The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/17/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JULY 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 July 2018, 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, F. Kochman, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; D. Shenk, L. Hammond, R. Brunckerhoff, C. Gottfried, A. & A. Chalnick, R. Kay, M. Meyer, K. & W. Hays, A. Dery, S. Savell, J. Antoniotti, B. Tolmic, P. Simpson, B. Bartlett, B. Currier, C. Montgomery, D. & S. Partilo, D. Zeller, D. Ruppel, J. Anderson, S. Valle, C. Gallipeau, D. Murdoch, C. Miller, C. Teese, T. Perrapato, W. Cleaver, L. Richer, G. Porter, S. Donnelly, C. Pawlowski, J. Fuller, P. Vaughan, M. E. Baldwin, C. Bergeron, M. Webster, D. Seff, W. Gerlack, D. Jaffe, D. Peters, A. Safar, D. Bartlett, A. Lamonda, M. Simpson, S. Dopp, R. Greco, B. Servis, J. Bard, L. Getz, J. Goodwin, J. & W. Wilking, N. Hyihan, D. Blodgett, A. Shields, M. Janswold, C. & P. Bernhardt, D. Anfuso, B. & A. Kakalec 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 noted that this is Mr. Belair’s last meeting as he will be retiring at the end of the month. He praised Mr. Belair’s support to the DRB for many years. Mr. Wilking noted that he sold his business last week. He also noted that at a recent meeting with community members there was talk of graft of the DRB and of people making money from their positions on the Board. He felt there needs to be clarity from the City Council to assure the public. Mr. Wilking said he was personally offended by reference to “real estate people” making money from their knowledge of this Board. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-20 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC, to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre parcel into five lots ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 415 to 495 Market Street: Mr. Shenk said they plan to subdivide an existing parcel owned by South Burlington Realty. They will retain the 4 smaller parcels (he indicated these on the plan) and will develop the fifth parcel under Form Based Code standards. Mr. Shenk noted they had developed the project on the Hinesburg Rd. end of Market Street, and the proposed project will be a continuation of that. Mr. Gerlack, representing 16 and 18 Iby Street, said they are used to having trees in back and asked if there will be trees in the buffer. Mr. Shenk said Form Based Code requires a planted buffer. They will provide a mix of cedar hedges and shade trees. He also noted, that as part of the project they will be meeting with all the neighbors. Another neighbor noted a drainage issue with water seeping into his mother’s house. He didn’t want that situation to worsen or affect his house. Mr. Shenk showed the area where there will be stormwater ponds. It will all be gravity flow, no pumps. They will not be changing the sub-soil. They will have to meet the required standards and will be inspected. Mr. Hyinau asked who pays for the ponds. Mr. Shenk identified the pond that he will pay for as part of the project. The other pond is part of the Market Street project. Ms. Dopp asked whether any trees will be saved. Ms. Keene said the City arborist has identified trees that are valuable enough to save. No other issues were raised. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-23 of Dorset Meadows Association, LLC, to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes, 18 units in 3 unit multi-family dwellings, 32 units in two-family dwellings, and one existing single family home, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Wilking recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Boucher said they have refined the plan based on zoning in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He identified the areas that the City zoning indicates will remain green. The basic density is 1.2 per acre, concentrated in the developable acreage. This respects the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Boucher then identified the site on the map and noted the 3 sub-districts of the SEQ as NRP, NR and VR which allows for a total density of 4 to 8 units per acre on developable land. He also identified the existing developed areas and preserved areas. On an aerial photo, Mr. Boucher identified geographic features including the stream. He showed the areas that will be developed and indicated that the vegetated area would mostly remain. He also indicated locations with views toward Camel’s Hump and noted that the proposed “boulevard” is oriented toward those views. The proposed design interconnects green spaces and connection to the NRP (non-developable). There will be a diversity of residential types including duplexes and town houses. Mr. Boucher then identified the “exterior lots” (outside the ring road around the project) which will have a 20‐foot setback from the road. On the “interior lots” they will reduce the side yard setback to 5 feet and the front yard setback to 15 feet. Those lots will be about 1/8 of an acre. They will be made to seem larger by moving the garages further back. Most of those lots will back onto a common green space. Along Nolan Farm Road, there will be a series of town homes with optional detached garages. There will also be a series of duplexes. There will be a single wetland crossing which Mr. Boucher indicated on the plan. He also indicated one area for future development due to access issues. Mr. Boucher then identified different street types planned for the development: The major street will have a 60-foot right-of-way with 10-foot driving lanes and parking on one side of the street. There will be a 10-foot rec path on one side and a sidewalk on the other side. The “ring road” will have a 50‐foot right‐of‐way with 9‐foot driving lanes and bumpouts at the intersections. The central access road with have a 60-foot right-of-way with 8-foot parking lanes on either side, 9-foot driving lanes, and sidewalks on both sides. Mr. O’Leary noted they have met with the Army Corps of Engineers and with State wetland people who have indicated they want only one crossing of the wetland. The City would like a connection to Dorset Street where there is a driveway easement at this time. There are potential developments to the south that could also use the Dorset Street connection The Board then reviewed staff notes with the applicant as follows: 1. Staff asked the applicant to consider periodic bumpouts on the roads. Mr. O’Leary said they are amenable to discussing this. 2. Mr. O’Leary said they will comply. 3. They will look into constructing the road at the exiting crossing of the wetland and discuss the crossing with the Army Corps. 4. The applicant agreed to design access to the green spaces so they don’t become “yards” for individual residents. Mr. Boucher noted they were encouraged to have smaller pieces of green space to utilize the NPR area. They will use split rail fencing and landscaping to designate the areas. Mr. Behr said he would like to see some of the green spaces opened up, especially there they appear “pinched.” This may result in losing a few units. He generally liked the layout, boulevard design and diversity of units. 5. The applicant agreed to abide by design requirements. 6. Regarding the mix of housing, Mr. Boucher said they haven’t gotten to architecture yet. There will be some 1, 1-1/2 and 2 story units. Interior lot houses will be different from exterior hones. Town houses will have separate entrances for units. 7. Mr. O’Leary said they will provide a phasing plan as part of the Master Plan. Members of the public then commented as follows: Mr. Kay: Noted that nearby residents have private wells and asked the developer to consider this and not pollute those wells. He also asked if the view protection corridor has been addressed with heights of buildings. Mr. O’Leary said no units are affected. Mr. Kay also asked for a plan for wildlife protection, citing deer, bobcats and other wildlife. He was also concerned that the area is prone to flooding during larger than 100-year events. Ms. Hammond: Felt this is irresponsible growth. There are already over 100 homes for sale in South Burlington. She cited wildlife issues and concern with traffic. Mr. Miller said there will be a required traffic study as part of the review process. He also noted this development is in keeping with the planned character of the area. Mr. Behr then gave a brief review of SEQ zoning. Mr. Hyiaman noted that a previous property owner was denied the right to put an addition on his home and subsequently moved to Shelburne, but this plan is allowing 164 units to be built. He felt that wasn’t right. He cited farmers who can no longer get hay from fields and have to buy it. He also noted that animals are going into homes because they have no place else to go. He asked where salt from driveways is going to go. Ms. Meyer said that when the studies of the area were done the city looked different. She asked how those studies can be redone. Mr. Kochman stressed that the DRB has no power to change the regulations. That is done in the Planning Commission forum. The DRB does not have jurisdiction to change things. Mr. Hyiaman said the developer should build 40 or 60 solar-efficient homes. He said the homes that are built today won’t last. Due to the length of the agenda, members agreed to continue the application to allow for further discussion. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-23 to 7 August 2018. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-18-28 of 30 Community Drive, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 275,000 sq. ft. commercial and industrial building consisting of 184,400 sq. ft. of general office, 18,700 sq. ft. of warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft. of indoor recreation, 2000 sq. ft. of retail food, 59,500 sq. ft. of research and testing and 400 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant (accessory) use. The amendment consists of replacing a portion of the general office and warehouse uses with 25,500 sq. ft. of radio & television studio, for a resulting use breakdown of 163,040 sq. ft. general office, 14,560 sq. ft. warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft. indoor recreation, 2000 sq. ft. retail food, 59,500 sq. ft. research and testing, 400 sq. ft. short-order restaurant (accessory), and 25,500 sq. ft. radio & television studio use. The amendment also includes adding a parking lot, 16 satellite dishes and a microwave antenna, 30 Community Drive: Mr. Savell noted that WPTZ will be relocating from Plattsburg and Colchester. He indicated the secured parking area and the secured area for satellite dishes. The applicant review staff comments as follows: 1. Ms. Dery noted they have addressed all but one of the Stormwater Superintendent’s comments and will comply completely. 2. Staff does not consider the additional 38 parking spaces necessary, especially given the effect on the wetland buffer. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether news vehicle parking can be located in a newly secured area of the existing parking lot. The applicant said the locations shows is a secured parking area. The station operates all day, and staff comes in at night. They must be able to walk safely into the building. Equipment also has to be moved from vans into the building. The existing space does not provide the safety and security needed. Mr. Behr questioned why there are 2 parking spaces per employee. Ms. Dery said that is a requirement for radio studios. The applicant indicated where the security fence access will be (it will be a card access). They will have 98 employees plus additional guests and visitors for special events. Special programs now done elsewhere will be done at this location. 3. Regarding size and location of antennas, the applicant explained that the antenna on the roof will be 6 feet in diameter, 10 feet high. There is already a 17-foot structure on that roof. 4. Regarding screening of satellite dishes, the applicant indicated the location of additional landscaping. Security fences will be 12 feet high. Mr. Wilking said the site is not as landscaped as he is used to seeing in Technology Park. Mr. Ilich said there is more screening than at other similar installations. 5. Regarding the landscape bond amount, the applicant indicated the cost of the building expansion is $10,000. Ms. Keene said they already have adequate landscaping value. 6. Ms. Dery said they will provide photos as to how parking spaces are to be counted. Ms. Keene said bicycle parking needs to be included in the photos. Ms. Dery said the existing bike parking is not compatible with the current standard and they will include the required number as replacement for the existing racks and show their location. 7. The sign will be removed from the plan. 8. Gates will be accessible to emergency equipment. This will be discussed with the Fire Chief. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-18-28. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-18-24 of Pines Housing, LP, t o amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 184 unit congregate housing facility and 2) a 104 unit extended stay hotel in 2 buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 2,300 sq. t. building addition for the purpose of expanding the administrative office space for the congregate care facility, 7 Aspen Drive: Mr. Miller recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota served as Chair during Mr. Miller’s absence. Ms. Getz said that administrative offices are now in the basement and will be moved to the addition. There will also be a conference room and break room. Staff comments were reviewed as follows: 1. The applicant will provide a bond for landscaping. $8625 is required and $9190 is being provided. 2. The Board was OK with the temporary and permanent impact on the Class 3 wetland buffer. 3. The applicant was OK with the Acting Fire Chief’s comments as were members. Pines residents said they are happy with the addition. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-18-24. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Miller rejoined the Board. 9. Continued site plan application #SP-18-22 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by constructing a 20-foot by 23-foot addition to an existing 1500 sq. ft. standard restaurant, 1696 Williston Road: Ms. Keene noted the applicant had an arborist review the plan and locate a shade tree to meet the requirement. The applicant can remove a bit of pavement to give room for trees to breathe. Mr. Gottfried noted he will also plant perennials. He will also be sure the tree doesn’t block his sign. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-18-22. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-18-19 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to construct a two-story, 54,868 sq. ft. medical office building with 275 parking spaces on 15.07 acres, 194 Tilley Drive: Mr. Bouchard said there have not been many changes since sketch plan. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: 1. Regarding the “pedestrian route through the parking lot,” members were OK with the main route indicated by Mr. Bouchard. 2. Regarding parking in front of the building, Mr. Bouchard noted the 3 spaces indicated are part of the electric vehicle parking spaces, and they would like to keep them there but will remove them if the Board requires. Mr. Sullivan said there is nothing in the regulations that allows the Board to OK them. Mr. Wilking said the DRB should discuss this with the Planning Commission. 3. Mr. Bouchard showed the details of dumpster screening. 4. Regarding curbing of the parking islands. Mr. Bouchard showed where curbing can happen, but he was concerned with other areas for snow storage. He noted there are no island curbs on the adjoining property. Members said it can’t be waived. Mr. Bouchard said they will comply. 5. The trees recommended by the arborist have been added. 6. Mr. Bouchard said they have an excess of $80,000 in landscaping. He showed a seating area near the entrance (benches, landscaping, ornamental grasses, perennials). He noted that the Arborist felt the plan should be approved as presented. Mr. Belair noted that the Board has never counted “grasses” or perennials as landscaping. Mr. Bouchard cited a project for which ornamental grasses were approved. Ms. Keene confirmed the Board intends approve it because the site is adequately landscaped with trees and shrubs. 7. Mr. Bouchard noted they have the permits identified in Mr. Wheeler’s letter. Members agreed that there is compliance with city and state standards. 8. Mr. Bouchard showed how they will meet long and short-term bike parking standards. They will include 6 interior long term “bike storage” spaces. 9. Mr. Bouchard said they will commit to the type of poles staff requires. 10. They will change one pole type so it will not be in danger of being hit by cars. They can put it on a higher concrete base. Members were OK with this. A member of the audience asked who will own the property and building. Mr. Bouchard said Pizzagalli will own both the property and building. They will lease it to the UVM Medical Center. Ms. Zeller asked about construction timing. Mr. Bouchard said they will build in the spring of 2019 and should complete the project the following spring. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-18-19. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Review Minutes of 19 June 2018: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 June 2018 as written. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Continued sketch plan application #SD-18-16 of R.L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of an existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of an expanded service station with four additional fueling positions for a total of 12 and associated 9,000 sq. foot retail sales building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Anderson felt there are issues that may or may not be resolved before addressing traffic. They want a level of comfort before investing in addressing traffic. Open issues were then addressed as follows: 1. Amount of pervious/open space: Mr. Anderson said they feel they can achieve this with pervious pavers, but the Board asked for 30% open space. The presented concept has the space, but there are tanks underneath it. 2. Parking between the building and the street: Mr. Anderson showed a concept with an outside open “porch”. He said they are trying to preserve PUD options. They believe they meet the requirements. He questioned whether they are required to meet the “purpose statement” of the regulations. Mr. Kochman did not agree with the applicant’s definition of a “building.” He read from the regulations indicating that an “open structure” is not part of a building. He felt it is a “carport,” and that a building must be enclosed. Mr. Anderson felt the Board can approve the design by recognizing that the CWD easement and the difference in height from front to rear is enough to allow the front parking. Mr. Miller noted what CVS did to allow their building. He felt this situation is different as there the parking would be completely visible while parking at CVS is at least partially screened and more difficult to see. Mr. Wilking said he doesn’t agree with the rule, but it is the rule, and this does not meet that rule. 3. Nonconformity: Mr. Miller said nonconformity is still a problem, and there is a question as to whether this is an expansion of a use or a conversion of a use. Mr. Anderson said they feel that today the entirety of the property is used for a gas station. The grocery store they will put in is a conforming use by itself. They propose to continue to use the entirety of the property as a nonconformity. Mr. Wilking raised the question of car repairs. Mr. Anderson said the minor repairs they do fall under “service station use” and not “car repair use.” Ms. Keene said staff’s position is that expanding from 8 to 12 fueling positions is expanding a nonconforming use. Mr. Anderson said they feel area is how you determine expansion, not traffic. He said the ordinance doesn’t say you use traffic to determine changes of use. He felt they are decreasing the square footage of the structure that is devoted to the nonconforming use. Mr. Behr read from a publication by the applicant indicating the range of “major repairs” done at the existing station. Ms. Keene indicated that staff is not OK with the “porch” being used to meet the parking standard. Staff is also not OK with the notion that the utility easement precludes parking in the rear. Staff does not agree with the applicant’s notions regarding nonconformity. Mr. Wilking noted the issue of removing long‐term tenants from the “hotel” and losing affordable housing. Due to the late hour members agreed to continue the application. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-16 to 4 September 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 13. Other Business: No other business was discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 11:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on August 7, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐18‐20_451‐495 Market St_Blackbay Ventures_Sk_2018‐ 07‐17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 12, 2018 Plans received: June 7, 2018 451 – 495 Market St Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐20 Meeting date: July 17, 2018 Owner South Burlington City Center, LLC P.O. Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC 226 Ridgefield Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0450‐00000 Form Based Code District Transect Zone 4, Transect Zone 3 22.59 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐20 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre parcel into five (5) lots, ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 451 to 495 Market Street. CONTEXT The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into five lots in preparation for development on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Lot 5 will be the location of future development and will likely need additional subdivision at a future date. The development of Lots 1 through 4 will be subject to administrative review through the Form Based Code process. The DRB is responsible for review of subdivisions within the Form Based Code district to ensure that the proposed lots are legal and developable. Therefore these staff comments focus on those elements of the proposed subdivision and omits discussion of the proposed development except as relevant to the DRB’s authority. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan demonstrating how they may develop the subdivided parcels. This plan is to facilitate Board review and approval of the subdivision does not require the applicant to construct their project in conformance with the conceptual site plan. COMMENTS 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. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T4 district. The lot width must be between 70 feet and 120 feet within the T3 district. Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 are located fully within the T3 district and are 85 to 95 feet wide. Lot 4 is located mostly within the T3 district, with the remainder located in the T4 district and is 120 feet wide. Lot 5 is located within the T4 district and will be further subdivided prior to development. Staff has no concerns with the proposed lot dimensions. Block lengths and perimeter standard are exempt for this location (LDR Section 8.04B(1)(a)). The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway shared with 505 to 511 Market Street to access Lot 1 through 4. The remainder of the district’s dimensional requirements pertain to buildings and parking and will be reviewed administratively as part of the Form Based Code site plan approval process. B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS Wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat The overall property received approved for wetland impacts under #CU‐18‐01. The approval and conditions of that decision will continue to apply to all of the subdivided parcels herein. Staff recommends that this be explicitly stated in any preliminary and final plat decisions. Fire protection The acting Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/10/2018 and had no concerns. Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/6/2018 and had no concerns. 3 C) OTHER Inclusionary Zoning For the purposes of Act 250, the entire subject property is considered to be “involved land” within the jurisdiction of a single permit. The property owner has achieved designation of the property as a “priority housing project”, which eliminates Act 250 permit requirements for the property so long as certain affordability and inclusionary zoning standards are met. Similarly, the City has an inclusionary zoning requirement. It is Staff’s understanding that the property owner, for the purposes of inclusionary zoning requirements, wishes to have the entire currently parcel be treated as a single entity. Staff supports this approach and recommends this be addressed at the Preliminary / Final Plat stage to assure clarity moving forward. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the meeting. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 994765 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 13, 2018 Plans received: June 11, 2018 1505 Dorset Street Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐23 Meeting date: July 17, 2018 Owner/Applicant Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC 44 Park Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570‐01475, 0570‐01505 SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection 71.91 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐23 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes, 18 units in 3 unit multi‐family dwellings, 32 units in two‐family dwellings, and one existing single family home, 1505 Dorset Street. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant. The proposed development will be required to seek Master Plan approval within six months of the final sketch plan hearing. The development will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design review. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 6/11/2018 and offer the following comments. CONTEXT The Project is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential, Village Residential, and Natural Resource Protection Zoning Districts. A portion of the property is located within the Dorset Park View Protection District. There are significant areas of wetlands within the Natural Resource Protection portion of the property, as well as limited wetlands and a stream along the border between the VR and NR districts. Topography is gently sloping with low areas around the wetlands and the highest areas between the wetlands and at Dorset Street. The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant is to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well ‐planned residential use. The design and layout of buildings and lots is intended to create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In support of these goals, the Southeast Quadrant is eligible for transfer of development rights. By purchasing the development rights of another parcel, effectively protecting it from development, an applicant may develop between four and eight dwelling units per acre. Further, development within the Natural Resource Protection district is prohibited when acreage outside that district exists on the same parcel, which is the case here. Staff considers this sketch plan application an opportunity for the applicant to present their overall concept and vision to the Board. Staff has reviewed the Project on an overall basis, but notes herein are limited to big picture items. The applicant will be meeting with DPW, Fire, Stormwater, and Police on July 24. A. Dimensional Requirements and Density: The Project consists of approximately 71.9 acres. Based only on the areas within each zoning district, the maximum density for the project is 267 units (including purchase of TDRs). The project as proposed will 3 need to purchase 78 TDRs, representing the protection of approximately 65 acres, from the surrounding area to construct the 164 unit development as proposed. The applicant is proposing a combination of 26, 28 and 34 foot wide roads, with sidewalks on one or both sides separated by 7 to 8 foot wide vegetated median strips. Roads will accommodate parking on one or both sides depending on location. Staff notes that parking is not required on local streets within the SEQ‐ VR or SEQ‐NR zones. 1. Staff considers the roadway concept is generally sound though some adjustments may be warranted to parking to reduce the amount of pavement. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant limiting parking to adjacent to homes, and consider periodic bump outs for street trees and to reduce perceived drive width. The Project is located in the Dorset Park view protection Zone D. Staff has reviewed the approximate topography relative to the Dorset Park baseline and believes that the view protection zone is less restrictive than the height standards of the district, which limit pitched roof heights to 28 to 35 feet depending on unit count and district. Therefore homes that are the maximum height within the project area will not adversely impact the views protected by the view protection districts. Based on submitted materials, it appears the applicant will be requesting a waiver of side setback requirements from 10 feet to 5 feet, but will not be requesting waiver of front or rear yard setbacks. B. Street Standards The applicant is proposing three dead end streets. Staff considers all three appear to meet the requirements of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation and of the Article 9 Southeast Quadrant standards pertaining to street layout. Two of the streets are proposed to be constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow for future connection. The third serves as the rear‐loaded alley for four two and three family homes, which front on Nowland Farm Road. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on July 6, 2018, and advises that the Project will require a traffic study evaluating the proposed impacts. He also advises that the proposed roadway connection to Nowland Farm Road, since it cannot be aligned with Old Schoolhouse Road, may need to shift west to allow greater distance from the Dorset Street intersection. 2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a traffic study addressing these concerns as part of the master plan application. The applicant has provided a location for a future connection to Dorset Street at the approximate mid‐ point of the property. This is the same location as the existing driveway. Staff considers this to be an important connection, because without it, there will be no east‐west connection on Dorset street for the half mile south of Nowland Farm Road. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to retain the existing driveway in it’s current configuration to retain wetland crossing rights. Staff further recommends the Board request the applicant permit this connection as a city street with the City and with the state wetlands program as part of this project. 3. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to construct a road using the existing wetland crossing at the existing driveway location as part of this development. 4 C. Natural Resource Protection The proposed development includes one wetland crossing. A State wetland permit will be required for Conditional Use Determination by the Vermont DEC. Three areas are designated on the submitted site plan as stormwater treatment areas. The Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plans on 7/9/2018 and considers that the areas reserved for stormwater treatment appear small and wishes to remind the applicant that drainage lines to be conveyed to the City require a 20‐foot wide easement, and that maintenance access will be required for all stormwater treatment practices. D. Public Facilities, Parks and Open Space Section 9.07 provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the proposed project must meet. The applicant is proposing a variety of open space types within the development, including two linear features at the rear of homes, one open green with views of Camels Hump, and one natural wooded area in the NRP district. The site is also designed to respect wetland buffers, resulting in an open space corridor between the bulk of the development and Dorset Street. Finally, the design incorporates a north to south recreation path connecting Nowland Farm Road to the southern property line. 4. Staff generally supports the open space concept for the development, and recommends the Board review the configuration of the open spaces and parks with the applicant, and discuss how the open spaces will be designed encourage residents to access them and how they will be protected from becoming part of the yards of adjacent homes. Staff recommends the Board provide direction on what, if any, additional information they would like to see submitted as part of the master plan. E. Building Orientation and Design Sections 9.08 and 9.09 of the LDRs lay out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the proposed housing units will have entrances facing a public road—a requirement of the regulations. The materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate the other Residential Design standards of the LDRs. The current proposal shows a variety of housing types (single, two, and three family) and the materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate whether there will also be a mix of housing styles (ex: ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.). 5. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant to review the Residential Design requirements and recommendations of Section 9.08(C) and 9.09(C) prior to future stages of the review process. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their intended mix of housing types throughout the development. F. Lot Ratios Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” The proposed lots for the single family homes appear to meet this standard. The two and three family homes are located on shared lots and do not meet this standard. Staff supports a waiver for this. 5 G. 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. H. Phasing The phasing plan must take into consideration the LDR’s prohibition on greater than 50 units accessed via a single access point. 7. Staff recommends the Board require that applicant submit their proposed phasing plan as part of the master plan application. RECOMMENDATION 8. Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and consider continuing the hearing to allow further discussion once the applicant has met with the technical review committee. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP‐18‐28_30 Community Dr_30 Community Dr LLC_2018‐ 07‐17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 12, 2018 Application received: June 19, 2018 30 Community Drive Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐28 Meeting date: July 17, 2018 Applicant & Owner 30 Community Dr, LLC 55 Community Dr, Suite 402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Trudell Consulting Engineers 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 054495 Property Information Tax Parcel ID 0436‐00030 Mixed Industrial and Commercial District SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP‐18‐28 of 30 Community Drive, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 275,000 sq. ft. commercial and industrial building consisting of 184,400 sq. ft. of general office, 18,700 sq. ft. of warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft of indoor recreation, 2,000 sq. ft. retail food, 59,500 sq. ft. research and testing and 400 sq. ft short‐order restaurant (accessory) use. The amendment consists of replacing a portion of the general office and warehouse uses with 25,500 sq. ft. of radio & television studio, for a resulting use breakdown of 163,040 sq. ft. general office, 14,560 sq. ft. warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft. indoor recreation, 2,000 sq. ft. retail food, 59,500 sq. ft. research and testing, 400 sq. ft. short‐order restaurant (accessory), and 25,500 sq. ft. radio & television studio use. The amendment also includes adding a parking lot, 16 satellite dishes and a microwave antenna, 30 Community Drive. CONTEXT The applicant is proposing to reconfigure interior space to accommodate an office and studio space for NBC‐5/Hearst Communications. The project will include three new overhead doors and a man door on the north elevation, improvements to an existing entrance on the east elevation, and addition of an 8‐ foot high microwave antenna to the roof. Site improvements will include addition of building‐mounted and pole‐mounted light fixtures, a fenced & gated parking area and gravel wetland stormwater treatment facility to the north of the building. There will also be an area enclosed by an 8‐foot high chain link fence for 16 satellite dishes north of the building. This project is subject to review under the Land Development Regulation Standards covering the Mixed Industrial Commercial District, Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards, 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards, Section 14.06 General Review Standards, and Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards. PERMIT HISTORY In 2016, the Project received a permit to convert the building uses to their current configuration (#SP‐16‐ 03). No major issues were identified. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene have reviewed the plans submitted on June 19, 2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IC Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 1,282,324 SF No change  Max. Building Coverage 40 % 21.27% 21.28% 1  Max. Overall Coverage 70 % 57.1% 58.6% @ Min. Front Setback1 30 ft. 242 ft. No change @ Min. Side Setback1 10 ft. 195 ft. No change  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A  Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 2.28% No change  Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 23 ft. 31 ft. 2 √ Zoning Compliance 1. Estimated by staff. Additional canopy adds 165 sq. ft. 2. Includes 8‐foot antenna ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; No impacts to the wetland itself are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; The stormwater treatment system is not affected by the wetland encroachment. Staff considers this criterion met. (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The proposed encroachment is limited to landscaping and stormwater treatment system components only. The proposed stormwater management system is equipped with an impermeable liner and underdrain system which will prevent treated stormwater from flowing into the adjacent Class III wetland. Staff considers the wetland impacts are offset by proposed landscaping and stormwater treatment. 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the application on June 28, 2018 and offers the following comments. Marla, SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “30 Community Drive” site plan prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 6/15/2018. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Muddy Brook watershed. As the project is covered by an existing Stormwater permit, it will be required to amend the permit. 2. As the project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of land, it will require a construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. 3. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre or more of impervious surface, the project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs. 4. Sheet C2‐02: a. The underdrain configuration depicted in the Gravel Wetland does not meet the intent of the Gravel Wetland design in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. The design should force the water through the stone media, rather than providing a path entirely through the underdrain system. An alternative configuration is depicted below: b. It appears that the Paved Vehicle/Equipment Area is intended to sheet flow into forebay, but the proposed contouring may allow some of the runoff to enter directly at the outlet of the gravel wetland. Please ensure that all runoff is directed to the forebay. 5. Sheet C8‐03 a. As currently configured, the 1” WQv Orifice is proposed on the end of a pipe stub at the bottom of the 18” diameter outlet structure, which is further reduced in access by a weir wall. Should the 1” orifice become clogged, it may be difficult to reach down the 5.5’ to remove the end cap. Consider revising the outlet structure so that the 1” WQ orifice is SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments more easily accessible. Failure of 1” orifice will impact functionality of the entire system from both a water quality and flow control standpoint. b. Depict both Cells 1 and 2 in the cross section and revise the underdrain piping accordingly to address the comments on Sheet C2‐02. An example cross section is provided in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual: c. Indicate top elevation of 6” Perforated Risers. 6. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave 1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent prior to approval. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.6 General Review Standards 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 project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. Staff considers that the proposed use is compatible with the airport. The site is not located in the south end of the quadrant and represents a minor expansion of an existing business park. The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential. Staff considers this criterion met. SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The applicant is proposing to add a new parking area to the north side of the site where no parking currently exists. The new parking area will be in a location not currently developed. The applicant calculates that 911 parking spaces are required under the proposed use configuration for the building. The existing parking provides 1041 parking spaces, and the applicant is proposing to add 38 additional spaces. The applicant has not discussed or substantiated the need for additional parking. Given the amount of parking in excess of the required minimum even without taking into consideration shared parking at different peak hours, Staff considers the additional parking to likely be unnecessary. The addition of parking creates approximately 0.45 acres of new impervious and results in buffer impacts to three Class III wetlands. 2. Staff does not consider the additional 38 parking spaces necessary especially given the resulting wetland buffer impacts. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether news vehicle parking could be located in a newly‐secured area of the existing parking lot. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The proposed additional parking is located to the side of the building. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The applicant is proposing to add an antenna to the roof of the existing building. Submitted materials describe both a 3.8 meter and a 4.5 meter antenna. The height of the building plus antenna is within the normal height limitations in Table C‐2 therefore Conditional Use review is not required. 3. While Staff is not concerned about the height of the building, Staff does recommend the Board confirm the size and location of the antenna for evaluating compliance with this standard. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: 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. Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Wire‐served utility services are proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion met. SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant is not proposing any new solid waste handling facilities. There is an existing screened enclosure northwest of the building. Staff considers this criterion met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The applicant is proposing to remove eleven 8 to 10 foot high white pine which were included on the previously approved site plan and replace them with 22 five to six foot high white spruce. Staff considers the proposed replacement landscaping adequately compensates for the value of the landscaping to be removed. The applicant is proposing to install an eight‐foot high chainlink fence with green slats to screen the 16 proposed satellite dishes. Submitted materials indicate that the dishes are greater than 13‐feet high, possibly as high as 18 feet (insufficient dimensions as provided to determine overall height). The applicant has proposed to locate six cedar trees along the west side of the satellite enclosure, but has proposed limited screening north and east of the satellites. 4. Staff considers the satellite dishes will be highly visible from several locations on Community Drive and recommends the Board require additional screening. The applicant has not provided an estimated value for the proposed building canopy addition, therefore staff cannot estimate the required value of additional landscaping. The applicant is proposing to add landscaping with a value of $10,725. 5. While Staff anticipates the provided landscape value is greater than the required landscape value, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the value of the proposed building addition in order to calculate the required landscape bond amount. Staff considers this information should be provided prior to closing the hearing. Snow storage areas meeting the requirements of Section 13.06 have been provided. E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. Staff considers that no modification of standards is necessary. 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 SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. See discussion of stormwater management standards above. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. No new roadways are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. OTHER 13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the building is 45 spaces based on 74,060 sq. ft. of warehousing/light industry and 200,940 sq. ft. of retail/restaurant/office space. Section 13.14B(1)(b) allows existing bicycle racks to be counted towards the minimum requirements if they meet certain standards. 6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit information in the form of photographs to allow staff to evaluate how many existing spaces may be counted towards the requirement. 16.03 Standards for Erosion Control during Construction The applicant has submitted erosion control details in support of the project. Staff considers that the provided Erosion Control notes do not match the required stabilization timelines of 16.03B, nor has the applicant demonstrated compliance with the minimum topsoil thickness requirements of 16.04A. 7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plans to reflect the stabilization timelines of 16.03B and the topsoil requirements of 16.04A. Wastewater The applicant has submitted an updated summary of permitted water and wastewater flows relative to the current and proposed demand. Staff considers there is adequate permitted capacity to support the proposed improvements. Signs The City has determined that an applicant may not include proposed signs on an approved site plan. 8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the proposed signs from the provided plans. Fire The acting fire chief reviewed the plans on July 10, 2018, and expressed that the gate to the secured parking area will need to be configured so as to be accessible by emergency vehicles. 9. Staff recommends the Board include this as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. SP‐18‐28 Staff Comments Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers June 14, 2018 Marla Keene, Development Review Coordinator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: 30 Community Drive Site Plan Amendment Application Dear Marla: On behalf of our client, 30 Community Drive, LLC, Trudell Consulting Engineers (TCE) has prepared a Site Plan Application for your review. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure interior space to incorporate approximately 25,500 SF of office and studio space for NBC-5/ Hearst Communications within the existing building located on Lot 8A in Technology Park. The lot is located in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning district (IC). In addition to the interior renovations, three new overhead doors and an ingress door will be added to the north building elevation, an existing entrance on the east elevation will be improved with new canopy, and an 8-ft high microwave antenna will be added to the roof. Proposed site features include building-mounted and pole-mounted light fixtures to be added to the north side of the building, a fenced/gated parking area and gravel wetland stormwater treatment facility will be added to the north side of the building. The building footprint will not change. Studio-specific exterior features include an enclosure for 16 satellite dishes on the north side of the building. This area will be screened by an 8-foot tall chainlink fence with The following table outlines the overall existing and proposed breakdown of the interior building square footage. Table 1:Building Use Existing Proposed General Office 184,400 163,040 Warehouse/Data/Facilities 18,700 14,560 Health/Fitness Club 10,000 10,000 Food/Restaurant 2,400 2,400 Research and Testing 59,500 59,500 Television Studio 0 25,500 Total 275,000 275,000 Page 2 of 4 30 Community Drive 2 Parking: A 38-space secure parking area is proposed for the project for us by tenant vehicles. Employees and visitors will also share the existing parking spaces provided for the building. Table 13-2: Parking Requirements from the South Burlington LDRs was used to calculate existing and proposed parking demand. Per the calculations, no increase in demand will result from the proposed change in use. Table 2: Parking Demand Calculations Wetland Buffer Impact: TCE delineated wetlands impacting Lot 8A in May of 2018. Class II and Class III wetlands were identified on or adjacent to the site, which are shown on the attached Site Plans. Class II wetlands and buffers are protected under the Vermont Wetland Rules and will not be impacted by this project. Class III wetlands are not protected under the Vermont Wetland Rules, but are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers if significant impact is proposed. The project will not impact Class III wetlands. A 50 ft Class III wetland buffers are also shown on the plans per Section 12.02. Some Class III wetland buffer will be impacted by the proposed project. The encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately given the balance of grading that will happen on the site. Any proposed fill within the buffer areas are offset by either grading/cut on other areas, such as the stormwater treatment facility. The encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation. The system has been design to be in compliance with the Vermont Stormwater Manual The impact of the encroachment on the buffer area have been offset by the creation of a new stormwater treatment facility. Stormwater & Erosion Control: Approximately 2.48 acres of area will be disturbed during construction and therefore coverage under a Stormwater Construction General Permit will be obtained prior to construction. Erosion control methods are shown on the attached plans. Impervious surface on the site will increase by 0.45 acres. A gravel wetland treatment system is proposed for treatment of runoff, to be located to the north east of the existing S. Burlington Land Use Existing Proposed Existing Proposed General Office 184,400 163,040 3.5 per 1000 SF 646 571 Warehouse/Storage 18,700 14,560 0.5 per 1000 SF 10 8 Indoor Recreation (100 people) 10,000 10,000 0.33 per person 33 33 2000 SF Retail Food/400 SF Rest. 2,400 2,400 100% internal capture -- Research and Testing Laboratory 59,500 59,500 3 per 1000 SF 179 179 Radio & Television Studio (60 empl) 25,500 2 per empl. 120 TOTAL 275,000 275,000 868 911 Parking SpacesFloor Area Rate Page 3 of 4 30 Community Drive 3 building. The existing Stormwater Permit for the parcel will be amended to incorporate the additional impervious areas. A Stormwater Design Brief is attached outlining the treatment practice. Traffic: Project-generated traffic was calculated using ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition. PM Peak hour trips for each use within the building are identified in the table below. Per the calculations, no increase in vehicle trips is anticipated for the proposed change in use. Table 3: Project-Generated Traffic Calculations – PM Peak Hour Trips Water/Sewer Water and sewer demand will not exceed the previously allocated amount of 20,000 gallons per day. Water and sewer demand is calculated based on 60 employees and no additional process water is proposed. The attached design flow summary indicates that the building continues to have unused permitted capacity with the addition of the 60 employees. Table 4:Water/Wastewater Demand Calculations Land Use Trip Generation Rate SQ. FT.Total Trips 710 General Office Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X) +0.36 163,040 182 150 Warehouse/Data T = 0.12(X) + 27.82 14,560 30 492 Health/Fitness Club Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 2.44 10,000 54 Food/Restaurant - 2,400 100% internal capture 110 Research and Testing Ln(T) = 0.69 Ln(X) + 0.43 59,500 26 Television Studio 1/empl. 25,500 60 TOTAL 275,000 352 Calculated Demand Proposed (gpd) Water 60 empl* 15 gpd/empl * 0.80 (mun. conn.) 720 Wastewater 60 empl* 15 gpd/empl * 0.90 (low flow fixtures) 810 Page 4 of 4 30 Community Drive 4 Conclusion The following materials are being submitted along with the application for your review. Site Plans Plant List and Planting Plan Stormwater Design Brief Example Satellite Schematics Antenna Specifications Lighting Plan and Specifications Exterior Building Elevation Illustration Based on our understanding of the requirements for Site Plan review, we believe the submittal of material for this proposed project to be complete and that the project will not place demands on the infrastructure in excess of currently permitted amounts. If you have any questions or comments regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at abby.dery@tcevt.com. Regards, Abigail Dery, P.E. Senior Project Manager cc: Stephen Savell Enclosed: Site Plan Submission cont Regards, Abbbbbbbbbigail DDDDDDDeDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDry, P.E. Senior Project Manager Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers 1 Stormwater Design Brief 1. Introduction Trudell Consulting Engineers (TCE) are writing on behalf of 30 Community Drive, LLC to apply for an amendment to a State Stormwater Discharge Permit pursuant to General Permit 4113-9010.R. 2. Project Description Technology Park, located at 30 Community Drive in South Burlington, VT, has been an ongoing development project with multiple State Stormwater permits. The proposed project includes new impervious surfaces for a paved parking area located north of the existing building. Under jurisdiction of the stormwater management rules – Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 18, the addition and redevelopment of impervious surfaces requires that this project amend existing stormwater permit 4113-9010.R as the project is within the drainage area boundaries of the above mentioned permit. Please note that while permit 4113-9010.R covers the east side of the property at 30 Community Drive, a second permit does exist to cover the west side of the 30 Community Drive property under 4113-INDS.R. The new impervious surfaces for the current project are entirely within the drainage area that discharges per 4113-9010.R. 3. Existing Conditions The existing site is a commercial development park with sidewalks and bicycle access. The drainage area under permit 4113-9010.R is approximately 40 acres in size and includes roadway, parking, and a commercial building used primarily for office space. There is a larger portion of the site which remains undeveloped and includes areas of Class II and Class III wetlands. Stormwater from this drainage area is conveyed to a pond at the south end of the project area which discharges to Muddy Brook at existing discharge point S/N 001. The entire drainage area is mapped as Vergennes Clay which is rated as Hydrologic Soil Group D. The entire site is relatively flat with slopes less than 5%. 4. Existing Stormwater System The site is currently permitted under stormwater permit 4113-9010.R which covers 15.90 acres of impervious surfaces. Runoff from the site overland flows to a series of catch basins throughout the roadways and parking. The existing 2 catch basin system discharges to a large detention pond on the City of South Burlington’s property at the southern end of the commercial park. The detention pond outlets to a stabilized outfall at S/N 001 which discharges to Muddy Brook. 5. Proposed Stormwater System: a) Description of Impervious Area: This project proposes to treat 0.44 acres of new impervious and 0.33 ac of redeveloped impervious under the 2017 Stormwater Management Manual standards. The remaining 15.35 acres of impervious permitted under 4113-9010.R to which no changes are proposed will continue to be treated under the 2002 Manual. While both the 2002 and 2018 stormwater will discharge to Muddy Brook, for purposes of proper calculations, these two treatment areas have been separated to two discharge points in the Standards of Compliance Workbook. Please note that the 16 proposed satellites on the site will have concrete mounting pads buried 12” beneath the ground surface and were therefore not considered in the impervious calculations. b) Receiving Body: Muddy Brook c) Fish Habitat Designation for Receiving Water: Cold d) Description of compliance with each of the treatment standards in the 2017 VSMM including the treatment practices or waivers used to meet each of the following standards: i) Post-Construction Soil Depth and Quality Standard: Topsoil depth is specified as the depth of the 0 and A horizons specified in the NRCS soils data. During construction and grading topsoil will be removed and stockpiled. ii) Groundwater Recharge Standard: The groundwater recharge standard is waived for the site as all soils are listed as HSG D. iii) Water Quality Treatment Standard (WQV): (1) S/N 001: The 15.35 acres of permitted impervious under 4113-9010.R which will not be altered by this project will continue to be treated via the existing catch basin collection system and detention pond. (2) S/N 002: Due to seasonal high water table between 0 and 24 inches of the ground surface, HSG D soils, and existing development, Tier 1 infiltration practices are not applicable on the site. The Water Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers 3 Quality Volume will be treated via a Tier 2 Gravel Wetland which is sized to contain 100% of the WQv in the gravel permanent pool. iv) Channel Protection Standard (CPV): (1) S/N 001: The 15.35 acres of permitted impervious under 4113-9010.R which will not be altered by this project will continue to be treated via the existing catch basin collection system and detention pond. (2) S/N 002: The Channel Protect Volume is met via 12-hour cold water extended detention within the gravel wetland. A 1.5” low-flow orifice provided at the permanent pool elevation within the gravel wetland outlet structure provides 753.5 min or 12.56 hours of extended detention. Note that the outlet structure will discharge to an existing stormwater manhole which further drains to the existing detention pond. v) Overbank Flood Protection Standard (QP10): (1) S/N 001: The 15.35 acres of permitted impervious under 4113-9010.R which will not be altered by this project will continue to be treated via the existing catch basin collection system and detention pond. (2) S/N 002: The Overbank Flood Protection standard is met through detention above the gravel wetland. QP10 discharge from the gravel wetland is controlled via the outlet structure overflow grate which detains discharge below the existing peak rate. Note that the outlet structure will discharge to an existing stormwater manhole which further drains to the existing detention pond. vi) Extreme Flood Protection Standard (QP100): (1) S/N 001: The 15.35 acres of permitted impervious under 4113-9010.R which will not be altered by this project will continue to be treated via the existing catch basin collection system and detention pond. (2) S/N 002: The Extreme Flood Protection standard is met through detention above the gravel wetland. QP100 discharge from the gravel wetland is controlled via the outlet structure overflow grate which detains discharge below the existing peak rate. Note that the outlet structure will discharge to an existing stormwater manhole which further drains to the existing detention pond. Water and Wastewater Design Flows - Grand SummaryJune 14, 201830 Community Drive - Technology ParkLot: 8aExisting Wastewater Design FlowProposed Water DemandSource Units QuantityFlow Per Unit (GPD)Design Flow (GPD)Source Units QuantityFlow Per Unit (GPD)Demand (GPD)Office Space Employees 453 15 6,795 Office Space Employees 453 15 6,795Restaurant - 48 seat Seats 48 30 1,440 Restaurant - 48 seat Seats 48 30 1,440Restaurant Employees Employees 15 15 225 Restaurant Employees Employees 15 15 225Warehouse Employees Employees 159 30 4,770 Warehouse Employees Employees 159 30 4,770Gym Employees - Planet Fitness Employees 10 15 150 Gym Employees - Planet Fitness Employees 10 15 150Gym Participants - Planet Fitness Participants 100 10 1,000 Gym Participants - Planet Fitness Participants 100 10 1,000Lab - ExistingEmployees 87 15 1,305 Lab - ExistingEmployees 87 15 1,305Lab - Additional Instrument Flows - 1 292 292 Lab - Additional Fixture Flows - 1 292 292Lab - Burlington Labs Employees 90 15 1,350 Lab - Burlington Labs Employees 90 15 1,350Lab - Burlington Labs Instrument Flow- 1 486 486 Lab - Burlington Labs Instrument Flow- 1 486 486Total Base Demand (GPD) 17,813Total Base Demand (GPD) 17,81320% Reduction for Municipal Connection (GPD)-3,563 Proposed Demand (GPD) 17,813 Proposed Demand (GPD)14,25020,00020,0005,7502,187Proposed Wastewater Design FlowSource Units QuantityFlow Per Unit (GPD)Design Flow (GPD)Source Units QuantityFlow Per Unit (GPD)Demand (GPD)Office Space Employees 453 15 6,795 Office Space Employees 453 15 6,795Restaurant - 48 seat Seats 48 30 1,440 Restaurant - 48 seat Seats 48 30 1,440Restaurant Employees Employees 15 15 225 Restaurant Employees Employees 15 15 225Warehouse Employees Employees 159 30 4,770 Warehouse Employees Employees 159 30 4,770Gym Employees - Planet Fitness Employees 10 15 150 Gym Employees - Planet Fitness Employees 10 15 150Gym Participants - Planet Fitness Participants 100 10 1,000 Gym Participants - Planet Fitness Participants 100 10 1,000Lab - ExistingEmployees 87 15 1,305 Lab - ExistingEmployees 87 15 1,305Lab - Additional Instrument Flows - 1 292 292 Lab - Additional Fixture Flows - 1 292 292Lab - Burlington Labs Employees 90 15 1,350 Lab - Burlington Labs Employees 90 15 1,350Lab - Burlington Labs Instrument Flow- 1 486 486 Lab - Burlington Labs Instrument Flow- 1 486 486Television Studio Employees 60 15 900 Television Studio Employees 60 15 900Total Base Demand (GPD) 18,713Total Base Demand (GPD) 18,71320% Reduction for Municipal Connection (GPD)-3,743 Proposed Demand (GPD) 18,713 Proposed Demand (GPD)14,97020,00020,0005,0301,287Unused Permitted Capacity:VacantFlows(Lot 8a 20,000 gpd design capacityunder WW-4-3040)TOTALPermitted Flow WW-4-3040 (GPD)TOTALPermitted Flow WW-4-3040 (GPD)Unused Permitted Capacity:VacantFlows(Lot 8a 20,000 gpd design capacityunder WW-4-3040)TOTAL Permitted Flow WW-4-3040 (GPD)Unused Permitted Capacity: Vacant Flows(Lot 8a 20,000 gpd design capacity underWW-4-3040)TOTAL Permitted Flow WW-4-3040 (GPD)Unused Permitted Capacity: Vacant Flows(Lot 8a 20,000 gpd design capacity underWW-4-3040) 1(:67((/)5$0(&$123<:0(7$/75,01(::22'/22.3$1(/61(:6,*1$*(72%(3(50,77('81'(56(3$5$7(6,*1$*(3(50,7(;,67,1*02',),('67((/&2/8011(:35()$%5,&$7('&$123<6,0,/$572(;,67,1*&$123,(61(:,168/$7('29(5+($''22561(:,168/$7('0(7$/3$1(/61(:%2//$5'61(:,168/$7('0(7$/'225,11(:'22523(1,1*'2:1&$67/('(;7(5,25),;785((;,67,1*&$123<72%(5(3/$&('6758&785(725(0$,1(;,67,1*'225725(0$,1(;,67,1*:,1'2:6725(0$,17<3(;,67,1*3$,17('(,)6(;,67,1*)$&(%5,&.'(02(;,6729(5+($''225'(02(;,67'22572%(5(3/$&('$1'5(/2&$7('(;,67,1*)$&(%5,&.$$(;,67,1*1(:(;,67,1*1(:SURMHFWQDPHVKHHWWLWOHVKHHWQRVFDOHSURMHFWQRFKHFNHGE\GUDZQE\GDWH3&$50,&+$(/67(66(;-81&7,21976&2773$571(56&20)$VLQGLFDWHG$06?633URMHFWV?&200(5&,$/?1%&5H$UFK?'UDZLQJV?5(9,7?1%&UYW1%&-53.$/%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$352*5(666(76287+%85/,1*72197 3$57,$/($67(/(9$7,21 352326(' 3$57,$/1257+(/(9$7,21352326(''DWH 5HYLVLRQV 3$57,$/($67(/(9$7,21 (;,67,1*&21',7,21 3$57,$/1257+(/(9$7,21 (;,67,1*&21',7,21 .(<3/$13(563(&7,9($7(175$1&(352326(' 6287+(175$1&((/(9$7,21352326(' 1257+(175$1&((/(9$7,21352326(' SURMHFWQDPHVKHHWWLWOHVKHHWQRVFDOHSURMHFWQRFKHFNHGE\GUDZQE\GDWH3&$50,&+$(/67(66(;-81&7,21976&2773$571(56&20)$06?633URMHFWV?&200(5&,$/?1%&5H$UFK?'UDZLQJV?5(9,7?1%&UYW1%&&KHFNHU$XWKRU(;,67,1*&21',7,216,0$*(6$352*5(666(76287+%85/,1*72197'DWH 5HYLVLRQV($67(/(9$7,21(175$1&(&$123<(;,67,1*&21',7,213$57,$/1257+(/(9$7,21(;,67,1*&21',7,21 Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Landscape Architecture Key Scientific Name Common Name Qty Size Price/Plant Total AF Acer freemenii Autumn Blaze Maple 7 2 2 1/2" Cal. B&B $600 $4,200 TOH Thuja occidentalis Holdstrup Cedar 13 5 Gal. Cont. $100 $1,300 'Holmstrup Dwarf' SP Syringa patula "Miss Kim" Miss Kim Lilac 10 3-4' B&B $115 $1,150VAVacinnium arboreum Low Bush Blueberry 25 3 Gal. Cont. $60 $1,500 Northcountry' Gravel WetlandsCC Carvex comosa Bottlebush Sedge 20 #1 Cont. $25 $500 IV Iris vericolor Blue Flag Iris 27 #1 Cont. $25 $675PC Pontedina cordata Pickeral Weed 36 #1 Cont. $25 $900 SA Scirpus atrovirens Dark Green Bulrush 20 #1 Cont. $25 $500 TOTAL $10,725 Replacement plantsPG Picea glauca 'Densata" White Spruce 22 5'-6' B&B $330 $7,260 Plants to be Replaced PS Pinus strobus White Pine 11 8-10' 18-048 PLANT LIST 6/15/2018 Jeff Goller, ASLA *note - exposed concrete base shown in photographs will be buried.Satellite Dish Example Photos*Satellite Dish Elevation - Full-sizeSatellite Dish Schematic - Large30 Community Drive6/14/2018dimensions are in inches U U U U U U U U U U `iÊnÎ{xÊ{°xÊiÌiÀÊ >ÀÌÊ-Ì>ÌÊÌi> -ODELISAMETER%ARTH3TATION!NTENNATHATGIVESYOU SUPERIORPERFORMANCETHROUGHTHEUSEOFPRECISIONSTRETCH STAMPEDSTEELREmECTORPANELSANDAHIGHEFlCIENCYPRIME FOCUS FEED4WELVEUNIFORMANDINTERCHANGEABLEREmECTORPANELSPRO VIDECONVENIENTHANDLINGLOWERSHIPPINGCOSTSANDEASYINSTALLA TION7ITHAFOUNDATIONINPLACEASFEWASTWOPEOPLECANINSTALL THEANTENNAINLESSTHANONEDAY4HEISIDEALLYSUITEDFOR AVARIETYOFVOICEVIDEOANDDATAAPPLICATIONSINCLUDINGCABLE TELEVISIONTRANSMITANDRECEIVEPROGRAMMING "«ÌÃ UÊ0IERFOUNDATIONKIT UÊ-OTORIZED%,!:MOUNTWITHCONTINUOUSAZIMUTHTRAVEL UÊ,IGHTNINGPROTECTION UÊ,INEAR+U BANDFEEDS UÊ,INEARANDCIRCULAR# BANDFEEDS UÊ#OMBINED#+U BANDFEEDS UÊ#ROSS AXISTRANSMITWAVEGUIDEK7# BAND7+U BAND UÊ$E ICING «>ÌÊÜÌÊ ]Ê--/]Ê / -/]Ê 1/ -/Ê/1Ê>`ÊÀi /Þ«iÊ>««ÀÛi`ÊvÀÊ / -/Ê-Ì>`>À`Ê£Ê >««V>ÌÃ }ivwViVÞ]ÊVÃÌivviVÌÛiÊ«ÀiÊvVÕÃÊ vii`Ê«ÌVÃÊVÕÃÌÊvii`ÃÊ>Û>>LiÊpÊ VÃÕÌÊv>VÌÀÞ® 1ÃiÊÜÌÊ L>`]Ê ÝÌi`i`Ê L>`]ÊÀ ÕL>`ÊÃÞÃÌiÃ ``ÊÕÀÊnnÈäÉnnÈ£ÉnnÈÓÊÌi>Ê ÌÀiÀÊÜÌÊ«>ÌiÌi`Ê`>«Ì/À>VÊvÀÊ >VVÕÀ>ÌiÊÌÀ>V} >ÊÃ>ÌiÌiÊÀi«Ì}ÊÌiÊÜÌÊ} Ã«ii`ÊÌÀâi`Ê«ÌÊ -ÌÀiÌVÃÌ>«i`ÊÃÌiiÊÀiyiVÌÀÊ}ÛiÃÊ VÃÃÌiÌÊÃÕÀv>ViÊ>VVÕÀ>VÞÊ>`ÊâiÃÊ Ã««}]ÊÃÌ>>Ì]Ê>`Ê>Ìi>ViÊVÃÌÃ Ê«>iÊ>}iÌÊÀiµÕÀi` *ÀÌiVÌi`ÊiÛÀiÌÊvÀÊ ÃÉ Ã Ê «>Ì * ,", Ê6 "]Ê6" ]Ê Ê/ÊÊÊ\ÊÊÊ ÊÊÊ\ÊÊÊ 8/ Ê ÊÊÊ\ÊÊÊÕ {°xÊiÌiÀ {°xÊiÌiÀ`iÊnÎ{xÊ >ÀÌÊ-Ì>ÌÊÌi> `iÊnÎ{xÊ >ÀÌÊ-Ì>ÌÊÌi> `iÊnÎ{xÊÌ>Vi "/ -\ Ê£Ê,iviÀiVi`Ê>ÌÊÎ°xÊâ ÊÓÊ,iviÀiVi`Ê>ÌÊ££°xÊâ ÊÎÊ,iviÀiVi`Ê>ÌÊÈ°£ÇxÊâ Ê{Ê,iviÀiVi`Ê>ÌÊ£{°ÓxÊâ ÊxÊÕÊiiÛ>ÌÊ>}iÊÃÊxcÊÜÌÊÌiÊÌÊ>ÀÊ`iV}Ê«ÌÊÃÌ>i` >Ì>Ì>ÊÊÊLi}ÊÊÊiÜÊ`iÊÊÊÀiÊÊÊÃ>Ê`i}ÊÊÊÃÞ`iÞ {ÎxÈÊ ÕV>ÌÃÊÀÛiÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ ÀVÀÃÃ]ÊiÀ}>ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÎääÎÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ1- Ìii«iÊ³£ÊÈÇn°Ó{°ÓÈÎÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊv>VÃiÊ³£ÊÇÇä°Îx°ÎÓnx ÜÜÜ°Û>Ã>Ì°V /iÊ6>->ÌÊ}ÊÃÊ>ÊÌÀ>`i>ÀÊvÊ6>->Ì]ÊVÀ«À>Ìi`°ÊÊÌiÀÊÌÀ>`i>ÀÃÊiÌi`Ê>ÀiÊÌiÊÃiÊ«À«iÀÌÞÊvÊÌiÀÊ ÀiÃ«iVÌÛiÊV«>iÃ°Ê-«iVwV>ÌÃÊ>`Ê«À`ÕVÌÊ>Û>>LÌÞÊ>ÀiÊÃÕLiVÌÊÌÊV>}iÊÜÌÕÌÊÌVi° ^Ê «ÞÀ}ÌÊÓääÎÊ6>->Ì]ÊV°ÊÊÀ}ÌÃÊÀiÃiÀÛi`°Ê*ÀÌi`ÊÊÌiÊ1-° -* /" - /, Ê Ê L>`Ê ÕL>` "«iÀ>Ì}ÊÀiµÕiVÞÊâ®\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ x°nxäÊqÊÈ°{ÓxÊ £{°äÊqÊ£{°x Ê ,iViÛiÊ Î°ÈÓxÊqÊ{°ÓÊ £ä°xÊq£Ó°Çx >Ê`L>`]Ê,iv°Êii`ÊÀ®\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ {È°nÊ` ÎÊ x{°ÎÊ` { Ê ,iViÛiÊ {Î°xÊ` £Ê xÎ°£Ê` Ó ii`ÊÃiÀÌÊÃÃÊ` ®\ *ÊqÊÓ*ÀÌÊ,8É,8Êi>À\ Ê ,iViÛiÊ ä°äx£Ê` Ê ä°£äÊ` ,/ÊqÊÓ*ÀÌÊ,8É/8Êi>À\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ ä°£äÊ` Ê ä°£äÊ` Ê ,iViÛiÊ ä°£äÊ` Ê ä°£ÓÊ` Î*ÊqÊÎ*ÀÌÊ,8É/8Êi>À\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ ÊÊ ÉÊ ä°ÓäÊ` Ê ,iViÛiÊ ÊÊ ÉÊ ä°ÓäÊ` * ÊqÊÓ*ÀÌÊ,8Êi>À\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ ÊÊ ÉÊ Ê É Ê ,iViÛiÊ ä°äÇÊ` Ê Ê É 6-7,\ Ê /8Ê £°Î\£Ê £°Î\£ Ê ,8Ê £°Î\£Ê £°Î\£ i>Ü`ÌÊÎÊ` ®\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ ä°nÎcÊ ä°Î{c Ê ,iViÛiÊ £°£äcÊ ä°{£c ÀÃÌÊ-`iLiÊiÛi\ Ê Ê £n°äÊ` Ê £n°äÊ` ,>`>ÌÊ*>ÌÌiÀ\ Ê Ê>`ÊÕL>`\ÊiiÌÃÊÃÌ>`>À`ÃÊÃiÌÊLÞÊ ]Ê / -/]Ê--/]Ê Ê 1/ -/]Ê/1Ê>`ÊÌiÀÃ° Ìi>Ê ÃiÊ/i«Ê/Þ«V>]Ê,iv°Êii`ÊÀ®\ iÛ>ÌÊ L>`Ê ÊÊÊÊÊÊÕL>` Ê £äcÊ ÓnÊÊ ÎÈÊ Ê ÓäcÊ ÓäÊÊ ÓÇÊ Ê ÎäcÊ £nÊÊ ÓxÊ Ê {äcÊ £xÊÊ Ó{Ê *ÜiÀÊ>`}Ê*iÀÊ/8Ê*ÀÌ\ Ê Ê xÊ7Ê 7®Ê £7Ê 7® ÀÃÃÊ*ÊÃ>ÌÊÊ>ÝÃ]Ê°®Êi>À®\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ ÎxÊ` Ê ÎxÊ` Ê ,iViÛiÊ ÎxÊ` Ê ÎxÊ` ii`Ê*ÀÌÊÃ>ÌÊ{*ÀÌÊi>À®\ Ê /8É,8Ê ÇäÊ` Ê ÇäÊ` Ê ,8É,8Ê>`Ê/8É/8Ê ÎxÊ` Ê ÎxÊ` Ìi>Ê>iÌiÀ\Ê{°xÊiÌiÀÃÊ£ÇnÊViÃ® Ìi>Ê/Þ«i\Ê«ÀiÊvVÕÃ ,iyiVÌÀÊ ÃÌÀÕVÌ\ Ê £ÓÊ«>iÃ]Ê«ÀiVÃÊÃÌÀiÌVÃÌ>«i`ÊÃÌii ÕÌÊ/Þ«i\ÊiiÛ>ÌÛiÀ>âÕÌ Ìi>Ê/À>Ûi\Ê Ê iÛ>Ì\Ê>Õ>ÊxcÊÌÊäc ÊÊ ÌÀâi`ÊäcÊÌÊäcÊVÌÕÕÃx Ê âÕÌ\Ê>Õ>ÊÎÈäcÊVÌÕÕÃ Ê Ê ÌÀâi`Ê£näcÊVÌÕÕÃ *>Àâ>ÌÊ`ÕÃÌiÌ\Ê Ê >Õ>\ÊÎÈäc Ê ÌÀâi`\Ê´äc Ìi>Ê/À>ÛiÊ,>ÌiÊÌÀâi`®\Ê Ê 6>ÀÕÃÊpÊVÃÕÌÊv>VÌÀÞ ii`ÊÌiÀv>Vi\ Ê /À>ÃÌÊ L>`\Ê *,£ÎÇ Ê /À>ÃÌÊÕL>`\Ê7,Çx Ê ,iViÛiÊ L>`\Ê *,ÓÓ Ê ,iViÛiÊÕL>`\Ê7,Çx 7i}ÌÊ L>`\Ê Ê iÌ\ÊxÓÊ}ÊÓ]£ääÊL°® Ê -«\Ê£]£ÇÊ}ÊÓ]ÈääÊL°® -««}Ê6Õi\Ê{°ÈÊVÕLVÊiÌiÀÃÊ£ÈÓÊVÕLVÊviiÌ® 6," / 7`Ê>`}\Ê Ê "«iÀ>Ì>\ÊÌÀâi`Ê£ÎÇÊÉÊnxÊ*® Ê -ÕÀÛÛ>\Ê Ê >Õ>Ê£ÇÇÊÉÊ££äÊ*®Ê>ÞÊ«ÃÌ]Ê£xcÊ ]ÊÊVi Ê ÌÀâi`ÊÓä£ÊÉÊ£ÓxÊ*®ÊÃÌÜi`]Ê£xcÊ ]ÊÊVi /i«iÀ>ÌÕÀiÊ,>}i\Ê Ê "«iÀ>Ì>\Ê{äcÊ ÊÌÊ³ÈxcÊ Ê{äcÊÊÌÊ³£xäcÊ® ÌÃ«iÀVÊ `ÌÃ\Ê Ê ->Ì]Ê«ÕÌ>ÌÃÊ>`ÊVÀÀÃÛiÊVÌ>>ÌÃÊ>ÃÊvÕ`ÊÊV>ÃÌ> Ê >`Ê`ÕÃÌÀ>Ê>Ài>Ã `iÊnÎ{xÊ >ÀÌÊ-Ì>ÌÊÌi>{°xÊiÌiÀ ÇÓÓÈ{äxääÓ Challenger Communications 704 North Clark Street Albion, Michigan 49224 USA Tel: +1 (517) 680 0125 Fax: +1 (517) 680 0133 info@challengercommunications.com www.ChallengerCommunications.com Rev. 2018.01.04. Typical data, subject to change without notice. COMMUNICATIONS 3.8m Prime Focus Antenna System Ku-Band and C-Band Options Features Multi-Feed Systems Available (up to 4) Available in Dual Axis Motorized and Az-El Fixed Pipe Head Mounts 125 Mph Wind Survival High Accuracy Antenna, Low Transportation Cost Complete Turnkey Systems Available Description The Challenger 3.8 Meter Prime Focus antenna is manufactured in the United States and is the symbol of quality in the antenna industry. This antenna features an aluminum reflector which is powder coated for superior protection against the elements. Challenger offers a variety of mounting options and stainless steel hardware is standard. The contoured petals with matched radial beams and hub assembly ensure easy installation without field alignment. Environmental Data Wind Loading Operational: 60 mph (100 km/h) Survival: 125 mph (200 km/h) Temperature Operational: -40° to 140° F (-40° to 60° C) Survival: -60° to 180° F (-51° to 82° C) Rain Operational: .5 in./hr (1.25 cm/hr) Survival: 3 in./hr (7.6 cm/hr) Ice Survival: 1 in. (2.5 cm) radial .5 in. (1.25 cm) radial + 60 mph (100 km/h) The 3.8m Prime Focus reflector consists of 16 draw die formed petals. Radial beams and outboard skirts are constructed of galvanneal steel. The contoured petals, radial beams, outboard skirts, and hub assembly are powder coated for superior protection against the elements. Stainless steel hardware is included. RF Specifications Ku-Band C-Band Receive Frequency (GHz) 10.95 - 12.75 3.625 - 4.2 Midband Gain 50.3 dBi 41.5 dBi Noise Temperature 55 K @ 10° 50 K @ 10° Ports/Polarization 1 or 2 port liner 1 or 2 port circular/1 or 2 port linear Polarization Rotation 360° Continuous Polarization Isolation 30 dB LP 30 dB LP VSWR Rx 1.4:1 Rx 1.4:1 Feed Flanges Rx WR75 Rx CPR 229G Mechanical Data Az-El Head Dual Axis Motorized F/D Ratio 0.413 0.413 Focal Distance 62.5 in. 62.5 in. Azimuth Travel 360° Continuous 120° Arc Elevation Travel 5° to 90° 20° to 90° Polarization Travel ±90° ±90° Total Weight 685 lbs. 715 lbs. Crate Dimensions 88 x 36 x 30 in. 88 x 36 x 30 in. Units/40 ft Container 39 units 36 units 3.8m Prime Focus Antenna System Mounted on 6.625” Pipe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´6&+3,3( ´2' VHLP6VHLP6--6W6W--6WH/B6WH/B 1.8 m | 6 ft ValuLine® High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized, 5.925–7.125 GHz, CPR137G, white antenna, flexible woven polymer gray radome without flash, standard pack—one-piece reflector Product Classification Brand ValuLine® Product Type Microwave antenna General Specifications Antenna Type VHLP - ValuLine® High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized Diameter, nominal 1.8 m | 6 ft Packing Standard pack Radome Color Gray Radome Material Polymer Reflector Construction One-piece reflector Antenna Input CPR137G Antenna Color White Antenna Type VHLP - ValuLine® High Performance Low Profile Antenna, single-polarized Diameter, nominal 1.8 m | 6 ft Flash Included No Polarization Single Electrical Specifications Operating Frequency Band 5.925 – 7.125 GHz Beamwidth, Horizontal 1.8 ° Beamwidth, Vertical 1.8 ° Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) 30 dB Electrical Compliance Brazil Anatel Class 3 | Canada SRSP 305.9 Part B | Canada SRSP 306.4 Part A | ETSI 302 217 Class 3 | US FCC Part 101A Front-to-Back Ratio 66 dB Gain, Low Band 38.5 dBi Gain, Mid Band 39.3 dBi Gain, Top Band 40.1 dBi Operating Frequency Band 5.925 – 7.125 GHz Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) 7138B Return Loss 17.7 dB VSWR 1.30 Mechanical Specifications Fine Azimuth Adjustment ±15° Fine Elevation Adjustment ±5° Product SpecificationsProduct Specifications ©©2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by 2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® ® or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope.or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017 page 1 of 5page 1 of 5 May 21, 2018May 21, 2018 Mounting Pipe Diameter 115 mm–120 mm | 4.5 in–4.7 in Net Weight 86 kg | 190 lb Side Struts, Included 1 Side Struts, Optional 1 inboard Wind Velocity Operational 180 km/h | 112 mph Wind Velocity Survival Rating 250 km/h | 155 mph Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Angle α for MT Max -120 ° Axial Force (FA) 10670 N | 2399 lbf Side Force (FS) 5286 N | 1188 lbf Twisting Moment (MT) 4752 N•m Weight with 1/2 in (12 mm) Radial Ice 234 kg | 516 lb Zcg with 1/2 in (12 mm) Radial Ice 543 mm | 21 in Zcg without Ice 363 mm | 14 in Product SpecificationsProduct Specifications VHLP6VHLP6--6W6W--6WH/B6WH/B ©©2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by 2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® ® or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope.or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017 page 2 of 5page 2 of 5 May 21, 2018May 21, 2018 Wind Forces At Wind Velocity Survival Rating Image Packed Dimensions Gross Weight, Packed Antenna 127.0 kg | 280.0 lb Height 211.0 cm | 83.1 in Length 190.0 cm | 74.8 in Volume 1.8 m³ Width 45.0 cm | 17.7 in Product SpecificationsProduct Specifications VHLP6VHLP6--6W6W--6WH/B6WH/B ©©2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by 2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® ® or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope.or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017 page 3 of 5page 3 of 5 May 21, 2018May 21, 2018 Antenna Dimensions And Mounting Information Regulatory Compliance/Certifications Agency Classification ISO 9001:2008 Designed, manufactured and/or distributed under this quality management system * Footnotes Axial Force (FA) Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. Cross Polarization Discrimination (XPD) The difference between the peak of the co-polarized main beam and the maximum cross-polarized signal over an angle twice the 3 dB beamwidth of the co-polarized main beam. Front-to-Back Ratio Denotes highest radiation relative to the main beam, at 180° ±40°, across Product SpecificationsProduct Specifications VHLP6VHLP6--6W6W--6WH/B6WH/B ©©2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by 2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® ® or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope.or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017 page 4 of 5page 4 of 5 May 21, 2018May 21, 2018 the band. Production antennas do not exceed rated values by more than 2 dB unless stated otherwise. Gain, Mid Band For a given frequency band, gain is primarily a function of antenna size. The gain of Andrew antennas is determined by either gain by comparison or by computer integration of the measured antenna patterns. Operating Frequency Band Bands correspond with CCIR recommendations or common allocations used throughout the world. Other ranges can be accommodated on special order. Packing Andrew standard packing is suitable for export. Antennas are shipped as standard in totally recyclable cardboard or wire-bound crates (dependent on product). For your convenience, Andrew offers heavy duty export packing options. Radiation Pattern Envelope Reference (RPE) Radiation patterns define an antenna’s ability to discriminate against unwanted signals. Under still dry conditions, production antennas will not have any peak exceeding the current RPE by more than 3dB, maintaining an angular accuracy of +/-1° throughout Return Loss The figure that indicates the proportion of radio waves incident upon the antenna that are rejected as a ratio of those that are accepted. Side Force (FS) Maximum side force exerted on the mounting pipe as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. Twisting Moment (MT) Maximum forces exerted on a supporting structure as a result of wind from the most critical direction for this parameter. The individual maximums specified may not occur simultaneously. All forces are referenced to the mounting pipe. VSWR Maximum; is the guaranteed Peak Voltage-Standing-Wave-Ratio within the operating band. Wind Velocity Operational The wind speed where the antenna deflection is equal to or less than 0.1 degrees. In the case of ValuLine antennas, it is defined as a maximum deflection of 0.3 x the 3 dB beam width of the antenna. Wind Velocity Survival Rating The maximum wind speed the antenna, including mounts and radomes, where applicable, will withstand without permanent deformation. Realignment may be required. This wind speed is applicable to antenna with the specified amount of radial ice. Product SpecificationsProduct Specifications VHLP6VHLP6--6W6W--6WH/B6WH/B ©©2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by 2018 CommScope, Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks identified by ® ® or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope.or ™ are registered trademarks, respectively, of CommScope. All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017All specifications are subject to change without notice. See www.commscope.com for the most current information. Revised: October 25, 2017 page 5 of 5page 5 of 5 May 21, 2018May 21, 2018 #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 1 1 of 8 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐18‐24_7 Aspen Dr_Pines Housing LP_PrlmFinal_2018‐ 07‐17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 12, 2018 Plans received: June 14, 2018 7 Aspen Drive Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐24 Meeting date: July 17, 2018 Owner/Applicant Pines Housing, LP 7 Aspen Drive, Suite 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC 145 Deronde Road Montpelier, VT 05602 Property Information Tax Parcel 0072‐0007C Residential 7 District 7.45 acres Location Map #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 2 2 of 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐18‐24 of Pines Housing LP to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 184 unit congregate housing facility and 2) a 104 unit extended stay hotel in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 2,300 square foot building addition for the purpose of expanding the administrative office space for the congregate care facility, 7 Aspen Drive. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is within the Residential 7 district and the transit overlay district. It is on a parcel identified as Lot 4 in the approved plans for the PUD. The existing building is contained within a footprint lot on Lot 4. There is an existing wetland through the subject property. The PUD has been the subject of several amendments, but the most recent substantial amendment was to allow construction of the existing extended stay hotel in 1999. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 3/16/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The Project consists of a one‐story addition to the existing building which is used as a congregate care facility. Congregate care is a conditional use in the R7 district. The addition is therefore subject to Conditional Use and Site Plan standards. The property is within an existing PUD, and thus the proposed addition also requires an amendment to the PUD. Conditional and site plan review are incorporated into the PUD review. The applicant also wishes to adjust the footprint lots to allow the proposed addition to be on the same footprint lot as the existing building. The Board reviewed a sketch plan application on April 17, 2018. During the hearing, the Board discussed bicycle parking, footprint lots, parking for the proposed expansion, and stormwater. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions The applicant has indicated that the proposed dimensional standards of the zoning district will continue to be met, with the exception of the side yard setback which is an existing non‐conformity and is not proposed to be affected by this Project. The building itself is located on an existing footprint lot, which has separate ownership from the adjoining lot. The applicant proposes to modify the existing footprint lot to include the area of the addition, plus five feet. The footprint lot does not meet lot coverage or setback requirements therefore the Board cannot recognize its existence. Staff has no concerns about the zoning district or dimensional standards of the overall lot. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Standards #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 3 3 of 8 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 project consists of a minor addition to the rear of the existing building. The project is located within the Northwest Quadrant in the Plan. Staff considers this criterion to be 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. The proposed addition is located on the north side of the existing building and will be screened from view from adjacent properties by existing vegetation and structures. Access to the addition will principally be from existing entries to the building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) – (vii) N/A No changes to the existing parking are proposed. 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. Design and materials for the proposed addition appear to be consistent with the existing architecture and materials for the remainder of the building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No additional roads or driveways are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 4 4 of 8 B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. No new utility connections are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The existing waste disposal location, located interior to the building, will continue to be used. Staff considers this criterion met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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 minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. As part of this project, the applicant provided the City with a summary of existing vegetation, vegetation that was required originally to be planted that is not currently present, and proposed new vegetation, and the values of each. A significant portion of the vegetation that was originally required to be planted but is not currently present is located in an area that is now a wetland. That area, however, is heavily vegetated with mature trees that have grown up. Staff and the applicant met at the site and reviewed missing and proposed additions to landscaping. Staff found it reasonable to count existing landscaping located outside of wetlands and wetland buffers as creditable landscaping. Staff does not recommend that existing landscaping within the wetlands and wetland buffers should be given credit, since they would not have been permitted to be removed in the first place. Similarly, upon review of the overall site plan, Staff found it fair and reasonable to not count the landscaping that was supposed to be planted in the wetland as “missing” since the area is both fully mature in landscaping and since tree planting in a wetland would not be consistent with standards today. Using the above calculation, the value of existing landscaping beyond what was required is $87,518 and the value of landscaping that is missing is $65,600. Staff therefore considers that the amount of existing and proposed landscaping on the site, as shown on the plan, are sufficient to meet the requirements of the regulations both for any missing landscaping and for the additional required landscaping generated by the building addition. Staff has recommended a few additional minor changes to the landscape plan that the applicant may bring to the meeting. Staff considers these sufficiently minor to be approvable or approvable with conditions at the meeting. #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 5 5 of 8 1. The required landscape value for the new building is $8,625 based on 3% of the building construction cost of $276,000. The applicant is providing $9,190 in new landscaping. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to post a landscape bond in the amount of $9,190 for new landscaping. E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. Setback and site coverage requirements are met. 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 reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. LID practices are not proposed. The property is covered by a state operational stormwater permit (1‐1117). During the sketch plan hearing the applicant represented that the State stormwater permit would need to be modified for the proposed building expansion. Since then, the applicant has received notice from the State Stormwater Program that the proposed expansion is exempt from their permitting requirements because it is less than the allowable 5,000 square foot net expansion since 2002. The Stormwater Section reviewed the application on July 10, 2018 and has no concerns. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general standards for all PUDs. (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. No additional units or employees are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be 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‐18‐24 Staff Comments 6 6 of 8 The applicant has provided an erosion prevention and sediment control plan (Sheet C2.1) and details (Sheet C3.0). Staff considers this criterion met. (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 access will remain unchanged for the property. 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 applicant has provided a wetland report from the State wetland program. The on‐site wetland is Class III. The City regulates Class III wetland buffers, but neither the State nor the US Army Corps of Engineers does. Therefore it is the Board’s responsibility to evaluate compliance with the wetland buffer protection criteria of Article 12. The proposed project results in building and sidewalk construction within the 50‐foot Class III wetland buffer. Total impacts include 3,500 s.f. of temporary impacts and 750 s.f. of permanent impacts. Impacts have been mitigated by minimizing construction access to only what is necessary to provide access to the project limits. E. Standards for Wetlands Protection … (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. Based on the State wetlands report, the site plan, and stormwater plans for the property, staff considers these criterion to be met. 2. The Board should determine whether to grant a 3,500 s.f. temporary, and 750 s.f. permanent impact upon the Class III wetland buffer on the property for this addition. #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 7 7 of 8 (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 proposed building will be located in the area between two wings of the existing building. Staff considers this criterion 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 proposed addition will reduce the amount of available open space, but lot coverage requirements will be met. 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 acting Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/10/2018 and notes that the fire alarm and fire suppression systems will need to be extended into the new space, otherwise has no concerns. 3. Staff recommends the Board include the acting Fire Chief’s comment as a condition of approval. (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. Only minor changes to the existing sidewalk are proposed. 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. No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review standards above. (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. #SD‐18‐24 Staff Comments 8 8 of 8 The proposed addition will run off onto adjacent pervious surfaces. The Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on 7/10/2018 and has no concerns. OTHER Bicycle Parking In the Land Development Regulations, congregate care facilities are treated separately from general residential facilities. The congregate care facility could be considered either residential, requiring 1 short term bike parking space for every 10 units, or “all other”, requiring 1 short term bike parking space for every 5,000 square feet. Staff considers that either calculation would be acceptable, at the applicant’s discretion. The applicant must comply with 50% of the requirement for the entire congregate care facility and 100% of the requirement for the addition. Staff further considers that the bicycle parking requirements are triggered by site plan review and therefore only the portion of the PUD subject to site plan review need be made compliant with bicycle parking standards at this time, not the entire PUD. The applicant has chosen to calculating the congregate care facility as residential. Therefore 19 bicycle parking spaces are required at 1 space per 10 units for 185 units. At this time, 10 bicycle parking spaces are therefore required. The applicant has proposed five inverted‐U style bicycle racks, distributed around the entrances of the buildings and shown on the Landscaping Site Plan Sheet C2.2. Staff considers this criterion met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner LOCATION KEYBOTANICAL NAME ITEM1997 Plan RequirementExisting QtyMissing QtyAdditional QtySize: 6-10" Size: 11-15" Size: >16"Estimated Value Per Item^Total Value of Missing ItemsTotal Value of Additional DifferenceAL SERVICEBERRY AMELANCHIER LAEVIS 2 2AN Acer negundo Box Alder 1 1 $2,900 $2,900($2,900)AP Acer platanoides NORWAY MAPLE* 1 1 $6,000 $0 $6,000($6,000)AR Acer rubrum Red Maple 25 6 10 9 $3,536 $88,400($88,400)BA Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 17 13 3 1 $3,071 $52,200($52,200)BP Betula Papyrifera PAPER BIRCH 8 7 1 1 $700 $700 $0 $700CA Carpinus Hornbeam 2 2 $2,900 $5,800($5,800)CM Tsuga canadensis Hemlock 39 11 14 14 $2,959 $115,400($115,400)CS RED TWIG DOGWOOD CORNUS SIBERICA 35 35FA Fagus Beech 19 4 6 9 $3,295 $62,600($62,600)FP Fraxinus pennsylvanica SUMMIT ASH** 27 22 5 2 2 $6,500 $32,500 $13,000 $19,500MC Malus CENTZAM CENTURION CRABAPPLE 7 7 2 2 $900 $0 $1,800($1,800)PM MUGO PINE Pinus MUGO MUGO 87 87$230 $0 $0 $0PN Pinus nigra AUSTRIAN PINE 33 22 11 $1,200 $13,200 $0 $13,200PO Populus Cottonwood 3 1 2 $3,300 $9,900($9,900)PRU Prunus SP. CHERRY SPECIMAN 1 1 $6,000 $0 $6,000($6,000)PS PINUS strobus WHITE PINE 69 32 37 $2,400 $88,800 $0 $88,800RP Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 8 1 7 0 $3,425 $27,400($27,400)RPJM PJM RHODODENDRON RHODODENDRON PJM 89 89SB PINK SPIREA SPIRAEA BUMALDI 68 68SP DWARF KOREAN LILAC SYRING PATULA 46 46TC JAPANESE YEW TAXUS CUSPIDATA 140 140UA Ulmus americana American Elm 3 3 $2,900 $8,700($8,700)Benches Custom made Vermont benches7 $650 $4,550($4,550)Sign Custom Sign Flower bed w/ rock wall1 $5,000 $5,000($5,000)Patio1 Additional 790 sq. ft. patio area in back1 $9,480 $9,480($9,480)ST Antique statues- marble/steel/mill wheels 2 $2,500 $5,000($5,000)TOTAL $135,200 $424,130($288,930)LOCATION KEYBOTANICAL NAMEProposed QuantitySize at PlantingSize at MaturityEstimated Value Per ItemTotal Value of Proposed ARAcer Rubrum1 3" 40-60' $1,200 $1,260 Price includes installation of 3" caliper treeBS Buxus Sempervirens4 10" 28" $60 $300CAB Cornus alba 'Baihalo' PP87222 15" 60" $20 $100HP Hydrangea paniculata18 20" 48" $75 $1,410MPMyrica Pennsylvanica10 48" 9' $290 $2,960 Price includes removal of old trees/stumps and installationPatio2 14x14' Aggregate Concrete Patio1N/AN/A$2,980 $2,980SN Salvia Nemorosa4 6" 20" $30 $180TOTAL $9,190Items that are existing on site today, per the 1997 landscaping planExisting Landscaping TOTAL:($288,930)Items that are additional to 1997 landscaping plan^^Proposed Landscaping TOTAL:$9,190Items that are missing from 1997 landscaping plan^*Required 3% of Construction:$8,625Items that are proposed for new planting/landscapingDifference($306,745)NOTE: A large amount of shrubs and other perennials are not listed on this spreadsheet because they are in accordance with the 1997 landscaping plan. *Invasive Species, no longer available for sale**Species under quarantine, no longer available for sale^Price per item estimated using average number of planting szie^^$65,600 missing landscaping that is OUTSIDE WETLAND BUFFER, the rest is inside Wetland buffer^*$87,518 is additional landscaping that is OUTSIDE WETLAND BUFFER, the rest is indie Wetland BufferCrystal Blue SalviaLandscaping Survey Review for LOT 4 of the Dorset Land Company PUDEXISTING LANDSCAPINGITEMLink to Details/PhotoPROPOSED LANDSCAPINGRed MapleBoxwood (globe)DogwoodLittle Quick Fire Hardy Hydrangea (Scarlet)Bayberry14x14' Patio The City Lights Building 106 East Allen, Suite 506 Winooski, VT 05404 Tel: 802-497-3653 May 23, 2018 Lindsay Brush Getz Director of Operations Summit Properties 7 Aspen Drive, Suite 1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Green Mountain Development Pines Office Expansion Existing Landscaping Assessment Ms. Getz: Thank you for selecting EIV Technical Services (EIV) to support your landscape survey assessment for the property at 7 Aspen Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. Scott Hance, Landscape Specialist (EIV), completed a survey of the viable landscape plantings in the area surrounding 7 Aspen Drive as depicted on the Map below. The quantities were tallied and compared to those of the original Planting Plan, dated 2/24/1997. The original planting plan incorporated a number of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in addition to flowering perennials into the areas surrounding the two buildings (Attachment 1—Planting Plan). Map: Area of Landscape Survey A survey was performed on April 10, 2018 and on May 11, 2018. The beds were recently cut back for spring maintenance and heavily mulched—therefore, the overall count for emergent perennials located in the foundation planting may be less than what is actually viable. Another limiting factor in regards to the accuracy of the survey is that the original quantities in the foundation beds were grouped together as an overall count per bed in the Planting Plan. The surveyed species within the foundation beds were tallied in a combined total (see the Landscape Survey Summary). Green Mountain Development Pines Office Expansion EIV Technical Services June 14, 2018 Page | 2 We found the existing foundation beds to be well-vegetated. It is also important to recognize that landscaping practices often evolve over time as concerns emerge regarding plants being developed and pests introduced. In terms of the original planting, there are several species, some in significant quantity that would not be available or recommended in today’s industry. The original design includes two species that are considered invasive and no longer sold in Vermont (Acer platanoides ‘Emerald Queen’ and Euonymus alatus compacta). Another concern is that although Pinus nigra is extremely salt tolerant—making it desirable for parking lot plantings but it is also extremely susceptible to Dothistroma needle blight, a common pine pathogen which kills needles of all ages and can weaken or kill Austrian pine trees. The Pinus nigra surrounding the parking lot to the south of 7 Aspen Drive exhibit severe symptoms of this. Additionally, local nurseries no longer stock Fraxinus pennsylvania ‘Summit’ due to the presence of Emerald ash borer in the state. Therefore, although the ash trees along the southern sidewalk appear in good health, it will not be possible to supplement the planting. Lastly, many of the Pinus strobus, designated for planting along the northwestern border of 7 Aspen Drive would be within the limits of the wetland delineation. Although native pines are sometimes found within these areas, it is extremely unlikely that a planted specimen would flourish in such conditions. Given these considerations and the ample plantings within the existing beds, additional plantings in the existing landscaped area is not recommended. Many of the woody shrubs and evergreens surrounding 7 Aspen Drive are considered healthy and vibrant. Specifically, it is not recommended that anything be added to the foundation bed surrounding the north side of 5 Aspen Drive as it is extremely over-crowded. In the island bed to the north of 5 Aspen Drive, there was evidence of a considerable number of perennials planted amongst the four Malus centzam. New landscaping beds surrounding the proposed office expansion where there is maintained lawn area would be appropriate. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this submission, 802-497-3653. Sincerely, EIV Technical Services Scott Hances, ISA Landscape Specialist Please add this document to your land records for reference Wetland is Class III:Please be advised that I have confirmed that you have one or more Class III wetlands on your property. Class III wetlands are not protected under the Vermont Wetland Rules (VWR). No State Wetland permit is required for activities occurring in Class III wetlands. This report outlines the reasons for this decision. Because wetland character, size, and function can change over time, the Wetlands Program recommends seeking a reevaluation of wetland status every 5 years, to avoid a potential violation of the VWR. If you disagree with this decision you can petition for a formal wetland classification determination of Class II as outlined under the petition section of this report. The following table(s) document the reasons for this decision. Wetland Name: 1 Wetland Location:Immediately west of Aspen Drive Desktop Review Only? Yes No Site Visit Date:April 10, 2018 People Present:Tina Heath, Jacquie Dagesse Wetland is Mapped: Yes No Wetland is contiguous to mapped wetland: Yes No Wetland was found to meet the following presumption(s) of significance: Presumptions have not been assessed. Wetland meets classification by other means. §4.6(a) over half an acre in size; §4.6(b) contains woody vegetation and is adjacent to a stream, river, or open body of water; §4.6(c) contains dense, persistent non-woody vegetation and is adjacent to a stream, river, or open body of water; §4.6(d) is a vernal pool that provides amphibian breeding habitat; §4.6(e) is a headwater wetland; §4.6(f) adjacent to impaired waters and the impairment is related to wetland water quality functions; §4.6(g) the wetland contains a species that appears in the NNHP database as rare, threatened, endangered or uncommon; or is a natural community type that is rare or uncommon; §4.6(h) has been previously designated as a significant wetland. Presumption Description:Wetland may be approximately 0.5 acres in size. Sketch Map of general wetland area (not a delineation): [Mapped wetland 2018-050: 7 Aspen Drive, SBTV Wetland Report Monday, April 30, 2018 5:41 PM Template Project YEAR-NUM Page 1 delineation): [Mapped wetland in teal, hydric soils in orange, advisory wetlands in green, wetland sketch in light blue, area reviewed in yellow] Photo: Preliminary Classification: Class II Class III Class III justification: The subject wetland exists along a drainage that connects to what appears to be a stormwater management system (catch basins were observed in parking lots on edge of the stormwater area). This system is not connected to a larger wetland (south of the Juniper House parking lot in map above) area that is south of subject wetland . An access road and parking lots separate the two wetland areas; no culverts were observed. The subject wetland may be 0.5 acres in size in conjunction with the stormwater area, and is most likely a result of the physical manipulation of the landscape. Wetlands Determination Petition Process If you disagree with this report, you may request a formal determination of wetland classification, pursuant to Section 8 of the VWR. To request a §8 formal determination of wetland classification, please fill out and submit the petition form located on the Vermont Wetlands Program’s website “Permit Information” page. Formal determinations are appealable pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 917. Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Division of the Superior Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Division; and must be signed by the appellant or their attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project, or facility with which the appeal is concerned; the name of the permittee; and any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Division is: 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401 (Tel. # 802-951-1740). Template Project YEAR-NUM Page 2 More Information is Available on the Wetlands Program Website For more on state wetland permitting and how to apply for a permit visit the Wetlands Permit Information Page, at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/jurisdictional/permit-info For more on wetland classifications visit the Jurisdictional Wetland Page at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/jurisdictional For more about Allowed Uses visit the Allowed Uses Page at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/bmps For more on wetland classification petitions and forms visit the Wetlands Permit Information Page, at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/jurisdictional/permit-info To find a wetland consultant to help with applying for a permit or petitioning see our Wetland Consultant List Page at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/what/id/wetland-consultant-list Other Wetland Permit Obligations In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material, including mechanized land clearing and grading, in all waters of the United States, including inland rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. For detailed information on Corps permits and regulations call (802) 872-2893. It is the applicants responsibility to determine if your project also requires an Corps permit. In addition, your town may have local regulations regarding wetland protection. Please call your town clerk to verify any local regulations. Please add this document to your land records for reference Template Project YEAR-NUM Page 3 5/17/2018 GlobalIndustrial.com - Material Handling Equipment|Workbenches|Furniture|Tools|Motors|HVAC https://www.globalindustrial.com/printProduct?itemKey=30196515 6/9 Product Specifications LENGTH INCHES 14-1/2 HEIGHT INCHES 34 CAPACITY 2 Bikes COLOR FINISH Black ASSEMBLY Unassembled BRAND Global Industrial™ CONSTRUCTION 12-Gauge Steel MOUNT TYPE Flange for Existing Cement TUBE DIAMETER INCHES 1-5/8 TYPE U-Bike Rack WEIGHT LBS 12.2 Photo Gallery 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: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SP‐18‐22 1696 Williston Road Site Plan DATE: July 17, 2018 Development Review Board meeting Corey Gottfried has submitted site plan application #SP‐18‐22 to amend a previously approved plan by construction a 20‐foot by 23‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant at 1696 Williston Road. At the June 19, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the Board reviewed the application. The Board was satisfied with the applicant’s response to highlighted issues as they pertain to utilities, parking striping, parking dimensions, and access and circulation. The Board requested the applicant address the shade tree requirements of the Section 13.06B Parking Lot Landscaping. The applicant met with Staff and identified two locations to remove pavement and install shade trees on the property. One location is at the north property boundary. The applicant met with DPW staff who indicated they would support the applicant removing pavement outside of their property line to provide additional space for the shade tree, and that they would waive the road opening permit fee. Staff requested the applicant limit the work shown on the plan to within the property for simplicity with DRB permitting, but supports removal of the additional pavement. The second location is at the southeast corner of the property. The proposed tree will not provide shade for the parking spaces, but will provide screening and shading for the building, and will present a desirable aesthetic from Williston Road. Given the site constraints, Staff considers this location acceptable. At the time of writing, the City arborist has not yet reviewed the proposed tree configuration. Staff is going to attempt to get feedback from the City arborist prior to Tuesday’s hearing. Since their initial submission, the applicant indicates they have obtained a new construction cost estimate of $40,000 (down from $55,000 initial estimate). This results in a reduced required landscaping cost of $1,200. With the revised submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing $1,200 in landscaping, and has swapped a number of juniper bushes for seasonal plantings. Staff has no concerns with this change. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 1 1 of 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐18‐22_194 Tilley_Pizzagalli_Prlm Final_2018‐07‐17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 12, 2018 Plans received: June 8, 2018 194 Tilley Drive Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐19 Meeting date: July 17, 2018 Owner/Applicant Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Donald Hamlin Consulting Engineers, Inc. 136 Pearl Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 1718‐00194 Industrial & Open Space District 15.07 acres Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐18‐19 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC to construct a two‐story, 54,868 sq. ft. medical office building with 275 parking spaces on 15.07 acres, 194 Tilley Drive. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Industrial & Open Space District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay District and a portion of the property is located in the Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A. In 2006, the applicant received final plat approval for a 58,400 square foot general and medical office building on this #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 2 2 of 10 property (#SD‐06‐108). The applicant failed to record a mylar and the approval expired. The current configuration differs significantly from the prior approval. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 3/8/18 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The Board held a sketch plan hearing for the property on April 3, 2018. The Board raised the concerns about open space and landscaping, and about the way the parking lot presented as a large unbroken expanse of pavement. In addition, the applicant represented that at that time they were working with the state stormwater program to determine if their stormwater treatment system would need to be modified to incorporate infiltration. These topics are discussed below. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions Industrial and Open Space District Required Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 ac. 15.07 ac.  Max. Building Coverage 30% 4%  Max. Overall Coverage 50% 21%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 230 ft. Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 19% 1  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. 76 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. 399 ft.  Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 35 ft. 2 1. Estimated by staff 2. Roof height 28‐feet, 35‐feet with rooftop appurtenances Industrial‐Open Space District (IO) The purpose of the IO district is, in part, to provide suitable locations for high‐quality, large‐lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high‐quality planned developments that preserve the generally open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth. Specific standards within the IO district are as follows. A. Site plan or PUD review required. This application is being reviewed as a site plan. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 3 3 of 10 B. Multiple structures and uses permitted Only one building is proposed. Staff considers this criterion met. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of these districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible. (3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The applicant has indicated they are not interested in a shared parking arrangement at this time. Internal circulation is discussed under 14.06B(1) below. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is located in the Northeast Quadrant, in an area designated for medium to higher intensity, primarily non‐residential land use. Quadrant objectives relate to allowing opportunities for employers in need of larger amounts of space, and providing a balanced mix of recreation, resource conservation and business park opportunities to include the conservation of open space resources. Tilley Drive is specifically called out as an area to focus City resources in support of the build out of high density business and technology and mixed use centers. This area is identified as critical to economic and employment growth of the City. 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. The applicant has provided for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity to the adjacent parcel at 192 Tilley Drive, and pedestrian connectivity to the existing recreation path to the north. There do not appear to be designated walking routes connecting the most remote parking spaces to the main entrance of the building. 1. Staff recommends the Board whether to require the applicant to improve internal pedestrian safety by the inclusion of pedestrian routes through the parking lot. (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. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 4 4 of 10 (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) – (vii) N/A Staff considers that the first three electric vehicle parking spaces are located to the front of the building. Section 6.05C above provides for some flexibility in allowing parking to be placed to the front of the building in industrial districts, but does not describe how this flexibility is to be implemented. Staff considers the criterion of 14.06B(2) as descriptive of how the Board has the ability to implement the flexibility described in Section 6.05C. 2. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to relocate the parking spaces located to the front of the building, or to replace them with accessible parking spaces to comply with these criteria, or remove them and request a small waiver to provide slightly fewer than the required minimum number of parking spaces. 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. The applicant has provided information representing the architectural characteristics of the proposed building. The provided landscaping plan appears to use a consistent architectural and landscaping scheme with the adjacent building at 192 Tilley Drive. (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. Staff considers that the proposed structure is generally well related to the adjoining building at 192 Tilley Drive in terms of height and scale. The applicant has provided architectural drawings to support this criterion. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff considers the likelihood of connection to adjacent properties to be low given the presence of wetlands and of the interstate. Staff considers this criterion met. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Utilities are proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion met. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 5 5 of 10 C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant is proposing a screened dumpster pad with rolling gate. The applicant has not indicated the type of screening that is proposed. 3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide detail on dumpster screening prior to closing the hearing. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Section 13.06B of the Land Development Regulations addresses landscaping of parking areas as follows. (1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking. The applicant has provided a parking island plan. Three of the islands the applicant has identified as landscape islands are proposed to be surfaced with pavers. Staff estimates the area of these islands to be approximately 1,936 square feet. Without these islands, the provided landscape islands exceed 10% of the interior of the parking lot. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. The west and south perimeter landscape areas do not have curbing. 4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to include curbing on these islands. Staff considers this can be a condition of approval. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 6 6 of 10 1. Landscaping Requirements (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. (c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball. (d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking lot and the site. (e) N/A The applicant is proposing 275 parking spaces, requiring 55 trees. The applicant is proposing 62 trees within and near the perimeter of the parking lot. Trees are generally spaced thirty (30) feet apart. A small number of trees are spaced less than 30 feet apart. 5. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposed spacing as it meets the goal of this criterion to provide shade and reduce glare by supporting healthier trees. The required minimum landscape value is $$, as follows. Total Building Construction Cost % of total Construction Cost Required Value $0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional Over $500,000 1% $67,792 Total $80,292 The applicant is proposing $76,136 in landscape value. This number does not include the proposed perennials or ornamental grasses, which are not trees or shrubs and therefore do not count towards the required minimum value. It does include $48,636 in proposed site pavers and landscape walls, which the applicant has requested be applied towards the required landscape value as provided for in Section 13.06G(3). 6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the required minimum landscape value in trees and shrubs. Staff recommends the Board accept the site pavers and landscape walls as contributing towards the minimum landscape value. The undeveloped portion of the site is relatively well developed, though Staff considers additional trees to screen the parking area from the interstate as described in Section 13.06C(7) may present an opportunity to make up the required landscape value. (5) N/A (6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 7 7 of 10 for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. Snow storage areas are shown as a thin dotted line on the Overall Site Plan. Staff considers this criterion met. E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. Setback and site coverage requirements are met. 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 reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. LID practices are not proposed. The property is covered by a state operational stormwater permit (3805‐ INDS.1R1) for the two ponds which will provide treatment for the proposed development. The applicant is in the process of updating their state stormwater permit to reflect the additional building. The Stormwater Section reviewed the application on 7/9/2018 and offers the following comments. Marla, The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Mountain View Office Park – Lot 5, 194 Tilley Drive” site plan prepared by Donald L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 5/16/18 and last updated on 6/7/18. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require an operational stormwater permit and construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. 2. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre or more of impervious surface, the project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs. 3. The applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(1) of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are met. a. If infiltration of the Water Quality Volume is not feasible, the applicant should provide justification, in accordance with §12.03(D)(1)(d) of the LDRs. b. Please provide any soil borings or test pits to confirm D soils on site. 4. Please submit the HydroCAD model for verification of modeling methodology. It appears that Weighted‐CN was used, rather than Weighted‐Q. 5. Please submit plans that show details of existing Stormwater ponds to confirm capacity. 6. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 8 8 of 10 Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave The applicant has received the stormwater section’s comments and is working on responses. 7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to resolve the issues identified above prior to closing the hearing. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. There are no new roadways proposed as part of the project. The applicable portion of Section 15.12 addressing roadways, parking and circulation is as follows. 15.12F. Entrances (1) The nearest signalized intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service “D” or better at full buildout. The Mountain View Office Park subdivision is covered under Act 250 permit #4C1153 and subsequent related approvals. There are Act 250 findings requiring traffic monitoring at full build of the subdivision at the intersection of VT 116 and Tilley Drive to evaluate whether a left turn lane on VT 116 onto Tilley Drive is needed. It further requires traffic studies evaluate the impacts to VT 116 intersections with Old Farm Road and any other intersections receiving 75 or more Project‐generated peak hour trips. The applicant estimates that the proposed project will generate 188 PM peak vehicle trip ends. Therefore the applicant will be updating their traffic study as part of their Act 250 approval, and will evaluate impacts to adjacent intersections on State highways at that time. OTHER 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. Transit The Mountain View Office Park is located in the Transit Overlay District and is served by an on‐demand shuttle service. As a medical office, the proposed building will need to also be served. Staff recommends that the Board includes this as a condition of approval. Bicycle Parking The applicant has provided one post and ring type bike rack, or two bicycle parking spaces. The applicant must provide one short‐term bicycle parking spaces for every 5,000 sq ft of building, or 11 short term spaces, and 6 long‐term bike storage spaces. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 9 9 of 10 8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the bicycle parking to meet short and long term requirements, including spacing and security requirements of Section 13.14. 13.07 Exterior Lighting (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. Based on the provided photometric plan, light appears to be generally well distributed with some brighter areas towards the center of the lot. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. Light sources are generally arranged to meet this criterion, with some bleeding between lights on the adjacent lot at 192 Tilley Drive and the subject property. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. Pole types are not identified. 9. Staff recommends the Board adopt this criterion as a condition of approval. (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. Poles are proposed to be 20‐feet high. Staff considers this criterion met. (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 that the roof of the structure. Building‐mounted fixtures are proposed to be mounted at 15‐feet. Staff considers this criterion met. (7) Safe pole locations: Breakaway poles shall not be used in parking lots. Poles shall not be erected along the outside of roadway and ramp curves or where vehicles must make sharp turns. Poles should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes. Poles located behind longitudinal traffic barriers should be offset sufficiently to allow for barrier deflection under impact. Poles are generally protected by curbs except the pole along the entrance drive which is not protected by a curb and is located on the outside of a curve. 10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to relocate this pole for compliance with this criterion. (8) Pole location in parking lots: Pole locations shall be coordinated with stall and aisle layouts. Where practical, poles should be near the end of parking rows or around the perimeter of the lot. #SD‐18‐19 Staff Comments 10 10 of 10 When located at parking stall boundaries, light poles should be mounted on concrete pedestals. Where raised medians or islands are used to separate adjacent stalls, light poles should be placed in these areas unless pedestrian traffic will be inconvenienced. Where light poles are placed between parking rows in the interior of the lot, the poles should be located on the center line of double rows of parking stalls and on the center line of two opposing stalls and should not be placed on the stall line between cars where fender damage might occur. Poles located in the interior of the parking lot are mounted on a 2‐foot high concrete pedestal and located to comply with this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING, ENGINEERS, INC. 136 Pearl Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452 LOCATION MAP 1" =2000' VICINITY MAP 1" = 150' MAY 16, 2018 LEGEND E T G D S W COMBINATION POLE POWER POLE HYDRANT TELEPHONE POLE GATE VALVE LIGHT SUPPORT POLE SEWER CLEANOUT CONIFEROUS TREE NATURAL GAS VALVE TREE LINE NATURAL GAS METER SHRUB SIGN HEDGE MAIL BOX FLAG POLE CONCRETE MONUMENT IRON PIPE FOUND SURVEY STATION SEWER MANHOLE DRAINAGE MANHOLE TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRICAL MANHOLE CURB STOP CONTOUR LINE - EXISTING PROPERTY LINE WATER LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE STORM SEWER LINE NATURAL GAS LINE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CONTOUR LINE - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE EROSION CONTROL FENCE SAWCUT PAVEMENT DECIDUOUS TREE SHEET INDEX 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN 2 SITE PLAN 3 EPSC PLAN 4 LIGHTING PLAN 5 SITE DETAILS 6 WATER AND SEWER DETAILS 7 EPSC DETAILS 8 RETAINING WALL DETAILS 9-12 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE FENCE FHA FLOOD HAZARD AREA WETLAND LIMIT WETLAND BUFFER LIMIT NEW SPOT GRADE344.50 CATCH BASIN SNOW STORAGE AREA WOODEN SPLIT RAIL FENCE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REVISED: JUNE 7, 2018 DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 50' 17-092 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT OVERALL SITE PLAN PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 06/07/2018 ADDED APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GAS AND ELEC SERVICE JPK 15010050050 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT1-888-344-7233 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONAT LOCATIONS WHICH MAY BE IN THE IMMEDIATEVICINITY OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. WARNING:FATALLY TOXIC GASES MAY BE PRESENTIN UNDERGROUND PIPING SYSTEMSAND WASTE SYSTEM STRUCTURES. 1 inch = 50 feet PROJECT INFORMATION - 194 TILLEY DRIVE EXISTING PROPOSED AREA(SF/AC)% OFTOTAL AREA(SF/AC)% OFTOTAL LOT SIZE 656,336 15.07 100.00 656,336 15.07 100.00 BUILDING COVERAGE 0 0 0 28,547 0.65 4.35 PARKING & DRIVE COVERAGE 5,236 0.12 0.80 105,793 2.43 16.12 SIDEWALK COVERAGE 0 0.00 0.00 4,644 0.11 0.71 MISC. COVERAGE 0 0.00 0.00 417 0.01 0.06 TOTAL COVERAGE 5,236 0.12 0.80 139,401 3.20 21.24 TILLEY DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC FRONT YARD SETBACK SIZE (50' SETBACK)8,200 0.19 100.00 8,200 0.19 100.00 FRONT YARD COVERAGE 1,254 0.03 15.29 1,521 0.04 18.55 ZONING DISTRICT: INDUSTRIAL & OPEN SPACE PARKING STATISTICS REQUIRED: (27,434 SF x 2 STORIES x 5 SPACES PER 1,000 SF)275 PROVIDED:275 SOIL TYPE Cv- Covington silty clay HSG ERODIBILITY COEFFICIENT D0.49 VeB- Vergennes clay, 2 to 6 percent slopes D 0.49 DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 06/07/2018 ADDED APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GAS AND ELEC SERVICE JPK 906030030 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT1-888-344-7233 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONAT LOCATIONS WHICH MAY BE IN THE IMMEDIATEVICINITY OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. WARNING:FATALLY TOXIC GASES MAY BE PRESENTIN UNDERGROUND PIPING SYSTEMSAND WASTE SYSTEM STRUCTURES. 1 inch = 30 feet DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 50' 17-092 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT EPSC PLAN PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 15010050050 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY "DIGSAFE" AT1-888-344-7233 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONAT LOCATIONS WHICH MAY BE IN THE IMMEDIATEVICINITY OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. WARNING:FATALLY TOXIC GASES MAY BE PRESENTIN UNDERGROUND PIPING SYSTEMSAND WASTE SYSTEM STRUCTURES. 1 inch = 50 feet THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN EROSION PREVENTION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THECONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOW RISK SITE HANDBOOK FOREROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, LATEST EDITION, AS PUBLISHEDBY THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT LIGHTING PLAN PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 906030030 1 inch = 30 feet TYPICAL GRASS DRAINAGE SWALE NTS MAINTAIN SWALE SLOPE TO DRAINWITH A MINIMUM OF 0.01 FT./FT.LOCATION AND DIRECTION SHOWNON THE PLANS VARIESSEE PLANS 2' MIN.8' MAX. 4'' TOPSOIL,FERTILIZE, LIME,SEED & MULCH 113 3 MIN.MIN. TYPICAL 48" DIA. CATCH BASIN DETAIL NTS NOTE: ALL BACKFILL TO BETHOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN6" LIFTS TO A DENSITY OF95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY USING THE STANDARDPROCTOR TEST, METHOD A,ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 24" 27" MA X. 48" DIA. 5" 8" 6" 24" 12'' CRUSHED STONE CAMP PRECAST, INC.PRECAST CONCRETECATCH BASIN OR ANAPPROVED EQUAL(REINFORCED 4,000PSI CONCRETE) PRECAST CONCRETERISER RING NEW PARKINGOR ROAD BASE FINISH GRADE CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATETO BE LEBARON MODEL #LF-248-2TYPE F OR AN APPROVED EQUAL CL CATCH BASIN IN GRASS CATCH BASIN IN PAVEMENT NEW PAVEMENT NOTE: PIPE CONNECTIONSSHALL BE BOOTED ANDWATERTIGHT WIDTH AS SHOWNON PLANS 4" THICK 4,000 PSICEMENT CONCRETE NOTES1. WALK SHALL BE CAST IN 100 FOOT SECTIONS. THERE WILL BE NO EXPANSION JOINTS. CONNECTION TO EXISTING WALK AND BETWEEN 100 FOOT SECTIONS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED UTILIZING THE SPEED DOWELSYSTEM, PRODUCTS PSD09/#5TX AND PSD//#5BX, AS SUPPLIED BY GREENSTREAK, INC. OR AN APPROVEDEQUAL, ±1 FOOT ON CENTER. WALK SHALL BE GROOVED WITH A SAWN FALSE JOINT EVERY 5 FEET. THESEGROOVES SHALL BE 1/8" WIDE AND 1/3 THE DEPTH OF THE WALK. FALSE JOINTS SHALL NOT BE STRUCK. 2. PLANT MIXED GRAVEL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USING THE STANDARDPROCTOR TEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698. 3. THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT DRIVE CROSSINGS SHALL BE 6" THICK AND THE PLANT MIXED GRAVELSUBBASE SHALL BE 12" THICK. 4. ALL SIDEWALKS SHALL BE TREATED WITH CERTI-VEX AC 1315, PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. S = 1/4"/FT. BROOM FINISH WITHTROWELED EDGES4" TOPSOIL - FERTILIZE, LIME, SEED & MULCH 6" PLANT MIXED GRAVEL(V.A.O.T. SPEC. #704.05 FINE) TYPICAL CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL NTS 6" TYPICAL REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT NTS TRENCH EXCAVATION 12" MIN.TYP. EXISTINGSUBBASEEXISTINGSUBBASE PLANT MIXED GRAVELTO MATCH EXISTING SUBBASE DEPTH(24" MINIMUM) NOTE:PLANT MIXED GRAVEL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USING THESTANDARD PROCTOR TEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698. EXISTING BITUMINOUSCONCRETE PAVEMENT TYPE II BITUMINOUS CONCRETEAS REQUIRED TO MATCH EXISTINGPAVEMENT THICKNESS (2'' MIN.) 1-1/2'' TYPE III BITUMINOUSCONCRETE WEARING COURSE SMOOTH-CUT EXISTING BITUMINOUSCONCRETE PRIOR TO PAVING. ALLJOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED AND COATED WITH EMULSIFIED ASPHALTRS-1. GRIND EXISTING PAVEMENT1-1/2" DEEP 12" MIN.TYP. TYPICAL BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT PARKING CROSS SECTION NTS NOTE:SUBBASE MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USING THESTANDARD PROCTOR TEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698. SLOPE TO GRADESSHOWN ON PLANSSLOPE TO GRADESSHOWN ON PLANS MIRAFI 500XGEOTEXTILE FABRICMINIMUM 2' OVERLAP 1-3/4'' TYPE II BITUMINOUSCONCRETE PAVEMENT BASE COURSE 1-1/4'' TYPE III BITUMINOUSCONCRETE PAVEMENT WEARING COURSE 6" PLANT MIXED GRAVEL(V.A.O.T. SPEC. #704.05 FINE) 18'' DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE(V.A.O.T. SPEC. #704.06) 7' MIN.VARIESSEE PLAN5' MIN. 7" CURBREVEAL 1/4" CURBREVEAL MAX. S = 2.0%S = 2.0%8.3% MAX. TYPICAL SIDEWALK RAMP NTS DETECTABLEWARNING RAMP 24" MIN. 8.3% MAX. DETECTABLE WARNING SECTION A-A A A 50% MINIMUM TO65% MAXIMUM OFBASE DIAMETER 0.2" 0.9" MIN.1.4" MAX. 1.6' MIN.2.4' MAX. 0.65' MIN.BASE TOBASESPACING SQUARE PATTERN, PARALLEL ALIGNMENT DETECTABLE WARNING NOTES: 1.) DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE MATERIAL SHALL BE CAST IRON. 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 SURROUNDINGSURFACE. 4.) WHERE FEASIBLE, TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE ALIGNED ON A SQUARE GRID IN THE PREDOMINANT DIRECTIONOF PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. 5.) WHERE A RAMP OR LEVEL LANDING MEETS A CURB RADIUS, ALIGN THE EDGE OF THE DETECTABLE WARNINGAREA PARALLEL TO THE CURB TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE. 6.) FOR SURFACE APPLIED TRUNCATED DOME PRODUCTS, A MAXIMUM OF 0.25' VERTICAL CHANGE IN ELEVATION ISALLOWED. FOR CHANGES IN ELEVATION BETWEEN 0.25' AND 0.50', A BEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM 1:2 SLOPE IS REQUIRED.CHANGES IN ELEVATION GREATER THEN 0.50' MUST BE TREATED AS A RAMP WITH AN 8.3% MAXIMUM SLOPE. ADJACENT SURFACEOR RAMP / LEVEL LANDING(SEE DETECTABLE WARNINGNOTE #6) DETECTABLE WARNING DETAILS NTS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL DETAIL NTS 3' - 0" 3' - 6" 36' 18'18' NTS PARKING SPACE DETAIL 9' 9' 9' 9' TYPICAL 9' X 18' PARKING SPACEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 4" WHITE LINE SPACED4' ON CENTER TYPICAL 9' X 18'ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACEWITH 9' WIDE AISLE 4" WHITE LINE TYPICAL ACCESSIBLEPARKING SYMBOL8'-0"1'-0" 2'-0" VARIES SEE PLAN CROSSWALK DETAIL NTS WHITE, PAINTED CROSSWALK TYPICAL BOLLARD DETAIL NTS 2'' YELLOW REFLECTIVE TAPE3M OR APPROVED EQUAL 1 PRIME COAT, 2 TOP COATSOF OIL BASED ENAMEL,COLOR PER OWNER CONCRETE FILLED6'' Ø STEEL POST NEW FINISH GRADEPAVEMENT 3,500 PSI CONCRETEPOURED AROUND BOLLARDIN AN AUGERED HOLE UNDISTURBED EARTH 48'' MIN 48'' 4'' 4'' NOTES:1. CURBING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN 10' SECTIONS WITH 1/8" JOINTS BETWEEN SECTIONS.2. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EVERY 20' WITH 1/4" THICK PREFORMED EXPANSION JOINT FILLER MATERIAL CONFORMING TO AASHTO DESIGNATION M-1533.3. CURB REVEAL AT DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE 1-1/2" MAXIMUM.4. CURB REVEAL AT ALL HANDICAP ACCESSES SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 1/4".5. ALL RADII LESS THAN 200' SHALL BE FORMED USING FLEXIBLE FORMS.6. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A DENSITY OF 95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITYUSING THE STANDARD PROCTOR TEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698.7. CURB ADJACENT TO SIDEWALK SHALL BE SEPARATED WITH 4 MIL POLYETHYLENE. 18" 9" 6" 7" 1/4" RADIUS 1/2" RADIUS 4,000 PSI CLASS BCEMENT CONCRETE TYPICAL CONCRETE CURB DETAIL NTS 4' - 0" 3' - 6"CONCRETE CURBSEE DETAIL FINISH GRADE 1/2" RADIUS 18" 7" TYPICAL CONCRETE CURB TAPER DETAIL NTS 6" 6"6" 4" TOPSOIL, FERTILIZE,LIME, SEED AND MULCH PLANT MIXED GRAVEL BACKFILL(VAOT SPEC. # 704.05 FINE) DIA 6" MIN. VARIES UNDISTURBEDMATERIAL CROSS-COUNTRYROADWAY, PARKING, OR DRIVE GRAVEL SUBBASE(MATCH EXISTINGOR 24" MIN. THICKNESS) NOTES:1. ALL TRENCHES SHALL MEET OSHA STANDARDS PRIOR TO ANY PERSONNEL ENTERING A TRENCH.2. INSULATION SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER SANITARY SEWER PIPING WHEREVER 5-1/2' MINIMUM COVERCAN NOT BE MAINTAINED. SDR35 PVC PIPE 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 3" x 36" EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAMINSULATION. USE TWO LAYERS, EACH 1-1/2"THICK, WITH JOINTS STAGGERED. INSTALLWHEREVER CALL FOR IN THE PLANS ORWHEREVER THERE WILL BE LESS THAN5-1/2 FEET OF COVER OVER TOP OF SANITARYSEWER PIPE. SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALCOMPACT IN 12" LIFTS TO ADENSITY OF 95% OF THEMAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USINGTHE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT(MATCH EXISTING OR 3" MIN. THICKNESS) TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL HDPE STORM DRAINAGE NTS 12" 18" 6" SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALWITH STONES NO LARGER THAN3" IN DIAMETER. COMPACT IN6" LIFTS TO A DENSITY OF 95%OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITYUSING THE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 4" TOPSOIL, SEED,& MULCH TYPICAL 48" DIA. DRAIN MANHOLE DETAIL NTS NOTE: ALL BACKFILL TO BETHOROUGHLY COMPACTED IN6" LIFTS TO A DENSITY OF95% OF THE MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY USING THE STANDARDPROCTOR TEST, METHOD A,ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 24" 27" MA X. 48" DIA. 5" 8" 6" 24" 12'' CRUSHED STONE CAMP PRECAST, INC.PRECAST CONCRETECATCH BASIN OR ANAPPROVED EQUAL(REINFORCED 4,000PSI CONCRETE) PRECAST CONCRETERISER RING NEW PARKINGOR ROAD BASE FINISH GRADE FRAME AND COVERTO BE LEBARON MODEL #LC266MARKED "STORM"OR AN APPROVED EQUAL CL STRUCTURE IN GRASS STRUCTURE IN PAVEMENT NEW PAVEMENT NOTE: PIPE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE BOOTED ANDWATERTIGHT 24" 8'2' 2' ANCHOR BOLTS 3/4'' X 10' COPPERGROUND ROD, BURYTOP OF ROD 12''BELOW FINISH GRADE CADWELDCONNECTION 3/4'' CONDUIT FOR #6BARE COPPER GRD. WIRE 1'' X 45° CHAMFER BOLT OR CADWELDGRD. WIRE TO POLE HAND HOLE LIGHT POLE BASEAS MANUFACTURED BYCAMP PRECAST, INC.OR APPROVED EQUAL FINISH GRADE CONDUITCONNECTOR STEEL BASE PLATE COVERPER MANUFACTURER 18" 6' 2' LIGHT POLE BASE DETAIL #1 NTS ANCHOR BOLTS 3/4'' X 10' COPPERGROUND ROD, BURYTOP OF ROD 12''BELOW FINISH GRADE CADWELDCONNECTION 3/4'' CONDUIT FOR #6BARE COPPER GRD. WIRE 1'' X 45° CHAMFER BOLT OR CADWELDGRD. WIRE TO POLE HAND HOLE LIGHT POLE BASEAS MANUFACTURED BYCAMP PRECAST, INC.OR APPROVED EQUAL FINISH GRADE CONDUITCONNECTOR STEEL BASE PLATE COVERPER MANUFACTURER MOUNTING HEIGHT VARIESSEE LIGHTING PLAN 2' 24"18" SEE LIGHTING PLAN FORLIGHT MODEL NUMBERINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER SQUARE, NON-TAPERED POLE,COLOR PER OWNER, SIZE ANDINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER FINISH GRADEPAVEMENT FINISH GRADEGRASS LIGHT POLE DETAIL NTS SEE LIGHT POLEBASE DETAIL #2SEE LIGHT POLEBASE DETAIL #1 SEE LIGHTING PLAN FORLIGHT MODEL NUMBERINSTALL PER MANUFACTURER MOUNTINGHEIGHTVARIESSEE LIGHTINGPLAN FINISH GRADE BUILDING FACE BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHT DETAIL NTS LIGHT POLE BASE DETAIL #2 NTS 35" 16.5" TYPICAL POST & RING BIKE RACK DETAIL NTS NOTES:1. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS,INCLUDING REQUIRED CLEARANCES.2. BIKE RACK SHALL HAVE A BLACK POWDERCOATED FINISH. 1-1/2" O.D.11 GAUGE TUBE 2" SCH. 40 PIPE(2.375" O.D.) DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT SITE DETAILS PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 18" MINIMUMSEPARATION DISTANCE CROSSINGSPARALLEL INSTALLATION SEWER - WATER SEPARATION NOTESWATERSANITARY SEWER10' MINIMUMSEPARATION DISTANCE WATER SEWER HORIZONTAL SEPARATION SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE LAID AT LEAST TEN FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED WATER MAIN. THISDISTANCE CAN BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET FOR STORM SEWERS. THE DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED EDGE OF PIPE TO EDGE OFPIPE. WHERE IMPRACTICAL DUE TO LEDGE, BOULDERS OR OTHER UNUSUAL CONDITIONS, TO MAINTAIN TEN FOOT HORIZONTALSEPARATION BETWEEN SEWER AND WATER LINES, THE WATER LINE MAY BE IN A SEPARATE TRENCH OR ON AN UNDISTURBEDEARTH SHELF IN THE SEWER TRENCH PROVIDED THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER LINE IS A LEAST 18'' ABOVE THE TOP OF THESEWER. WHEREVER IMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICAL TO MAINTAIN 18'' VERTICAL SEPARATION, THE SANITARY SEWER LINE SHALL BECONSTRUCTED TO NORMAL WATERLINE STANDARDS AND PRESSURE TESTED TO 50 PSI FOR 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.NO LEAKAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THIS TEST. CROSSING SEWER CROSSING WATER MAINS SHALL BE LAID BENEATH THE WATER MAIN WITH AT LEAST 18'' VERTICAL CLEARANCE BETWEENTHE TOP OF THE SEWER AND THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER MAIN. WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE 18'' VERTICALSEPARATION OR WHERE THE SEWER MUST BE LAID ABOVE THE WATER MAIN; 1) THE CROSSING SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT ONE FULL LENGTH OF SEWER IS CENTERED ABOVE OR BELOW THE WATER LINEWITH SEWER JOINTS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM WATER JOINTS; 2) THE SANITARY SEWER PIPE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 20 FEETEITHER SIDE OF THE CROSSING OR A TOTAL OF THREE PIPE LENGTHS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER; 3) THE SECTION CONSTRUCTED TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS MUST BE PRESSURE TESTED TO MAINTAIN 50 PSI FOR 15 MINUTESWITHOUT LEAKAGE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING BEYOND ONE FOOT ABOVE THE PIPE TO ASSURE WATER TIGHTNESS; 4) WHERE WATER MAIN CROSSES UNDER A SEWER, ADEQUATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE SEWER TOPREVENT DAMAGE TO THE WATER MAIN. CENTER ONE LENGTH OFPIPE OVER THE SEWER TYPICAL SEWER / WATER SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS NTSSTORM SEWER5' MINIMUMSEPARATION DISTANCE DIA 6" MIN. VARIES UNDISTURBEDMATERIAL CROSS-COUNTRYROADWAY, PARKING, OR DRIVE GRAVEL SUBBASE(MATCH EXISTING OR 24" MIN. THICKNESS) NOTES:1. ALL TRENCHES SHALL MEET OSHA STANDARDS PRIOR TO ANY PERSONNEL ENTERING A TRENCH.2. INSULATION SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER SANITARY SEWER PIPING WHEREVER 5-1/2' MINIMUM COVERCAN NOT BE MAINTAINED. SDR35 PVC PIPE 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 3" x 36" EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAMINSULATION. USE TWO LAYERS, EACH 1-1/2"THICK, WITH JOINTS STAGGERED. INSTALLWHEREVER CALL FOR IN THE PLANS OR WHEREVER THERE WILL BE LESS THAN5-1/2 FEET OF COVER OVER TOP OF SANITARYSEWER PIPE. SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALCOMPACT IN 12" LIFTS TO ADENSITY OF 95% OF THEMAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USINGTHE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT(MATCH EXISTING OR 3" MIN. THICKNESS) TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL PVC SANITARY SEWER NTS 12" 18" 6" SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALWITH STONES NO LARGER THAN3" IN DIAMETER. COMPACT IN6" LIFTS TO A DENSITY OF 95%OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITYUSING THE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 4" TOPSOIL, SEED,& MULCH TYPICAL CLEAN OUT DETAIL NTS 12" MAX. FINISH GRADE SDR 35PVC PIPE SDR 35 PVCWYE FITTING 45° SDR 35PVC ELBOW PVC WATERTIGHT REMOVABLE CAP WITHINTERNAL THREADS SDR 35PVC PIPE NEW 26'' VALVE BOX TOP TFMARKED "SEWER" ORAPPROVED EQUAL 8" 4'-0" 5" 2/3 DIA.ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLESHALL BE BOOTED AND WATERTIGHT FINISH GRADE 3,000 PSI CONCRETEPRECAST INVERT 2"/FT. SLOPE WELDED WIRE FABRIC 4,000 PSI CONCRETE REINFORCED COPOLYMERPOLYPROPYLENE RUNG12" ON CENTER 4,000 PSI PRECASTREINFORCED CONCRETESEWER MANHOLEASTM C478-88 CAST IN PLACE ORPRECAST CONCRETERISER RING BUTYL ROPE(TYPICAL) LEBARON LC266 MANHOLE FRAME & COVERMARKED "SEWER" OR AN APPROVED EQUAL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL NTS DIA 6" MIN. VARIES UNDISTURBEDMATERIAL CROSS-COUNTRYPAVEMENT (ROADWAY OR DRIVEWAY) NOTES:1. ALL TRENCHES SHALL MEET OSHA STANDARDS PRIOR TO ANY PERSONNEL ENTERING A TRENCH.2. A MINIMUM OF 4" OF RIGID INSULATION SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEREVER MINIMUM COVER CANNOTBE MAINTAINED, PER SPECIFICATIONS. 3. ALL EIGHT INCH WATERLINE SHALL HAVE NO LESS THAN THREE (3) BRASS WEDGES INSTALLED ATEACH JOINT.4. ALL SIX INCH WATERLINE SHALL HAVE NO LESS THAN TWO (2) BRASS WEDGES INSTALLED AT EACHJOINT. 5. MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS WITH TWIST-OFF NUTS SHALL BE EBAA OR SIGMA, OR APPROVEDEQUAL.6. ALL WATERLINE SHALL BE POLYETHYLENE ENCASED. CLASS 52, DOUBLE CEMENT LINEDDUCTIL IRON PIPE 4" x 36" EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAMINSULATION. USE TWO LAYERS, EACH 2"THICK, WITH JOINTS STAGGERED. INSTALLWHEREVER CALL FOR IN THE PLANS ORWHEREVER THERE WILL BE LESS THAN6 FEET OF COVER OVER TOP OF WATER PIPE. SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALCOMPACT IN 12" LIFTS TO ADENSITY OF 95% OF THEMAXIMUM DRY DENSITY USINGTHE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL DUCTILE IRON WATERLINE NTS 12" 18" 6" SELECT EXCAVATED MATERIALWITH STONES NO LARGER THAN3" IN DIAMETER. COMPACT IN6" LIFTS TO A DENSITY OF 95%OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITYUSING THE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 4" TOPSOIL, SEED,& MATTING (NAG C125BN) SAND OR GRANULAR PIPE BEDDINGCOMPACTED TO A DENSITY OF 95%OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITYUSING THE STANDARD PROCTORTEST, ACCORDING TO ASTM D698 GRAVEL SUBBASE (MATCH EXISTINGOR 24" MIN. THICKNESS) BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT(MATCH EXISTING OR 3" MIN. THICKNESS) 6' MIN. COVER NOTES: 1) ALL BOLTS AND NUTS TO REMAIN ACCESSIBLE AND ARE TO BE COVERED WITH PLASTICTO PREVENT CONCRETE FROM ADHERING TO THEM.2) ALL FITTINGS ARE TO HAVE "GRIP-RING" RETAINER GLANDS OR APPROVED EQUAL.3) ALL PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN DEFLECTION LIMITS PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. TYPICAL TEES AND CAPS TYPICAL BENDS END AREABEARING AGAINSTUNDISTURBED SOIL 3,000 PSI CONCRETETHRUST BLOCK THRUST BLOCK END AREA (SQ. FT. BEARING AREA) NTS 3" 4" 6" 8" 12" 16"SOILCONDITIONS SAFEBEARINGLOAD(PSF) ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB ENDS&TEES 90°ELB 45°ELB 22.5°ELB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 4.0 5.5 3.0 1.5 8.0 10.0 5.0 4.0 SOUND SHALE 10,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 1 0.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 4.5 6.5 3.5 2.0 10.0 14.0 7.5 4.0 25.0 30.0 15.0 12.0 CEMENTED GRAVEL& SAND 4,000 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 1.5 6.0 8.5 5.0 2.5 13.0 18.5 10.0 5.0 30.0 35.0 20.0 15.0 COARSE & FINECOMPACT SAND 3,000 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 1.0 5.5 7.5 4.0 2.0 9.0 13.0 7.0 3.5 20.0 27.5 15.0 8.0 40.045.025.020.0 MEDIUM CLAY(CAN BE SPADED)2,000 3.0 4.5 2.50 1.5 5.0 7.0 4.0 2.0 10.5 15.0 8.0 4.0 18.0 25.0 14.0 7.0 39.0 55.0 30.0 15.0 80.0 90.0 50.0 40.0 SOFT CLAY 1,000 MAXIMUM WATER PRESSURE = 300 PSI NOTE: REDUCER BEARING AREA = 45° BEND, LARGER PIPE FINISH GRADE NOTES:1. ALL FITTINGS THAT ARE TO HAVE CONCRETE POURED AROUND THEM ARETO BE WRAPPED WITH 4 MIL. POLYETHYLENE PRIOR TO CONCRETEPLACEMENT.2. PRIOR TO THE CONNECTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THELOCATION AND FUNCTION OF THE EXISTING ISOLATION VALVES ON THEEXISTING WATERLINE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CONNECTION.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS ADVANCENOTICE TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PRIOR TO THE SHUT DOWN OFTHE WATERLINE SERVING THE EXISTING HYDRANT. TYPICAL WATERLINE CONNECTION DETAIL NTS INSTALL 3/4'' CORPORATION IN FIRST LENGTH,FOR TESTING PURPOSES NEW 8" x 6" REDUCERWITH MJ RESTRAINTS EXISTINGGATE VALVE EXISTINGVALVE BOX REMOVE EXISTINGTHRUST BLOCK & CAP NEW 6" CL. 52, DOUBLE CEMENT LINED DUCTILE IRON PIPE EXISTING8" DUCTILE IRON PIPE EXISTING 8" x 6" TEESERVING EXISTING HYDRANT DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 6 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT WATER & SEWER DETAILS PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 2.0' O.C. SEDIMENT LOG DETAIL NTS FLOW FLOW WOOD STAKE TO ONLYPENETRATE NETTING,NOT CURLEX MATERIAL 2" 16" MINIMUM CURLEX SEDIMENT LOG,OR APPROVED EQUAL 20'' SEDIMENT LOG STAKE DETAIL NTS TRENCH CHANNELBOTTOM WOOD STAKE STAKE TO BE PLACED ATTOE OF SLOPE, BOTH SIDES WOOD STAKE,SEE DETAIL CURLEX SEDIMENT LOGSOR APPROVED EQUAL TYPICAL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NTS NOTES:STABILIZED ENTRANCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR ASNEEDED THROUGOUT CONSTRUCTION. MINIMUM LENGTH OF ENTRANCE SHALL BE 50',MINIMUM WIDTH SHALL BE 20'. CRUSHED STONE SIZE TO BE 1" TO 4". THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKINGOR FLOW OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPTABLY MAINTAIN THE ENTRANCE ROAD.ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, OR WASHED ON PUBLIC ROADS MUST BE REMOVEDIMMEDIATELY. WHEN NECESSARY, THE WHEELS OF VEHICLES EXITING THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED TOREMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO A PUBLIC ROADWAY. ALL SEDIMENTSHALL BE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM DRAIN OR WATERCOURSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT AND/OR MATERIAL TRACKED INTO THEPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BEFORE RAIN OR WITHIN 24 HOURS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. MIRAFI 500XGEOTEXTILE FABRIC2' OVERLAP (MINIMUM)12'' MINIMUM CRUSHEDSTONE BED OUT TO ROA D INTO P R O J E C T 50' MIN. 20' MIN. Drawing Not To Scale 1. Prepare soil before installing rollederosion control products (RECPs),including any necessary application oflime, fertilizer, and seed.2. Begin at the top of the channel byanchoring the RECPs in a 6"(15cm)deep X 6"(15cm) wide trench withapproximately 12"(30cm) of RECPsextended beyond the up-slope portionof the trench. Use ShoreMax mat at thechannel/culvert outlet as supplementalscour protection as needed. Anchor theRECPs with a row of staples/stakesapproximately 12"(30cm) apart in thebottom of the trench. Backfill andcompact the trench after stapling. Applyseed to the compacted soil and fold theremaining 12"(30cm) portion of RECPsback over the seed and compacted soil.Secure RECPs over compacted soilwith a row of staples/stakes spacedapproximately 12" apart across thewidth of the RECPs. 3. Roll center RECPs in direction of waterflow in bottom of channel. RECPs willunroll with appropriate side against thesoil surface. All RECPs must besecurely fastened to soil surface byplacing staples/stakes in appropriatelocations as shown in the staple patternguide.4.Place consecutive RECPs end-over-end(Shingle style) with a 4"-6" overlap. Usea double row of staples staggered 4"apart and 4" on center to secureRECPs.5. Full length edge of RECPs at top of sideslopes must be anchored with a row ofstaples/stakes approximately 12"(30cm)apart in a 6"(15cm) deep X 6"(15cm)wide trench. Backfill and compact thetrench after stapling.6. Adjacent RECPs must be overlappedapproximately 2"-5" (5-12.5cm)(Depending on RECPs type) andstapled.7. In high flow channel applications astaple check slot is recommended at 30to 40 foot (9 -12m) intervals. Use adouble row of staples staggered4"(10cm) apart and 4"(10cm) on centerover entire width of the channel.8. The terminal end of the RECPs must beanchored with a row of staples/stakesapproximately 12" (30cm) apart in a6"(15cm) deep X 6"(15cm) wide trench.Backfill and compact the trench afterstapling. Drawn on: 5-4-17 Disclaimer: The information presented herein is general design information only. For specific applications,consult an independent professional for further design guidance. 2"-5"(5-12.5cm) 6 2 4 12"(30cm) 6"(15cm) 6"(15cm) 4"-6"(10-15cm) 8 6"(15cm) 5 7 4"(10cm) 3 1 AB C A B C NOTES:*Horizontal staple spacing should bealtered if necessary to allow staples tosecure the critical points along the channelsurface. **In loose soil conditions, the use of stapleor stake lengths greater than 6"(15cm) maybe necessary to properly secure theRECP's. CRITICAL POINTSA. Overlaps and SeamsB. Projected Water LineC. Channel Bottom/Side Slope Vertices 4"(10cm) 6"(15cm) 5401 St. Wendel - Cynthiana Rd.Poseyville, IN 47633 PH: 800-722-2040www.nagreen.com NOTES: * Use ECMDS for more accuratestaple pattern selection. 2"-5"(5-12.5cm) 3.3'(1m) 6'(1.8m) 3'(0.9m) 4'(1.2m) 1.6'(0.5m) 2'(0.6m)10"(25cm) 10"(25cm) 20"(0.5m) 0.7 Staples per SQ.YD.1.15 Staples per SQ.YD. 1.7 Staples per SQ.YD.3.4 Staples per SQ.YD.3.75 Staples per SQ.YD. 4:1 Slopes (A) 3:1 Slopes (B) 2:1 Slopes (C) 1:1 & Steeper Slopes (D) Medium/High Flow Channel (D) High Flow Channel AndShoreline (E) Drawing Not To Scale A B C D E 2"-5"(5-12.5cm)2"-5"(5-12.5cm)2"-5"(5-12.5cm) 2"-5"(5-12.5cm)2"-5"(5-12.5cm)2"-5"(5-12.5cm)2"-5"(5-12.5cm) 6'(1.8m)3.3'(1m) 3.3'(1m) 3'(0.9m) 3.3'(1m)3.3'(1m) 3.3'(1m) 1.6'(0.5m) 4'(1.2m)4'(1.2m) 2'(0.6m)2'(0.6m) 20"(0.5m) R TYPICAL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL FENCE NTS SIDE VIEW NTS NTS TOP VIEW OF JOINING FENCE SECTIONS SECTION "A" SECTION "B" SECTION "A"SECTION "B" 8' TYP.30" 24" DIRECTION OFRUNOFF FLOW 6"6" PRE-WEATHEREDOAK OR METALFENCE POST PRE-WEATHEREDOAK OR METALFENCE POST COMPACT SOILBACKFILL MIRAFI ENVIROFENCEOR APPROVED EQUAL SEE TOP VIEW FORATTACHMENT OFJOINING SECTIONSOF FENCE NOTES:TRACK EQUIPMENT UP AND DOWN SLOPE TO FORMGROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE SLO P E SLOPE TRACKING DETAIL NTS Drawing Not To Scale 1. Prepare soil before installing rollederosion control products (RECPs), including any necessaryapplication of lime, fertilizer, and seed.2. Begin at the top of the slope byanchoring the RECPs in a6"(15cm) deep X 6"(15cm) widetrench with approximately 12"(30cm) of RECPs extended beyondthe up-slope portion of the trench.Anchor the RECPs with a row ofstaples/stakes approximately 12"(30cm) apart in the bottom of thetrench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. Apply seed tothe compacted soil and fold theremaining 12"(30cm) portion ofRECPs back over the seed andcompacted soil. Secure RECPsover compacted soil with a rowof staples/stakes spacedapproximately 12"(30cm) apartacross the width of the RECPs.3. Roll the RECPs (A) down or (B)horizontally across the slope.RECPs will unroll with appropriateside against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastenedto soil surface by placing staples/stakes in appropriatelocations as shown in the staplepattern guide.4. The edges of parallel RECPs mustbe stapled with approximately 2" -5" (5-12.5cm) overlap dependingon the RECPs type.5. Consecutive RECPs spliced downthe slope must be end over end(Shingle style) with an approximate3"(7.5cm) overlap. Staple throughoverlapped area, approximately12"(30cm) apart across entire RECPs width. Drawn on: 5-4-17 Disclaimer: The information presented herein is general design information only. For specific applications,consult an independent professional for further design guidance. 2"-5"(5-12.5cm) 3B 4 2 5 1 3A 12"(30cm) 6"(15cm) 6"(15cm) *NOTE:In loose soil conditions, the use ofstaple or stake lengths greater than6"(15cm) may be necessary toproperly secure the RECP's. 3"(7.5cm) 5401 St. Wendel - Cynthiana Rd.Poseyville, IN 47633 PH: 800-772-2040www.nagreen.com NORTH AMERICAN GREEN C125BN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CHANNEL INSTALLATION DETAIL NTS NORTH AMERICAN GREEN C125BN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SLOPE INSTALLATION DETAIL NTS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET STAPLE PATTERN DETAIL NTS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAIN EROSION PREVENTION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOW RISK SITE HANDBOOK FOREROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, LATEST EDITION, AS PUBLISHEDBY THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION. 10' MAX. 4' EXISTING GRADE SECURE FENCE TO POSTWITH WIRE OR ZIP TIES ORANGE SAFETYBARRIER FENCE TYPICAL LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE FENCE DETAIL NTS DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 7 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT EPSC DETAILS PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 HORIZ 1" = 10' VERT 1" = 10' FEET 10 FEET 0 10 HORIZ 1" = 10' VERT 1" = 10' FEET 10 FEET 0 10 DLHCE JPK JPK RFH 05/16/2018 1" = 30' 17-092 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE PARK - LOT 5 194 TILLEY DRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT RETAINING WALL DETAILS PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC462 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 101BURLINGTON, VT 05401 PROPOSED BUILDING 27,434 S.F. 275 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED DU M P S T E R DUMPSTER EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV2-GT 10-GT 6-GT 2-AS 1-AR 2-AR 2-AR 1-AR 1-AR 2-AR 2-AR 2-AR 2-AR 2-AR 1-AR 1-AR 1-AR 16-TC 2-AR 2-AR 2-AR 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 9-TO 6-TO 7-TO EXISTING TREES EXISTING STORMWATER POND EXISTING WOODS DECIDUOUS TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZEAR 26 Acer rubrum xfreemanii `Sienna` Sienna Red Maple 2 1/2 - 3" CAL.AS 2 Acer saccharum `Green Mountain` Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2 1/2 - 3" CAL.GT 18 Gleditsia triacanthos `Shademaster` Shademaster Honeylocust 2 1/2 - 3" CAL.TC 16 Tilia cordata `Greenspire` Greenspire Littleleaf Linden 2 1/2 - 3" CAL. EVERGREEN TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZETO 22 Thuja occidentalis `Nigra` Dark American Arborvitae 5 - 6` HT. SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACINGSN 85 Spiraea nipponica `Snowmound` Snowmound Spiraea 18 - 24" SPD 3` o.c. GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACINGCA 78 Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster` Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass 2 GAL. 30" o.c.SH 20 Sporobolus heterolepis Prarie Dropssed 2 GAL. 24" o.c. PLANT SCHEDULE PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACINGST 20 Sedum telephium `Autumn Joy` Autumn Joy Sedum 1 GAL. 18" o.c. of Project Number Sheet Drawing Number Drawing Title Issued for Checked byDesigned by Appvd.DateRevisionNo.vhb.comDate 40 IDX Drive, Building 100 Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403 194 Tilley Drive Lot 5 South Burlington, Vermont May 18th, 2018 000000 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC Developer 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, Vermont 05401 MKW 0 15 30 60 Feet Planting Plan PROPOSED BUILDING 27,434 S.F. 275 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED D U M P S T E R DUMPSTER EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 5-SN 9-TO 6-TO 7-TO 0 10 20 40 Feet of Project Number Sheet Drawing Number Drawing Title Issued for Checked byDesigned by Appvd.DateRevisionNo.vhb.comDate 40 IDX Drive, Building 100 Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403 194 Tilley Drive Lot 5 South Burlington, Vermont May 18th, 2018 000000 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC Developer 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, Vermont 05401 MKW Landscape Plan 27,434 S.F. 275 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED EVEVEVEVEVEV3-CA 5-SH 17-CA 10-ST 10-ST 18-CA 5-SH 10-SH E CONCRETE PAVERS E CONCRETE PAVERS E CONCRETE PAVERS 12-CA E CONCRETE PAVERS of Project Number Sheet Drawing Number Drawing Title Issued for Checked byDesigned by Appvd.DateRevisionNo.vhb.comDate 40 IDX Drive, Building 100 Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403 194 Tilley Drive Lot 5 South Burlington, Vermont May 18th, 2018 000000 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC Developer 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, Vermont 05401 MKW 0 5 10 20 Feet Landscape Plan 0 5 10 20 Feet 0 5 10 20 Feet DETAIL TERRACE PLAN DETAIL ENTRY PLAN of Project Number Sheet Drawing Number Drawing Title Issued for Checked byDesigned by Appvd.DateRevisionNo.vhb.comDate 40 IDX Drive, Building 100 Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403 194 Tilley Drive Lot 5 South Burlington, Vermont May 18th, 2018 000000 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLC Developer 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, Vermont 05401 MKW 0 5 10 20 Feet Landscape Notes and Details Planting Notes 1. ALL PROPOSED PLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN ON THEPLANS FOR FIELD REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL BELOW GRADE AND ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES AND NOTIFY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE OF CONFLICTS. 3. NO PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY CONFLICT. 4. A 3-INCH DEEP MULCH PER SPECIFICATION SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER ALLTREES AND SHRUBS, AND IN ALL PLANTING BEDS, UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THE PLANS, OR AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 5. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED INTHE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED BY THE OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE. 6. FINAL QUANTITY FOR EACH PLANT TYPE SHALL BE AS GRAPHICALLY SHOWNON THE PLAN. THIS NUMBER SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE IN CASE OF ANYDISCREPANCY BETWEEN QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANT LIST AND ONTHE PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEENTHE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLANT LIST AND PLANT LABELSPRIOR TO BIDDING. 7. ANY PROPOSED PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE REVIEWED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 8. ALL PLANT MATERIALS INSTALLED SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE"AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK" BY THE AMERICANASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWINGDATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 10. AREAS DESIGNATED "LOAM & SEED" SHALL RECEIVE MINIMUM 6" OF LOAMAND SPECIFIED SEED MIX. LAWNS OVER 2:1 SLOPE SHALL BE PROTECTED WITHEROSION CONTROL FABRIC. 11. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT OTHERWISE NOTED ON CONTRACT DOCUMENTSSHALL BE LOAM AND SEEDED OR MULCHED AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE. 12. THIS PLAN IS INTENDED FOR PLANTING PURPOSES. REFER TO SITE / CIVILDRAWINGS FOR ALL OTHER SITE CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION. 13. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS,COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BEDBACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATIONSPECIFICATION. 14. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES,ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTAND CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING. Tree Protection 1. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION FENCE. ERECT FENCE AT EDGE OF THE TREE DRIPLINEPRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE VEHICLES WITHIN THE TREEPROTECTION AREA. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE VEHICLES ORMATERIALS, OR DISPOSE OF ANY WASTE MATERIALS, WITHIN THE TREEPROTECTION AREA. 3. DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEREPAIRED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. Plant Maintenance Notes 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COMPLETE MAINTENANCE OF THE LAWNSAND PLANTINGS. NO IRRIGATION IS PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE. THECONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING FOR NEW LAWNSAND PLANTINGS DURING THE ONE YEAR PLANT GUARANTEE PERIOD. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, AND EQUIPMENTFOR THE COMPLETE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORK. WATER SHALL BEPROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 3. WATERING SHALL BE REQUIRED DURING THE GROWING SEASON, WHENNATURAL RAINFALL IS BELOW ONE INCH PER WEEK. 4. WATER SHALL BE APPLIED IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO THOROUGHLYSATURATE THE SOIL IN THE ROOT ZONE OF EACH PLANT. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING PLANTS AT THE END OFTHE ONE YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD. CONTRACTOR SHALL TURN OVERMAINTENANCE TO THE FACILITY MAINTENANCE STAFF AT THAT TIME. AS NOTED IN PLANTING SCHEDULE. NOTE: SHRUB PLANTING SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SPACING "D"ROW "A" NUMBER OF PLANTS/SQ. FT. 5' O.C. 4' O.C. 36" O.C. 30" O.C. 24" O.C. 41.52" 31.20" 26.00" 20.76" 51.96" 0.28 0.18 0.04 0.12 0.07 D A D D D A D 1'-0"MIN SEE PLANFOR SPACING PLANT ROW PLANT CENTER PLANT SPACING ALL EQUAL OR AS SHOWN ON PLANTING PLAN FINISH GRADE MULCH, AS SPECIFIED SHRUB ROOTBALL CONTINUOUS PLANTING PIT FILLED WITH PLANTING MIX REFER TO SOIL PREPARATIONSPECIFICATIONS SUB GRADE 2. CONTINUOUS PLANTING PITS FILLED WITH PLANTINGMIX PER THE DEPTH AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONSIS REQUIRED. 1. QUANTITY OF SHRUBS AND SPACING TREE PLANTING SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 18"18" FINISH GRADE 2" HEMLOCK BARK MULCH REMOVE TOP HALF OF WIRE CAGE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAPFROM ROOTBALL BACKFILL MIX FOR TREE PLANTING BEDS, REFER TO SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION TOP OF ROOTBALL, ROOT FLARE SHOULD BE EVIDENT. IF ROOT FLARE IS NOT EVIDENT, THEN SCRAPE OFF THE TOP LAYER OF SOIL BUILD UP ON TOP OF ROOTBALL FROM NURSERY. UNDISTURBED GRADE EXCAVATE ONLY TO SPECIFIED PLANTING DEPTH TO ENSURE STABLE BASE BREAK APART EDGE OF EXCAVATION W/ SHOVEL AND BLEND PLANT MIX W/ EXISTING SOIL TO PROVIDE TRANSITION TO UNDISTURBED GRADE NOTE: EXAMINE ENTIRE TREE AND REMOVE ALL NURSERY TAGS, ROPE, STRING, ORSURVEYORS TAPE TO PREVENT FUTURE GIRDLING. SURROUNDING SOIL SHOULD NOTEXCEED 80% COMPACTION, DRAINAGE WILL BE REQUIRED IF COMPACTED SOILS ARE PRESENT TEMPORARY WATERING BASIN 2 12" HARDWOOD STAKES. ALIGN STAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD/ WALKS OR PARALLEL W/ DIRECTION OF PREVAILING WIND, REFER TO TREESTAKING DETAIL NYLON STRAP WITH 3/4" GROMMETS, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FASTEN WIRE BELOW POINT OFMAJOR BRANCHING OR TO MAJOR OUTSIDE TRUNK. 3 TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL DECIDUOUS TREE NOTE:1. ALL TREE PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL, REFER TO SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION. A. TREE STAKING ALONG ROAD OR WALKS B. TREE STAKING IN OPEN SPACES C. TREE GUYING DIRECTION OF PREVAILING WIND 180 180 EDGE OF WALK OR CURB EDGE OF WALK OR CURB ALIGN STAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD OR WALKS ALIGN STAKES PARALLEL W/ DIRECTION OF PREVAILINGWIND. ALL STAKES TO BECONSISTENT. 3" CALIPER TREESOR LARGER -ALIGN 2 STAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD OR WALKS NO SCALE TREE STAKING LAYOUT p-stake.dwg 120 120 120 SEE PLANTING LIST FOR PLANT SPACING PERENNIAL PLANTING SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANT SPACING PLANT CENTER PLANT ROW SET AT ORIGINAL PLANTING DEPTH FINISH GRADE MULCH AS SPECIFIED SUB GRADE SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR SPACINGAND QUANTITIES CONTINUOUS PLANTING PIT FILLED WITH PLANTING MIX REFER TO SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS CONCRETE PAVERS SCALE 1" = 1'-0" 1" SAND SETTING BED NOT TO EXCEED 1 1/2" CONCRETE PAVER INSTALL FINISH SIDE UPREFER TO SPECIFICATIONS NOTES: 1. INSTALL PAVER EDGE RESTRAINT WHERE NECESSARY 2. TECHO-BLOC PAVERS Type: Athena Color: Champlain Grey Pattern: Modular 3. USE GATOR SAND FOR THE SAND SWEPT JOINTS, COLOR TO MATCH PAVERS 1/8" MAX. SAND SWEPT JOINTS 18" COMPACTED GRAVEL BASE COMPACTED SUB-BASE ABC DE LANDSCAPE STONE WALL SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0" 18" NOTES: COMPOSITION OF STONE TO BE A MIX OF AMERICAN GRANITE: 20% THIN WALL STONE50% WALL STONE 30% MOSAIC WALL STONE SET STONE IN HORIZONTAL COURSES MINIMAL CHINKING SHOULD BE USED VERTICAL JOINTS TO BE OFFSET AT EACH COURSE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MOCK-UP FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.3-4" CAP STONE BATTER BOTH SIDES 1" PER FOOT FINISH GRADE, CONDITION MAY VARY TOPSOIL COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE FILTER FABRIC COMPACTED SUBGRADE F +HUFXOHV'ULYH 6XLWH7ZR &ROFKHVWHU97 ZLHPDQQODPSKHUHFRP SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER:PRINTED:FILENAME:PROGRESS PRINT DATE:5/14/2018 10:56:03 AM C:\Users\jlamothe\Documents\2017068_ARCH_SD4_jlamothe23.rvt5/14/2018 10:56:03 AM7,//(<'5,9(DPRJPL 2017068 PRELIMINARY PERSPECTIVES $9(5021762%85/,1*721DESIGN DEVELOPMENT3L]]DJDOOL3URSHUWLHV//&#DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION A2.001 VIEW @ NORTHWEST CORNER A2.002 VIEW @ NORTHEAST CORNER A2.003 VIEW @ SOUTH WEST AND ENTRY LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" 1346751 A3.01 GRANITE HORIZONTAL BANDING SCHED. GLAZING SCHEDULED MASONRY SILL LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 92 A3.01 3 A3.01 B.O.D. DAIKIN REBEL UNIT MODEL DPS025(QUANTITY: 6) LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" CB DA E GRANITE HORIZONTAL BANDING SCHED. GLAZING SPANDREL PANEL GLAZING SCHEDULED MASONRY SILL +HUFXOHV'ULYH 6XLWH7ZR &ROFKHVWHU97 ZLHPDQQODPSKHUHFRP SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER:PRINTED: FILENAME: PROGRESS PRINT DATE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5/14/2018 10:56:15 AM C:\Users\jlamothe\Documents\2017068_ARCH_SD4_jlamothe23.rvt5/14/2018 10:56:15 AM7,//(<'5,9(DPRJPL 2017068 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS NORTH & WEST $9(5021762%85/,1*721DESIGN DEVELOPMENT3L]]DJDOOL3URSHUWLHV//&A2.01 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH -PRIMARY A2.01 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH -SECONDARY #DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION A2.01 1/8" = 1'-0"3 WEST LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" 1 3 4 651 A3.01 LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" 17161514131211102 A3.01 3 A3.01 8"8"8"2'-2 3/4"8"22'-0"LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 113' -4" LEVEL 3 126' -8" C BD AE $ $ +HUFXOHV'ULYH 6XLWH7ZR &ROFKHVWHU97 ZLHPDQQODPSKHUHFRP SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: SHEET TITLE: SHEET NUMBER:PRINTED: FILENAME: PROGRESS PRINT DATE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5/14/2018 10:56:27 AM C:\Users\jlamothe\Documents\2017068_ARCH_SD4_jlamothe23.rvt5/14/2018 10:56:27 AM7,//(<'5,9(DPRJPL 2017068 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS SOUTH & EAST $9(5021762%85/,1*721DESIGN DEVELOPMENTNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION3L]]DJDOOL3URSHUWLHV//&#DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION A2.02 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH PRIMARY A2.02 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH -SECONDARY A2.02 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EAST DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JUNE 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 June 2018, 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, F. Kochman, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; L. Michaels, C. Gottfried, A. Blow, J. S. & F. Leduc, B. Stark, P. & A. Ewing, S. Michaels 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. Conditional use application #CU‐18‐08 of Larry Michaels to install a covered entry and porch to the front of an existing 2‐story house, 106 Central Avenue: Mr. Michaels explained that the pergola that has been there since before they bought the home will be taken away. They will build out the porch with deck and have a cover over the front door. The deck will be 2 feet further back than the pergola was. The walkway will be stone. There will also be an area to the side for barbeques which will be stone or gravel. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close CU‐18‐08. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JUNE 2018 PAGE 2 6. Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐22 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by constructing a 20‐foot by 23‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant, 1696 Williston Road: Mr. Gottfried said the addition will be to the back and will serve to update the ventilation system without cutting into the diner space. Heating and A/C systems are now not working properly. This will also get the cooking equipment further from customers, which is a safety concern. The applicant then addressed the staff memo: a. They are OK with utilities remaining overhead. b. Staff is OK with proposed landscaping c. Staff is OK with parking but wants all the parking spaces to be striped and to have 3 spaces designated for employee parking and signed to that effect. d. The parallel parking space must be 22 feet instead of 18 feet long. The applicant will comply e. Staff is OK with the landscaping “planters” f. Regarding shade trees, Ms. Keene said staff is trying to find a “creative way” to do this. Mr. Miller said he was OK with putting the trees to the north but they would only be shading the street. Mr. Gottfried did not want to lose his snow storage space for trees that serve no purpose. He said it could be a deal breaker to have to dig up pavement. Mr. Sullivan asked about a process not to require the trees. Members agreed to continue the application to see if something can be worked out with the trees. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP‐18‐22 to 17 July. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 7. Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐18 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, to re‐subdivide two lots of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres, 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesti Drive: Mr. Belair noted the applicant has asked for a continuance to 17 July, but that agenda is very full. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JUNE 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐18‐18 to 7 August. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5‐0 with Mr. Sullivan abstaining as he will recuse himself from this application due to a conflict of interest. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐18‐17 of Peter Ewing to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres, 133 Cheesefactory Lane: Mr. Ewing said they will conveying 48 acres along Muddy Brook (12 of which are in S. Burlington) to the Nature Conservancy and 45 acres to the Vermont Land Trust. He showed what will be left of the property in South Burlington. Ms. Keene noted that both Shelburne and S. Burlington agree that the Town Line has to be corrected and numbers updated accordingly. Mr. Ewing said they will be subdividing on the Town Line when it is correctly determined. Mr. Ewing noted they plan to build a seasonal camp for the summer. It will have a low roof on the second floor resulting in a height of less than 20 feet. Mr. Miller reminded the applicant that they would need DRB approval for any additional homes to be accessed by the private road, regardless of whether the homes are in S. Burlington or Shelburne. Ms. Keene said development is not precluded, but the DRB would have to review it. It was noted that the wetland crossing permit is for a 12‐foot road. Both the Fire Chief and Public Works are OK with an 18‐foot wetland crossing. Mr. Ewing said they will revise the permit and have hired a wetland consultant to do that work. Staff is OK with allowing the gravel road, but the LDRs require it to be 20‐feet, except at the wetland crossing. Ms. Keene said the Fire Chief is firm on 20 feet. Mr. Ewing noted that Cheesefactory Lane is 15 feet, and 20 feet would be out of character with the area. Members felt that it is Cheesefactory Lane that needs improvement. Members felt that fencing or a landscape buffer is not needed for the wetland area as long as it is consistent with the State wetland permit. Discussion then followed as to the timing of an approval to coincide with the dates of the agreements with the Nature Conservancy and Vermont Land Trust. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JUNE 2018 PAGE 4 Members of the Leduc asked how many homes would be built on the road. Mr. Ewing said one in South Burlington and 3 in Shelburne. Ms. Leduc noted that with the existing Bed & Breakfast, that makes a total of 5. Mr. Saunders asked if lot #1 is conserved or can be built on. Ms. Keene said it can be built on and would then require a paved road. Mr. Saunders said the intersection of Cheesefactory Road and Cheesefactory Lane is hazardous and has been the site of several accidents. Mr. Kochman said that is an issue to take up with the City Council. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD‐18‐18 to 21 August. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 9. Minutes of 5 June 2018 : Mr. Wilking noted that on p. 3, he had sold the property to Skip Hoechner, not R. L. Valley. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 June 2018 as amended. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 10. 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 8:34 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: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SP‐18‐16 793 & 907 Shelburne Road DATE: July 17, 2018 Development Review Board meeting R.L. Vallee, Inc. has submitted sketch plan application #SD‐18‐16 to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of an existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of an expanded service station with four additional fueling positions for a total of twelve and associated 9,000 square foot retail sales building at 793 and 907 Shelburne Road. At the June 5, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the Board reviewed the sketch plan application. The Board continued the hearing to July 17 in order to allow the applicant to address some of the concerns discussed in the staff comments and allow the Board to consider the presented the material. The main issues discussed in the June 5 hearing were related to the overall approvability of the project, taking into account the cumulative effect of waivers. Specific topics included applicability of PUD designation, relationship to the comprehensive plan, nonconformity, traffic, site coverage and parking. The applicant submitted revised materials on Thursday July 12, 2017. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the revised materials, and is including them for the Board’s use here. 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' SIDEYARD SETBACK±25.3'30' REAR YARD SETBACK EX. CWD EASEMENT OE OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEW W W W W W W W W W W EX. MH#2 RIM=206.8 EX. MH#1 RIM=207.4 EX. CB#1 RIM=206.4 UEG 40'EASEMENT20'EASEMENT40' EASEMENT WWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGR.L. VALLEE ACCESS EASEMENT ±15' 10 5 7 6 PROPOSED RETAIL SALES/ RESTAURANT VI F.F. ELEV. = 207.0 GREEN SPACEGREEN SPACE 204199 EXISTING FUEL CANOPY & MPD'S TO REMAIN EXISTING STORE (TO BE REMOVED) EXISTING MOTEL (TO BE REMOVED)EXISTING MOTEL (TO BE REMOVED) 6" 16" SPRUCE 3.3 CMF 0.3 BG 16" SPRUCE EX. SWALE CMF FLUSH 1" IPF 1.4 BG 16" CEDAR STUMP 20" MAPLE (2 BOLE) 14" MH MH 16" SPRUCE 14" SPRUCE 34" REBAR 0.3 BG CMF 1.0 AG 24" MAPLE 1" IPF 0.1 BG DISTRUBED 10" SPRUCE 22" OAK SIGN 9'± 177'±138'±59'± 126'±126'±125'±125'±138'±APPROXIMATE L O C A T I O N OF EX. 24" DI LINDENWO O D D R I V E SHELBURNE ROADQUEEN CITY PAR K R O A D 208 208207 207 207206 206206 206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200 199199 198198 198 197 197197 196196196196 195195194194194 193193193192192192 191190HANNAFORD DRIVEPROPOSED CONNECTION TO ADJACENT PROPERTY PROPOSED CANOPY EXPANSION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL w/HANDRAIL (TYPICAL) RE-CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ADDITIONAL GREENSPACE WITH CURB IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALK PROPOSED FUTURE CONNECTION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIES BASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED " MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD, MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY" PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVIL ENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1974 20' 20'20'20'22' CJG CJG PJM 1" = 20' 15104.07 C1.1 -- SHELBURNE ROAD GULF POTENTIAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLAN A C CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. E 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 P: 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com PROGRESS PLANS R.L. VALLEE, INC. 282 SOUTH MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 192 ST. ALBANS VERMONT 05478 793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT ZONING DISTRICT: COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 15 NORTH LOT REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6)6) FRONT SETBACK 20'0 0 SIDE SETBACK 10'25'37' REAR SETBACK 30'30'49' BUILDING COVERAGE 40%23%19% LOT COVERAGE 70%68%73% LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 93% 76% SOUTH LOT REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6)6) FRONT SETBACK 20'9'61' SIDE SETBACK 10'11'38' REAR SETBACK 30'59'53' BUILDING COVERAGE 40%13%24% LOT COVERAGE 70%53%68% LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 67% 51% 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.PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON PLAN ENTITLED " ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY BURLINGTON PLAZA" PREPARED BY DUBOIS & KING INC. DATED JANUARY 1997 AND A PLAN ENTITLED " LADNS OF MARTIN'S FOODS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, INC. - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION" PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON DATED APRIL 29,2008. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATION RECOVERED IS CONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS. 3.SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC JANUARY 2018. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONT COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL) ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE. COMBINED - PUD REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREA 40,000 S.F.6)6) FRONT SETBACK 20'0'0' SIDE SETBACK 10'11'37' REAR SETBACK 30'30'49' BUILDING COVERAGE 40%17%22% LOT COVERAGE 70%59%70% LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 80% 63%7/12/2018 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 7/12/2018 11:37:22 AM, pmead 1 Marla Keene From:Paul Conner Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 12:22 PM To:Marla Keene Subject:FW: Maple Leaf Motel Hi Marla – Can you please add the note below to the DRB’s input on the Maple Leaf Motel project for their next meeting. The sender confirmed with me that they’d like to have this note sent to the Board. Paul Paul Conner, AICP Director of Planning & Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846‐4106 www.sbvt.gov Notice ‐ Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e‐mail, e‐mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 11:28 AM To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> Subject: Maple Leaf Motel Paul, as a long time tenant of the Maple Leaf we are pleading that you do not approve R L Vallee for the demolition of our residence. We will literally be left homeless and the barriers we will face are beyond words. This is the only affordable housing in chittenden county. Thank you for your time!! Anonymous