The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP-24-28 - Supplemental - 1879 Williston Road (3)DONALD L. HAMLIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Please reply to: ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS P.O. Box 9 136 Pearl Street Tel. (802) 878-3956 Essex Junction Essex Junction, Vermont Fax (802) 878-2679 Vermont 05453 www.dlhce.com WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTION MUNICIPAL ASSISTANCE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION PERMITTING ASSISTANCE CONTRACTOR SERVICES RECREATION FACILITIES & SKI AREAS RESIDENT ENGINEERING STREETS & HIGHWAYS WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT LAND SURVEYING Engineering – “The link between what we have and what we need” August 5, 2024 Mr. Marty Gillies Development Review Planner City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning Department 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05401 Re: PICVT, LLC 1879 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont Proposed Minor Amendments Dear Mr. Gillies We are writing in response to the comments presented in your email dated 07/24/29 regarding the Site Plan amendment application package for American Plating Power located at 1879 Williston Road. Presented below in italicized text are the comments taken directly from your email, followed by the applicant’s response and/or description of revisions made to address the comments in bold text. - The Sign Permitting process is separate from the Development Review process – to eliminate confusion and/or overlap, please remove all sign references from the submitted application materials (including the application form, Sheet 1, and Sheet 2) The Site Plan Application form, Sheet 1, and Sheet 2 have been revised to remove references to the proposed new building mounted sign. - Please confirm whether any lighting impacts proposed as part of this application – if not, to eliminate confusion, please remove the lighting details from Sheet 1 & Sheet 2 (I will delete Sheet 3 from the application package unless there is something relevant to this application on that sheet) The ‘new’ building mounted lights were proposed as part of the previous application and SP-23-049 approval dated 12/12/2023. We continued to show these as ‘new’ as they have not yet been constructed. As requested, we have removed these ‘new’ lights and have shown them as now ‘previously approved’ on the Site Plan. In addition, we have removed the ‘Lighting Schedule’ from Sheet 1, removed the ‘Building Mounted Light Detail’ from Sheet 2, and removed the Lighting Plan (Sheet 3) from the plan package for this application. Similarly, we have removed the ‘New Bike Racks’ and have shown them as now ‘previously approved’ on the Site Plan and have removed the ‘Typical Post & Ring Bike Rack Detail’ and ‘Typical Bike Concrete Pad Detail’ from Sheet 2. Page 2 DONALD L. HAMLIN - Please confirm how the total impervious area was calculated and identify whether the proposed relocation of the dumpster pad will impact that calculation. The impervious area for the site was calculated based on the impervious areas as shown on the most recent orthophoto of the site. We note that the current plan submittal utilizes an updated orthophoto of the site from 2023, while previous submittals utilized a 2018 orthophoto. The proposed dumpster is being located in an area of the existing parking area and also in the area of the existing concrete blocks and gravel ramp associated with the previous ‘pump track’ that is to be removed. As a result, there is only a slight increase in impervious coverage for the site. - Please see the attached correspondence with Fernando Cresta and provide more detail on proposed landscaping plan amendment. o Big picture overview – properties are required to provide a minimum amount of landscaping during construction/expansion to beautify the site. The amount of required landscaping is calculated as a percentage of the building cost. As I noted to Fernando, the site was short 7 trees in December: 2 honey locust & 1 horse chestnut in the back; and 1 pine & 3 spruce in the front. As part of this landscaping plan amendment, you can swap tree species & locations around, but you are supposed to retain the approximate value of the originally approved landscaping plan. o In the submitted materials for this Site Plan application, you are proposing to install 1 birch tree. As noted above, this property appears to be short 7 trees of various species and sizes. You do not necessarily need to propose seven new trees to make up for the seven missing trees, but the approximate value of the originally approved landscaping is supposed to be retained through the landscaping plan amendment process. You are free to propose fewer trees if they are supplemented by shrubs or bushes that increase the total value of the proposed landscaping, if they are larger - and therefore more expensive to purchase - than our typical minimum size of 2.5” in caliper, or if they are a more rare or more expensive species than the trees originally approved and therefore more expensive to purchase  For clarity, please provide an individual landscaping plan sheet that shows all plants to be retained and to be installed – this is the sheet that will be referred to when assessing landscaping for all future CO inspections.  Either on that landscaping plan sheet or in a separate table, please include a list of existing plants that are proposed to be retained, noting species, quantity, and size.  Either on that landscaping plan sheet or in a separate table, please include a list of plants that are proposed to be installed, noting species, quantity, and size. You noted above that the site appears to be short 7 trees based on your site visit in December (2023) to compare the existing landscaping with the originally approved landscaping plan. It is important to note that the originally approved landscaping plan that you reference included a total of 11 “hosta varieties” along the front of the building. Based on our site visit in July 2024, we note that 1 pine tree and 4 spruce trees that were shown on the originally approved landscaping plan were not present. However, there was 1 existing maple tree and 1 multi-stem paper birch present, as well as 2 white cedar trees. In addition, as part of the proposed application, the applicant is proposing to plant an additional multi-stem birch tree in front of the building to mirror the existing birch tree. Along the front of the building, we noted the following shrubs/bushes as being present: 1 shrubby cinquefoil, 1 lilac, 6 rock cotoneasters, 2 sweet pepperbushes, 12 hostas, 1 Kalm’s St. John’s-wort, and 1 hydrangea. Including the existing and proposed landscaping as part of this application, there will be a total of 5 trees and 24 Page 3 DONALD L. HAMLIN shrubs/bushes in the front of the building, compared to 6 trees and 11 shrubs/bushes on the originally approved landscaping plan. In the rear of the building, we note that 3 trees shown on the originally approved landscaping plan were not present. However, there are a total of 20 very large white cedar trees planted very close together to form a large, very dense treeline along the rear property line, and these trees were not included on the originally approved landscaping plan. In addition to the 20 white cedar trees, there are 4 existing individual trees and a clump of 4 existing poplar trees. In total, there are currently 28 existing trees in the rear of the building, compared to 11 trees on the originally approved landscaping plan. As requested, we have provided a separate Landscaping Plan (Sheet 3) depicting the existing vegetation to remain and the proposed vegetation to be added. The applicant feels that the existing and proposed landscaping far exceeds the site enhancement and value provided by the originally approved landscaping. Attached is a revised Site Plan application package that reflects the revisions described above. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Jeffrey P. Kershner, P.E. President Enc. CC: Mr. Waasy Boddison Jeffc P.Kashne