts a drainage way tributary to Potash Brook. See discussion regarding Article 12 above. Staff considers this criterion met. (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 applicant is not proposing to construct any new building. They have provided a landscaping plan and a rendering of the proposed refurbished front entrance. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (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. The Project enhances the open space available on the site by providing a stone recreation area with a pavilion and benches surrounded by trees and shrubs. The rear 15-feet of the area are a pedestrian path easement, and the proposed hardscape and amenities will be located outside of the easement. Staff considers this criterion met. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The deputy fire chief reviewed the project and on 06/20/2017 indicated via email that there are no issues pertaining to the exterior of the building or site. Staff considers this criterion met. SD-17-26 Staff Comments 7 of 7 (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 properties. There is an existing 15-foot recreation path easement located along the rear of the property. The Project does not create any barriers to use of the recreation path easement. Other elements of the site plan remain unchanged. Staff considers this criterion met. (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, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. There are no proposed changes to these elements. Staff considers this criterion met. The applicant obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation in September, 2017. The project received notice from the South Burlington school district that the proposed project would not create an unreasonable burden on the school system in September 2017. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). See discussion above under Site Plan Review Standards. (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. The Project proposes to remove some pavement and replace with a gravel and landscaped area, slightly reducing runoff potential. The Project is currently served by an existing closed drainage system which is tributary to Potash Brook. Staff considers this criterion met. E) Traffic Generation The 2005 approval calculated that the Project would generate 50.04 vehicle trip ends. Using updated values from the 10th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual, the currently proposed use would generate 64.64 vehicle trip ends. This results in a net increase of 14.60 vehicle trip ends compared to the prior approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner $97.38 / 3.14 sq in = $30.98/sq in $30.98 sq in x .5 condition x .75 location x 1 species (based on table provided) = $583.96 replacement value 62 140 13 62 132 13 12 21 46 21 132 spaces in proposed plan DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD       3 OCTOBER 2017  The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3  October 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone)    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; J. Boyd, T. &  P. Sheppard, P. Brogna, D. & S. Mowat, J. Goodwin, D. Penar, C. & J. Soncrant, B. DeBenedet, J.  Barrows, L. Nadeau, N. Andrews, T. & D. Child, M. Janswold, S. & M. Merrill, J. & N. Kvasnak, R.  Jeffers, J. Anderson, B. Currier, J. Darling, K. Cubino, B. Darling, P. Johns, L. DeMaroney, P.  O’Leary, D. Marshall, P. O’Brien, B. Milizia, S. Jewett, J. Jewett     1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Parsons will not seek reappointment to the DRB.  He is still a  member until he is replaced.    5. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐18 of South Village  Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development.   Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four 2‐family  dwellings, 3) two 3‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and 4) two 12‐unit multi‐family  dwellings, 1840 Spear Street:    Mr. Marshall said they had worked with staff on outstanding issues.  He stressed that this is  Phase III and does not concern issues with Phases I and II.  He then reviewed the staff  comments:    a. Staff recommends the DRB approve the request to apply previously approved single  family waivers.  There was no opposition to this    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 2    b. The applicant is OK with requirements for protection of wetlands, wetland buffers  including no mowing, no use of pesticides, etc.    c. Staff is OK with the Fire Department’s acceptance of the applicant’s responses to  their issues.    d. There is a recommendation to eliminate the sidewalk in front of units 101, 102 and  103.  The applicant noted that there have been appeals from Phase II regarding  curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the road.  There is a rec path on the south side  of the road in this case, and the applicant is proposing a standard sidewalk on the  north side.  There had been discussion of extending that sidewalk to Douglas Street,  but this involves an archeologically sensitive area with no homes there.  Mr.  Marshall said they have created a “maintenance loop” to allow maintenance  vehicles to return to the main corridor.  He noted that Public Works still prefers no  sidewalk, but the applicant is asking the Board to consider a sidewalk because of the  nature of South Village.  Mr. O’Brien added that this is also a safety issue.  Mr.  Wilking asked if the sidewalk could be maintained by the homeowners.  Mr. O’Brien  said they are fine with that.    e. Detailing of pavement markings will be worked out with Public Works.    f. The applicant is required to pay the city $20,000 for off‐site traffic calming.  Money  will be fully allocated for that prior to completion of the base course of paving on  Midland Avenue.    g. The applicant had no issues with conforming to design review standards.    h. The applicant had no issues with demonstrating compliance with landscape  budgeting.    i. The applicant will construct the rec path at the same time as the Midland Avenue  connection.    j. Because of an E‐911 issue, a portion of Midland Avenue will be temporarily named  “Chipman” until Midland is completed.    k. The applicant had received state permits for a 20‐foot road at the wetland crossing,  but all parties are OK with 18 feet.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 3    l. All South Village design standards will be adopted.    m. There is a condition proposed that there will be 6 affordable units with no more than  4 in multi‐family buildings.  Mr. Behr said that if there are 3 different types of  housing, the affordable units should be equally distributed.  There should not be a  disproportionate number in the multi‐family buildings.  Mr. Marshall said when you  look at the whole development, that distribution will be met.  Mr. Behr said the  affordable units are to be equally distributed among all the phases; they should not  all be in one place.  He felt that if the DRB is only going to see this phase, the  affordable units should be equally distributed so there is no “playing catch‐up.”   Board members supported Mr. Behr’s comments.    n. Regarding phasing, this provides a window of time in which multi‐family buildings  can come in.      o. Mr. Marshall showed the vertical storage for 12 bicycles.  There are also storage  lockers for each unit which can accommodate bike storage.  There will also be short‐ term bike storage racks with 4 spaces each.  Ms. Keene noted staff’s concern with  security (lock ability).  Mr. Marshall said they will work out staff’s concerns.    p. Regarding stormwater, the stormwater system will be maintained until such time as  it is taken over by the municipality.    Public comment was then requested:    Ms. Boyd (resident of phase I) felt it is important to have the sidewalk in front of the three  indicated units.  She also questioned whether lots 103 and 106 are in conformance with the  legal settlement.  Mr. Marshall said they fully comply.  Ms. Boyd also asked the Board to re‐look  at setback waivers as there are a lot of people in a small area.    Mr. Mowat (resident of phase II) felt Phase III shouldn’t be passed until the Board looks at the  development as a whole.  He noted that plans for Phase I and II are “in flux.”    Ms. Soncrant (resident of phase II) was concerned with the multiplex units.  She didn’t see how  Phase III could be approved without consideration of the whole development.       Mr. Andrews wanted to be sure about what is being called “condo” units.  He noted there are  no owner‐occupied units in the multi family buildings now, which he defined as condo units.   DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 4    The units would have to be condos in order to be affordable. If the developer calls them  “condos,” they should be sale units, not an apartment.    Mr. Miller said staff will continue to get some information and questions answered.    Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD‐17‐18 until 17 October 2017.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion  passed 5‐0.    6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD‐17‐20 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a  previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases.  The  amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the  number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units.  The 154 units will consist of 70  single family lots, 54 two‐family dwellings, and thirty 3‐unit multi‐family dwellings,  1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road:    Mr. Miller noted the applicant had submitted a revised plan.  He didn’t feel it made sense for  the DRB to look at the plan in detail until the applicant has met with some of the city’s  committees.  Mr. O’Leary said they have met with the Recreation Committee and they are OK  with the plan.  He didn’t think there would be any changes after a meeting with the Natural  Resources Committee.    Mr. Miller noted there had been a question as to whether the DRB can require the applicant to  build the Cider Mill Road connection.  The City Attorney says the DRB can require this.  Mr.  O’Leary said they agree with that opinion, but the Board has to show both connections (Cider  Mill Road and Braeburn Street) are needed (e.g., traffic issues, etc.).  Mr. Miller said this will  require a traffic study.  Mr. Belair said the Board can invoke technical review and request a  traffic study on that issue.  Mr. O’Leary said the traffic study they have done does not look at  that issue.    Mr. Miller also noted the City Attorney’s opinion that the DRB has the authority to require a rec  path.    The City Attorney was also asked for an opinion as to whether the DRB can require more open  space in Cider Mill I.  The answer to this was no.    Mr. Behr asked what they would be looking for in a traffic study.  Ms. Keene said the issue  would be whether the absence of a connection would put a burden on other streets.  Mr. Behr  asked what the quantifiable threshold is.  Ms. Keene said they don’t know if this is quantifiable.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 5    Mr. Behr felt the applicant’s meeting with Natural Resources Committee will be critical.    Mr. Miller noted staff’s concern that the dead‐end street is more than 200 feet long, which is  the longest permissible length.  Mr. O’Leary said they can put the last few units on a private  drive to solve that.  They had done it this way to create more open space.    Ms. Smith asked about the rec path and connection from Russet Road.  Mr. O’Leary showed the  original path.  They propose to continue the path across the green strip between Russett Road  and Liberty Lane (they also propose a split‐rail fence there).  There will be a “boardwalk”  through the wetland.  They will then make the connection with the existing path easement &  construct the path in the existing path easement.  There will be a multi‐use path from Phase I  all the way to Hinesburg Road.  They will minimize impact on the wetland.    Public comment was then requested:    Ms. Cubino was concerned with emergency access if Cider Mill Road is not extended.  She also  noted the number of children on side streets where traffic will go if the road isn’t connected.    Ms. Penar cited the need for open spaces to be coordinated for wildlife.  She questioned  whether there is an adequate corridor and cited the need to keep that corridor open.  She also  suggested narrowing the road that connects the two neighborhoods to discourage use by  people not living in the neighborhoods.    Mr. Darling cited the number of children playing in the roads as there is no open space for them  to play.  He felt the road needs to be connected for an east‐west connection.    Ms. DeMaroney asked whether Phase I and II are separate developments.  Mr. Miller said for  road purposes, yes, for the rec path, maybe, and for open space no.    Ms. Jewitt asked what a traffic study would show.  Ms. Keene said it will indicate impacts on  intersections and additional trips.  The traffic study would be done independently.    Mr. Nadeau said he would like them to consider having two lanes out of Nadeau Crest Drive,  one each for left and right turns.    Mr. Darling said school buses have a hard time on Sommerfield Ave., and this is something of a  safety issue.  Ms. Keene asked him to call her and give her details and she would have someone  look into it.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  3 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 6    7. Minutes of 19 September 2017:    The spelling of Mr. Behr’s name was corrected on p. 7.    Under the South Village sketch plan item, a sentence was corrected to read “initial connection  for the first 49 units will be from Hinesburg Road; after that, connection will be from  Sommerville Road.    Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 September as amended.  Ms. Smith seconded.   Motion passed 5‐0.    8. 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 8:42 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on __________.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD    17 OCTOBER 2017    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17  October 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone), F.  Kochman    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J.  Rabidoux, Public Works Director; S. McClellan, D. Sherman, J. P. Larkin, R. Jeffers. J. Anderson, J.  Hodgson, P. O’Brien, D. Marshall, J. Soncrant, J. & A. Turosak, S. Mowat, P. Sheppard, P. Brogna,  A. Connelly, J. Larkin, D. Roy, N. Andrews, M. Waite, S. Rendall    1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐23 of Donald & Sandra Rendall to subdivide a 3.92‐acre  parcel developed with a single‐family dwelling into two lots ranging in size from 0.93  acres to 2.99 acres, 51 Old Farm Road:    Ms. Rendall said they want to divide off a part of their property to downsize to a smaller  property.    Staff comments were addressed as follows:    a. The applicant agreed that the maximum height of the house on lot #2 would  be 28 feet or less.  Ms Rendall said they have no plan to build at this time.  b. The applicant agreed not to use pesticides, etc. in the wetland or buffer.   There will be no mowing, only brush hogging once or twice a year.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 2    c. The applicant agreed that the wetland buffer will not be turned into “lawn.”  d. Staff requested a split rail fence or other demarcation for the wetland.  Mr.  Waite said they would like a row of trees.  Board is OK with that as long as it  is shown on the plan.  Applicant would prefer to close the hearing and be  non‐specific about what type of demarcation measure will be installed.  The  Board concludes that a condition specifying a split rail fence along the  wetland buffer must be included.  e. The applicant agreed to comply with Article 16 of the LDRs.  Mr. Waite said  that will happen when there is a plan to build.  Ms. Keene said a note on the  plan would be sufficient.  Mr. Waite agreed to include a note on the plan.  f. The applicant agrees that the driveway will be off Old Farm Road.  g. Staff has asked that the 30 ft. and 32 ft. maples on Old Farm Road not be cut.   Mr. Waite said they were asked to have the driveway directly opposite the  driveway across the road; if this is the case, one of those maples would have  to go.  If they can move the driveway, both trees can be saved.  Members  preferred to move the driveway to save the trees.  The applicant will amend  the plan to show the trees remaining.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐17‐23.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed 6‐0.    6. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐18 of South Village  Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development.   Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four 2‐family  dwellings, 3) two 3‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and 4) two 12‐unit multi‐family  dwellings, 1840 Spear Street:    Mr. Miller noted receipt of letters from neighbors and from attorney Jon Anderson.    Mr. Marshall then addressed the staff report on open items as follows:    a. Applicant is OK with the modification to the use of herbicides.  b. Regarding the sidewalks on both sides of the road, Public Works still wants  the sidewalk on only one side even though the applicant has said they would  maintain the sidewalk.  Public Works Director Rabidoux explained there  would be some legal issues with private maintenance of city infrastructure.   He noted that only 30% of homes in the city have sidewalks in front of them.   This proposed section of sidewalk is seen as unnecessary and would add to  the cost of maintenance for the city.  The less connected a sidewalk is, the  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 3    more work it is to maintain it.  Mr. Marshall responded that South Village  was conceived with sidewalks on both sides of the street as in a traditional  neighborhood.  Mr. Kochman noted that these homes are almost a separate  neighborhood.  Mr. O’Brien said there are also safety concerns.  He also  noted that when they proposed sidewalks on only one side of the street in  Phase II, it was appealed, and they had to put the sidewalks on both sides.   Ms. Jeffers said these would be the only 3 homes in South Village without a  sidewalk in front of them and would be set out as “odd.”  After some  discussion, a majority of members agreed to have the sidewalk on only one  side.    c. The applicant wants some clarifying language regarding traffic calming in the  Dorset Farms neighborhood.  Staff and members are OK with that.  d. The applicant will provide costs on landscaping and screening of multi‐family  buildings.  Staff agrees they comply with minimum landscaping  requirements.  e. The applicant is OK with staff’s conditions regarding affordability.  Mr.  Kochman asked to add the words “and development standards of…” to the  second condition.  Mr. O’Brien read a prepared statement on affordability  and stressed that they are not near the threshold that would require them to  build the affordable units.  Mr. Behr said he has an issue with not discussing  affordability until unit 270.  Mr. Kochman did not believe the applicant  should delay building affordable housing until the 270th units.  Ms. Smith was  concerned the applicant would get to the 270th unit and not be able to site  the affordable units.  The Board discussed that in future projects they would  like to set a condition that if you get a density bonus you can’t wait until  triggering it to determine where the affordable units must go.  f. There is now an agreement on bike racks.  g. Mr. Marshall noted they checked on the conditions of the consent decree  and there are no issues with the limited and no development areas.    Mr. Miller noted that the City Attorney has said the Board should not open up the discussion to  Phases I and II.  Ms. Keene noted that any changes to Phases I or II would have to come to the  DRB.    Mr. Mowat asked for clarification of affordable housing in phases I and II.  Staff confirmed there  will be a detailed plan for this.  Mr. Behr said that the conditions require 4 affordable units in  multi‐family buildings.  Mr. Wilking said that comes with the 270th unit.    Mr. Andrews said that plowing a sidewalk in front of 3 units seems like such a minor thing and a  little ridiculous not to do it.  People who live there will be paying taxes the same as those who  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 4    get a sidewalk plowed.  He also wants to see affordable housing integrated in the  neighborhood.  If units are condos (which he defined as units that are occupant owned), they  should remain condos and not be changed to apartments (which he defined as rental units) in  order to be affordable.    Ms. Turosak said she was surprised that no one has mentioned that where there will be no  sidewalk is a conduit to a nature trail.  She indicated this on the plan.    Ms. Connolly noted that the existing multiplex buildings are mostly rental.  He asked if they  haven’t sold in the 2 existing phases, why should they continue to be built.  Mr. Kochman said  that is beyond the purview of the DRB.  He also noted that the affordable housing requirement  can be met with either owned or rented units.    Attorney Anderson reported that the concerns he had mentioned in his correspondence have  been resolved and they agree the path can be moved.      Mr. Cota then moved to close SD‐17‐18.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed 6‐0.    7. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐17‐24 of Milot Larkin partnership to amend a planned  unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60‐unit multi‐family building  with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building(1000  seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a 3500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive‐ through services, and a bank with drive‐through service.  The amendment consists of  constructing a four‐story 48‐unit residential building, 7 Fayette Road:    Mr. Roy said the property is in the C‐1‐Auto District and is within a 40‐acre PUD.  They are  proposing a 4‐story structure with 48 residential units (33 studio, 12 1‐bedroom, and 3 2‐ bedroom).  The 8.5 foot setback from the property line will require a waiver as will the front  yard coverage (8% above).  They will also need a waiver for the 47‐foot height.  The site is  behind the health care building, and the site is underutilized (mostly parking).  There is a shared  parking agreement.    There will be 24 on‐grade parking spaces below the units.  They are also proposing an open  space area to the north for recreation and a patio area to the west.  There will be interior and  exterior bike storage.  Units will be “market rate affordable,” similar to the units in Larkin  Terrace.    The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 5    a. Regarding building height, Mr. Roy showed a photo from Shelburne Road and  a drawing of what would be seen from the intersection of Shelburne  Rd/Fayette.  Members were OK with the height waiver.  b. Mr. Roy said the 8.5 foot setback from the property line is similar to other  buildings in the area.  They also feel that the 38% front yard coverage is more  “progressive.”  He showed a building rendering from Fayette Road.   Members were OK with the setback and coverage.  c. Regarding a safety concern at the entry, Mr. Roy said they will work with  staff find a solution without “opening Pandora’s box” with regard to state  permitting.  d. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Roy noted there is a lot of vegetation on the site.   They would like credit for that.  There will be trees along the front of the  building.  They may ask to add landscaping in the greater PUD as part of this  project.  He showed areas where this could work.  Mr. Kochman suggested  using lower lighting as on O’Dell Parkway.  Mr. Larkin said they would look at  that.  Board members expressed no concerns with putting landscaping  elsewhere on the PUD.    Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the very small units.  Mr. Roy said they do not meet HUD  requirements, but they feel there is a market demand for this style of “tiny home.”  Size also  lets it be more cost effective.  Mr. Wilking said if the city wants affordability, they may have to  get smaller square footage.  Ms. Smith noted this is replacing something similar that was torn  down.  Mr. Roy acknowledged this is “not for everyone.”  Mr. Behr noted the HUD standards  are for “public housing.”  These are marketable units.  He felt it provides an affordable product  to a market that needs this.  Mr. Roy said the ceiling heights would be “comfortable,” and there  will be a lot of glass.  Mr. Cota expressed a desire to see a common space which would provide  a “relief valve” for residents who want to get out of their small units.  Mr. Roy indicated that  they will possibly replace one unit with a common space for residents to get out of their small  units.  Mr. Wilking suggested a roof deck.    Mr. Wilking expressed excitement about the infill nature of the project.    Mr. Kochman asked about traffic and parking.  Mr. Roy said they will update the traffic study  and shared parking calculation for the next level of approval.    No further issues were raised.    8. Minutes of February 7, March 7 and September 19, 2017:    The minutes were not available for approval.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 OCTOBER 2017  PAGE 6      9. Other Business:    Mr. Kochman advised that he believes the Planning Commission will be considering the  amendment that was postponed at its next Tuesday meeting.  Ms. Keene will follow up with the  Board as to the schedule.    Mr. Wilking noted that as trees mature, some projects are getting “strangled” with trees and  are looking too dark.  He felt that the requirement to replace every tree‐inch that is removed is  too much and suggested that the arborist be asked about the wisdom of replacing any trees  that come down.  He suggested this be brought to the Planning Commission as well.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 9:19 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on __________.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD    7 NOVEMBER 2017  The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday,7  November 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone), F.  Kochman    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; P. Conner,  Director of Planning & Zoning; C. Gottfried; K. Braverman; M. Dorey; N. Farrell; A. Blow; D.  Bombardier    1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Sketch plan application #SD‐17‐24 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved  plan by constructing a 25‐foot by 25‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft.  restaurant, 1696 Williston Road:    Mr. Gottfried explained that the addition will be behind the diner and is intended to make  things more efficient and safer for patrons and staff.  The exhaust system in the restaurant is  “fighting” the other systems, and is wasting money.    The new exhaust system will be run out  the window while the new system is being installed.  This will keep employees working during  the renovation.    Mr. Gottfried gave members pictures of the existing diner and the proposed look of the building  and parking area.    Mr. Kochman asked if there will be additional seating.  Mr. Gottfried said there will not.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  7 NOVEMBER 2017  PAGE 2  Ms. Keene said there is a question as to whether the project qualifies as a PUD.  It needs to be  considered a PUD because it is within the 62‐foot setback from the existing Williston Road right  of way.  There is a question as to whether the project increases the non‐conformity.    Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think a setback waiver is needed.  The front of the building will stay  where it is, and it doesn’t matter if there is more within the setback.    Mr. Miller said he believes this qualifies as a PUD because it meets the “viability of infill  development” criteria.  Mr. Behr agreed.    Ms. Keene said 35 parking spaces are required.  The Board can waive up to 25% of this amount  (to 26 spaces).  Mr. Miller noted 26 is the lowest number the Board can approve.  Ms. Keene  said there can be off‐site parking through an agreement with a neighbor.  Mr. Gottfried said he  would find the 26 spaces.    Members were OK with the project being considered a PUD.    Mr. Behr noted that there is 99% lot coverage and suggested removing some pavement up  front and converting the area to grass, if possible.  Mr. Belair noted that70% is the allowable  coverage.    Two neighboring residents said the support the project 100% and have never seen a parking  problem at the diner.    No other issues were raised.    6. Presentation by Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, on the DRB’s role in  reviewing projects within the Form Based Code district and in appeals of the  Administrative Officer’s decision:    Mr. Conner reviewed the basics of the City Center Form Based Code District as follows:    a. Nearly all uses are allowed in new buildings  b. Residential use is not allowed on the first floor in the T‐5 district  c. Focus is on building form rather than use  d. There is generally an administrative review rather than a DRB review  e. Parking requirements are reduced  f. Residential use must include affordable housing (80%‐120% of median  income) for developments of 12 or more units; affordable units can be  banked  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  7 NOVEMBER 2017  PAGE 3  g. There is a “quality” rather than “quantity” approach to open space.    Mr. Conner noted that there are a few uses that are not allowed, mostly those that generate  heavy truck traffic.    Mr. Kochman asked if there is anything to prevent a parking lot in the middle.  Mr. Conner said  80% of the width of a lot must have a building on it.  Parking can go behind a building.  There  are also regulations for parking garages.    Mr. Conner explained the “primary” and “secondary” streets and block standard applicability.   He also indicated a property on which the city has an option for a City Hall/Community Library.    Mr. Conner then explained the particulars of the review process as follows:    a. Form Based Code is designed to be largely “black & white,” based on  maximums and minimums  b. There must be a pre‐application meeting with staff  c. In practice, there will also be multiple meetings and review of site plan,  building arrangement, landscape, design elements, open space, parking,  stormwater, site features, etc.    The DRB can become involved in the process in the following ways:    a. Subdivisions – determining whether proposed new parcels are developable  b. When a new public street is being created  c. Intersection location (the DRB can approve a modified intersection location)  d. Street type determination (when an applicant proposes a street that is not  on the official map  e. Impact on streams, wetlands, interstate buffers  f. Public buildings  g. Alternate compliance for doorways (the applicant must demonstrate their  spacing of doors better meets a need.    The DRB can also act as an appeal board as follows:    a. They may hold hearings  b. They may consider proposed stipulations    Mr. Braverman said their company worked closely with staff on the Cathedral Square project,  and the system worked pretty well. He noted that some developers don’t like it because it takes  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  7 NOVEMBER 2017  PAGE 4  some of the creativity out of the process, but he felt “predictability” is good and will streamline  the process.  Mr. Braverman said they do struggle with the lack of a waiver provision (e.g., 80%  of the first floor must be glazing, and 70% would be denied with no mechanism for relief).    Mr. Kochman asked about the parking element.  Mr. Conner noted that a successful restaurant  and an unsuccessful restaurant of the same size would have the same parking requirement  even though they have different parking needs.  He said there will be on‐street parking on  Market Street.  There are also many bike/pedestrian paths which can reduce parking needs.  A  developer can dedicate land for parking.    Mr. Wilking was concerned with people using other businesses’ parking lots when there isn’t  adequate parking in City Center.  He has had this problem with his business.  He stressed that  this is Vermont where people can’t ride bikes in January.  He said he only voted for City Center  because of the promise of parking garages.  He cited buildings in Winooski that can’t be filled  with tenants because of the lack of parking.  Mr. Conner said nothing precludes parking garages  which would make parking a “revenue generator.”    7. Minutes:    No minutes were presented for review.    8. 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 8:27 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on __________.  SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  MEETING MINUTES  21 NOVEMBER 2017  1      The South Burlington Development Review Board held a meeting on Tuesday, 21 November 2017, at  7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  B. Miller, Chair (via phone), M. Cota (via phone), J. Wilking (via phone), F.  Kochman (via phone)    ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner    1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:   Ms. Keene provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:  No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:  No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:  There were no announcements.    5. Sketch plan application #SD‐17‐27 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a  16,596 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 9,500 sq. ft.  (lot #1) and 7,096 sq. ft (lot #2), and to join lot #2 with the 7,273 sq. ft. lot located at 5  Maryland Street, 12 Ledoux Terrace.  Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD‐17‐27 to 5 December 2017, 7 p.m.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion  passed 4‐0.    6. Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐17‐26 of Alan Palmer for a planned unit  development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft. medical and general  office building.  The amendment consists of converting 10,444 sq. ft. of general office use  to nine (9) two‐bedroom dwelling units, and redistributing the uses in the south section of  the building such that 11,400 sq. ft. are medical offices and the remaining 17,531 sq. ft.  are general office, 20 Kimball Avenue.  Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD‐17‐26 to 5 December 2017, 7 p.m.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion  passed 4‐0.    7. Final plat application #SD‐17‐28 of JAM Golf, LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel  developed with a golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03  acres, Golf Course Road.  Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD‐17‐28 to 5 December 2017, 7 p.m.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion  passed 4‐0.    SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  MEETING MINUTES  21 NOVEMBER 2017  2      8. Minutes of February 7, March 7, October 3, October 17, November 7, 2017.     No action taken    9. Other Business:  None    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common  consent at 7:03 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on __________.    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-16-30 1408 Hinesburg Road – Mary Jo Capotrio DATE: November 21, 2017 Development Review Board meeting Mary Jo Capotrio (applicant) is requesting a six (6) month extension to the requirement in her subdivision approval issued on 11/16/16 by which she must obtain a zoning permit to construct the approved two-family dwelling. On 4/18/17 the DRB approved a six (6) month extension, at the applicant’s request, which extended the life of the project to 11/16/17. Prior to this expiration date, the applicant submitted a request for another six (6) month extension which would extend the approval to 5/16/18. The relevant provision is below. (a) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has approved a request for extension of the approval. The Board or Administrative Officer may approve one (1) extension to an applicant of an approval if reapplication takes place before the approval has expired and if the Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Board or Administrative Officer may specify a period of time of up to one (1) year for the extension. The issue with this request is that Section 17.04 (B) (c) of the LDRs limits the number of extensions which can be granted to only one (1) and this request would be the second request. Although this provision does allow for a one (1) year extension, the applicant had only requested a six (6) month extension when a one (1) year extension would have been allowed. The Board must decide whether to grant this request based on the above provision with the understanding that the one (1) year extension limit has not been exceeded but that the number of extensions allowed would be exceeded. #SD-16-30 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MARY JO CAPOTRIO—1408 HINESBURG ROAD PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-30FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio for a planned unit development to subdivide a 1.02 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 0.47 acres (lot #3A) and 0.55 acres (lot #3B) and developing lot #3B with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 15, 2016. The applicant was represented by Andy Rowe. 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,Mary Jo Capotrio,seeks preliminary and final plat approval for a planned unit development to subdivide a 1.02 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 0.47 acres (lot #3A) and 0.55 acres (lot #3B) and developing lot #3B with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road. 2.The owner of record of the subject property is Mary Jo Capotrio. 3.The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 4.The application was received on October 5,2016. 5.The plans submitted consists of eight (8)pages. The first three (3) pages were prepared by Sterling Construction, Inc., dated 9/29/16, and labeled “Capotrio—Duplex 1408 Hinesburg Rd., S. Burl, VT.” The next five (5) pages were prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 9/30/16, and labeled “Site Plan,” “Utility & Grading Plan,” “Landscaping & EPSC Plan,”“Sitework Details & Specifications,” and “Subdivision Plat.” A)DENSITY The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The parcel allows for a maximum density of four (4) units (1.02 x 4=4.08 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and one new duplex), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the purchase of two (2) TDRs. They propose to purchase these TDRs from the Diane J. Wessel Trust, 70 Highland Terrace. B)PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS #SD-16-30 2 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. The duplex units will be served by new municipal water and wastewater service connections. The existing single family home is served by an onsite drilled well and municipal wastewater service.A condition of plat approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies. (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. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The application materials state the proposed PUD will generate three (3)P.M. Peak Hour trips. The proposed new dwelling units (a duplex)will be accessed via a public street,Dubois Drive,and the existing home will maintain its current access on Hinesburg Road. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds that this criterion is being 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. A review of city wetland maps indicates existing wetlands are more than 250 feet from the site. The Board finds this criterion is met. (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. Building neighborhoods of higher density in the Southeast Quadrant that allow for the conservation of land in other areas of the SEQ is supported by both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. The Board finds that the construction of the proposed duplex unit with the use of TDRs in the SEQ is compatible with the planned development patterns in the area. (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. #SD-16-30 3 The proposed project creates an open corridor along the eastern edge of the property and, by siting the proposed duplex close to Dubois Drive, an open area between the existing house and the proposed duplex. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) toensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The Fire Marshall stated in an email dated November 1, 2016 that there are “no real issues for FD [Fire Department] on this one” and noted that a building permit from the Fire Marshall would be required for the duplex building.The Board finds this criterion met. (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. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds this criterion 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, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the project to be aligned with the goals and objectives of the district since it will have a greater density of housing combined with off-site conservation of land in the Natural Resources Protection District through the use of TDRs.The Board finds this criterion to be met. D.SOUTHEAST QUADRANT This proposed subdivision is located in the Southeast Quadrant District. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts.The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A.Height. (1)The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub- district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The proposed building will not be more than 28 feet in height.The Board finds this criterion to be met. #SD-16-30 4 B.Open Space and Resource Protection. (1)Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels This topic has been covered already in these comments.The Board finds this criterion met. (2)Building lots,streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. There are no proposed new streets.The Board finds this criterion met. (3)A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. The existing single family home will be located on its own parcel and maintain its property. The proposed duplex on Lot 3B will include common land the management of which will be overseen by an association comprised of the two (2) owners of the units. (4)Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5)Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. In an email dated October 5,2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers these criteria to be met. C.Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. The Board finds that the conservation of agricultural lands is not applicable to this project. D.Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, #SD-16-30 5 streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. A condition of final plat approval will be that prior to receiving a zoning permit the applicant will need to obtain whichever of the permits listed above are necessary for the site. (2)Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. This topic has been covered already in these comments.The Board finds this criterion met. (3)Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. In an email dated October 5, 2016, the Board received comments from the Public Works Department indicating support for the project design. The Board considers these criteria to be met. (4)The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. This topic has already been covered in these comments. The Board finds this criterion met. E.Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1)Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. There are no new proposed streets. (2)Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. There are no new proposed streets. (3)The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and #SD-16-30 6 neighborhoods shall apply. There are no new proposed streets. 9.07 Regulating PlansA.... B.… C.… D.Parks Design and Development. (1)General standards.The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. The proposed development is adjacent to city owned open space parcels and within approximately a quarter-mile of a proposed city park as specified on the Community Facilities map in the Comprehensive Plan. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A.Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1)Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2)Interconnection of Streets (a)Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b)Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c)Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3)Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. There are no new proposed streets. (4)Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. #SD-16-30 7 Lot 3A (existing single family house) has a ratio of 1:2 and Lot 3B (proposed duplex) has a ratio of 1.3:1 when viewed from Dubois Drive; however, if the lot is considered from Hinesburg Road then the ratio is approximately 1:2.9, according to the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver from the lot ratio requirement. B.Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1)Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub-district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. (2)Sidewalks. (a)Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b)Sidewalks are required on one side of the street. There are no new proposed streets or sidewalks. The Board notes that there is a sidewalk on the north side of Dubois Drive. (3)Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) (a)Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b)Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The City Arborist submitted the following comments regarding the landscaping in an email dated November 1, 2016: Tree protection plans and details need to be included with the plans for all trees slated to be retained The 2 Pin Oaks being retained are in the city right of way and therefore are city trees. Any pruning on city trees shall be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. In the event of damage to city trees, the city shall be compensated as per the City Tree Ordinance A condition of plat approval will be that the applicant provide tree protection plans and details and that any pruning of city trees be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. (4)On-street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub-districts. Thisrequirement may be waived within the SEQ-NRN sub-district provided the DRB finds sufficient off-street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses adjacent to the street. (5)Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic. (6)Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be #SD-16-30 8 provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. There are no new streets, intersections, or street/sidewalk lighting proposed as part of this project. C.Residential Design (1)Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas…A minimum of thirty- five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south… (2)Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3)Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a)Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b)Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4)Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the façade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (5)Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The proposed housing units and existing housing unit have entrances facing public roads—a requirement of the regulations.The westerly duplex unit would have a front façade facing Hinesburg Road and the easterly duplex unit would have a façade facing Dubois Drive, thus giving the entire building a presence on both streets.Lot 3B has a front setback of less than 25 feet on Dubois Drive, which is suggested by the regulations, and a setback of greater than 50 ft. on Hinesburg Road.Each garage will be set back at least eight feet from the front building line of the duplex unit with which it is associated. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. E.WAIVERS The applicant is requesting a waiver from the lot ratio requirement discussed above for Lot 3B.The applicant is requesting that Lot 3B be permitted to have a lot ratio of 1.3:1.The Board finds the waiver #SD-16-30 9 being requested is in alignment with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District as already discussed in these comments. F.STORMWATER The Stormwater Section provided the following comments to the Board in an email dated October 14, 2016: The applicant should consider installing a backflow preventer on the 6” SDR35 PVC sump pump discharge pipe,as to prevent basement flooding during potential extreme wet weather conditions. The applicant provided the following response to those comments in an email dated October 21,2016: The existing single family home is served by a sump pump. Each of the new units in the duplex will also be served by a sump pump. The discharges from all three sump pumps is collected in a 6” gravity pipe that outlets to the existing ditch near the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive. A check valve is typically provided on the sump pump discharge piping or integral to the pump. We’ve added a note (#3) to sheet 2 requiring either a check valve or backwater valve be provided to prevent back-ups into the basements. Stormwater Section staff indicated their support of the applicant’s response. A condition of approval will be that the applicant submit updated plans reflecting the changes proposed in their response. G.ENERGY STANDARDS The Board notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. H.TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) The parcel is developed with a single family dwelling on 1.02 acres and has one (1) transferable development right (1.2 units per acre X 1.02 acres = 1.224 or 1). In order to construct the proposed two family dwelling, the applicant will have to obtain two (2) TDRs. The applicant will be required to obtain these TDRs prior to the issuance of a zoning permit to construct the proposed two family dwelling. I.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. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. #SD-16-30 10 B.Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1)The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed building is to be located to the north of the existing single family dwelling approximately the same distance from Hinesburg Road thereby creating a desirable transition from structure to structure. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (2)Parking: (a)Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings.Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This standard does not apply to the proposed two family dwelling.The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (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. The proposed building would be less than 28 ft. in height and similar in scale to the existing single family dwelling.The Board finds that this criterion is being met. (4)Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. All new utilities will be placed underground. The Board finds that this criterion is being 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. (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 Board considers that the proposed building is similar to the surrounding houses in style and height. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. #SD-16-30 11 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.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. Staff does not consider the reservation of land to be necessary. 2.Utility Services.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 must be underground. 3.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). The applicant submitted material stating that garbage will be stored in the garage units of each individual unit.The Board finds that this criterion is being met. 5.Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the project is estimated at $445,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $11,400 which is being met Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 -$250,000 3%$7,500 Next $250,000 2%$3,900 Additional over $500,000 1%$0 Minimum Landscaping $$11,400 Proposed Landscaping $11,600 DECISION Motion by Matt Cota, seconded by David Parsons, to approve preliminary & final plat application #SD- 16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio subject to the following conditions: #SD-16-30 12 1.All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2.This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3.The plat must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a.The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. b.The plan must be revised to include tree protection plans and details for all trees slated to be retained. c.A note must be added to the “Utility & Grading Plan” plan sheet requiring either a check valve or backwater valve be provided to prevent back-ups into the basements. 4.The applicant must receive final wastewater and water allocations prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 5.Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 6.The proposed project must 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 must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 7.The applicant must post an $11,400 landscaping bond prior to issuance of the zoning permit. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 8.For purposes of the LDRs,the two (2) footprint lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1)lot.The applicant shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. 9.Any pruning of city trees must be in accordance with ANSI A-300 Pruning Standards. 10.Any proposed utility cabinets or ground mounted HVAC units must be approved by the Development Review Board prior to installation. 11.The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 12.The mylars must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 13.The applicant must 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. #SD-16-30 13 14.All legal documents needed to effectuate the two (2)TDRs needed for the two family dwelling shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, recorded in the land records, and delivered to the Administrative Officer before the zoning permit may be issued for the two family dwelling. 15.The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format prior to the issuance of the zoning permit. 16.The final plat plans (Site Plan and Subdivision Plat) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman 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 5–0 –0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller,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.