 Okay, welcome everyone to the Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, January 11th, 2022. I'm Pete Kelly, Chair of the DRB. Welcome to the applicants and welcome to the public participants. Please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar or commenting on the chat. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at the town hall, meeting room, and virtually on Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by rule, call, vote, and accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to January 25th. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in this meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Saladino. Here. Dave Turner. Here. And Pete Kelly, Chair is myself. I am present. So that is six participants from the DRB. We need four for a motion to pass as there is one DRB seat unfilled at this time. So a simple majority is four. Tonight, well, before we go into the agenda, the staff want to walk us through Zoom instructions, please. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to those of you on Zoom. Once everyone. So please do take a moment to sign in and remain yourself clearly. You can do that using the participant's icon on the toolbar along with the Zoom screen and hovering over your name by hand panel. Click your username and type in your username or you can send me a message in the chat. For those of you on Zoom, do have a range of options for you on the Zoom toolbar, which is on the bottom of the screen. We have the mute button that allows you to turn your microphone on and off. Please do keep yourself muted when you're not speaking. We have the stop and start video button. Video is optional. We have the chat button, which you can use to message me if you need technical help. Public testimony should be submitted verbally. We also have the reaction button in the various reactions, one of which is the raise hand button, which you can also use to signal if you'd like to speak. And I think you do have a telephone participant on the line. So you can use the star nine buttons, the rate I've had, and star six to mute. We'll be using screen sharing this evening so that everyone can see the same documents. Once we start sharing, we should default so we use side-by-side mode for you, which is the viewing mode we recommend, but if it doesn't, you can access it by clicking the few options at the top of the screen. I think we can side-by-side mode, and that allows you to also click and drag the vertical slide that you can see there to adjust the size of the camera and your shared screen. And lastly, if you are having a connection, you can try several things. You can turn off your own video, and you can close other browser tabs, you can broke out some phone apps, or you can try using your telephone as a speaker on your phone. And you do do this by clicking the up arrow next to the mute button, clicking the leave computer, and then dialing back into the Zoom video team. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Speaking of bad connections on the last screen, you were very difficult to hear. Are staff near the microphone? That is better. That was worth that very unpleasant sound. I'm so sorry. I was going to say, Pete, that you asked for that. I think I got what I asked for. Okay. That happens when you move the owl. The owl was moved. Okay. We've got five items on the agenda tonight. We've got a public forum. We've got the public hearing with two applications. We have communications, final plans, and other business as item number three, then the minutes from our previous meeting, which was held on December 14th, is item number four, and then adjournment is item number five. So first order of business is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone participating in this meeting, either in person or by Zoom, who would like to raise a topic that is not on tonight's agenda. If you would like to speak, please raise your virtual hand, and Emily or Simon will call on you. We're seeing no chats and no raised hands. I would ask for one change to the DRB agenda tonight. Keith Fallon is here. His item is going to be fairly brief, and it's last on the agenda. So my recommendation would be to bump it up to the beginning. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. So let's segue into the, let's segue right into that. Let's go slightly out of order. We're going to go into agenda item number three briefly before we return to the items listed on agenda items number two. So this has to do with 1505 Old Stage Road and members of the DRB. If you would please go to your packet and take a look at the plan that was submitted, great. Thank you. Simon, appreciate it. So this was a plan that was submitted. If you recall, this is the property that we've asked for additional screening to be done. And this was a plan that was submitted. And I'd like to hear from the applicant. Well, first of all, who is here representing the applicant? And please say your name and address for the record, please. Hi, sorry. I was blocked there. Keith Fallon, homeowner. Thank you, Keith. And in your address, please. Oh, 1505 Old Stage Road. Yes, thank you. Okay. So please explain what you submitted to us, please. Yeah, for sure. So this is a two-scale drawing of the entire road frontage and the first 50 feet of the property that is the landscape buffer. So the items, this was done by a professional landscaper. Her name's Sylvia Jope up on the top right. This shows all of the existing plantings that have never been touched. And then the circled ones are the additional proposed plantings that I worked with the zoning administrator. When I had proposed this plan to him, he had told me it was sufficient and I met the type one zoning or the type one landscape buffer requirements. So I have planted all of those. And then at the last meeting, it was determined that it was insufficient, that it wasn't enough screening. And I requested some guidance from the DRB. And the suggestion was first step was to have a full plan drawn to scale. So I am looking for your guidance on how I need to provide additional screening. Okay, great. Thank you. So other DRB members and staff members please weigh in. This would, this is what I would consider and in the industry is considered to be an existing condition plan. So this shows the existing condition of the buffer prior to placement of additional plantings for our last meeting that we've requested. And so this is a great, this is a great start. It's to scale. It captures the existing conditions. Now the next step is for you to propose additional plantings to meet the requirements of the Williston Development Bylaws. And we don't design things at the DRB. I'm not going to, I'm not going to tell you or our members of the DRB are going to tell you this is the species and this is the type of plan and so on. I would recommend that you have your Sylvia, your landscape architect and yourself, I would recommend being included in this discussion. Have a meeting and a discussion with staff about what should be added to the existing conditions to meet the criteria. But this is a great start. And so the meeting with staff, so who is that? Well, given the fact that Matt originally ruled and in the DRB overturned his opinion, I would recommend that you go to Emily. I think, I think, I think I saw Melinda raise her hand. Oh, okay. No problem. Melinda, you're, you're the, you're the, you're the person. Thank you for, for, for that, John. So go see Melinda, set up a time, have a conversation, have a discussion about what the regulations declare for a, a, a buffer. And I'm sure that that conversation will be fruitful and Sylvia will know what to do. And then you can come back to the DRB and hopefully we can put this issue to bed as far as the planning piece. And then in the spring, you can plant it. Yeah. And so I guess my one question or ask is, can you provide additional clarity on the regulation? Because it is so vague, you know, that there was already an interpretation in the office that I met it. And so I guess I'm, I guess I just need a little more guidance so that we can go into that conversation of what the DRB's interpretation of the rules are. I would recommend that you do it with Melinda and have that conversation, engage in that conversation with her. And I think it will be fruitful. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. And thank you for accelerating me up to the front. Appreciate it. Oh, not, not a worry. Thank you. Okay. Going back to the agenda, two items in the public hearing portion, DP 22-04, Chittenden Solid Waste District and DP 21-20 Taft Corners Associates. First up is DP 22-04, who is here representing that application? Josh Tyler, Chittenden Solid Waste District, I'm the Director of Operations. I'm joined by Tim Shea of the Chittenden Solid Waste District, Associate Director of Operations and Doug Goulet, our Consulting Engineer. Great. Welcome all. As disclosure, Doug Goulet and I are neighbors in the same Williston subdivision. I do not see that as a conflict of interest. Okay. First up is Staff Melinda. Yeah. The Chittenden Solid Waste District would like request pre-application review of a proposed 10,000 square foot administrative building with parking and other pertences located at 694 Redmond Road in the industrial zoning district east. The new administrative building would replace the CSWD's existing facility located at 1021 Redmond Road. The property is currently undeveloped except for an existing access road to a Velco storage facility located on a property east of the subject parcel. Staff's recommending DRB recommend the proposed project proceed discretionary permit with recommendations as drafted. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this request. In 2001, the DRB approved SUB 0110 and that created the subject parcel. Advisory boards did not review the proposed project. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed project. Melinda, can I interrupt you for one second? Just as a point of clarity, I apologize. You said that this hearing was a discretionary permit. It's a pre-app, isn't it? It is a pre-application. Sorry, yes. I apologize. No, I just want to make sure it's clear. Okay, so the Public Works Department did review the site plan and provided comments in a memo dated December 17th, 2021. Their comments are included. We received one comment letter at the time of the mail out from Geraldine and Layland Carpenter and you also received that comment letter with your packet. So the dimensional standards in the industrial zoning district east, the maximum height is 36 feet, maximum minimum setback from any road is 50 feet and the rear and side property line setbacks are controlled by the landscaping requirements of Chapter 23 and there is a requirement that the lot have at least 40 feet of road frontage on an existing public or private road. Compliance with height and setback standards are expected. Outdoor sales and storage are not anticipated for this project. The facilities that are owned and operated by the CSWD have a partial exemption from the use requirements under state and local regulations and are allowed to locate in any zoning district subject to the approval of discretionary permit by the DRB as provided by 24 VSA 4413E and WDB 4.2.2.5. The town does have authority to regulate location size, height, building both yards, courts, setbacks, density of buildings, off-street parking and loading facilities, traffic noise, lighting, landscaping and screening of the proposed development as long as it doesn't interfere with the intended functional use and the applicant has the burden of proof on that. For access, the applicant proposes to use the existing private Velco service road, eliminating the need for a new curb cut along Redmond Road. WDB 13212 encourages the use of shared driveways. The existing access road is 24 foot wide paved road. The applicant has obtained Velco support for use of this road, a maintenance agreement between the applicant and Velco should be submitted at discretionary permit. A recommendation has been drafted. Because a proposed facility will be replacing an existing administrative building, no additional trips are expected to be generated. However, the applicant should still provide estimated trip generation at discretionary permit and staff is not recommending a traffic study for this project. Traffic impact fees are not imposed by the town for CSWD facilities. For vehicular parking, the applicant is proposing a 41 space parking lot just south of the proposed building. The former bylaw, Table 14A, listed allowable rates of off-street parking spaces based on proposed use and building square footage and specified a rate that served as both a minimum and a maximum. The recently adopted bylaw, Table 14A, specifies these rates as allowable maximum number of spaces with a required minimum number of spaces as 80% of the allowed maximum with an option to approve below 80% of the maximum if certain criteria are met. In this case, the applicant is proposing 41 spaces where a maximum of 35 spaces are allowed based on the proposed uses and square footage. Staff is recommending the applicant reduce the number of parking spaces to be within the range of 28 to 35 spaces. Alternately, if the applicant wants to retain those 41 spaces, they can do so using options specified under WDB 14.2.4 such as building a solar canopy using porous pavement or providing dedicated spaces for alternate fuel vehicles and carpools. The applicant's proposed number of ADA spaces, short and long-term bicycle spaces, and provision of end-of-trip facility are in compliance with WDB 14A. The applicant's proposing utilities, including on-site wastewater system, on-site drilled well, stormwater collection and treatment system, and underground electric and telecommunications lines. All utilities must be underground and shown on the site plan submitted for discretionary permit. Stormwater collection and treatment must be provided in compliance with Chapter 29. The site plan does show a proposed water line and calls it out as a possible route of new six-inch water service running through the subject parcel and along Redmond Road. The site plan of discretionary permit needs to provide more details about the water supply, including location of any drilled well and the starting and ending point for the water supply lines. Based on some communication via email that we've had with the Department of Public Works, it's my understanding that CSWD is applying to have water service extended to that parcel and is working with the Department of Public Works on that. A state permit will be required for the extension of any public water supply, but it's really not applicable to the Wellston Development Bylaw. For landscaping, the subject parcel is buffered on all sides by existing vegetation type 1 buffer. The DRB may wish to consider a condition to require additional screening along Redmond Road. Where needed to comply with WDB 23, recommendation has been added. The landscape buffers along the abutting properties appear to comply. For street trees, WDB 26 requires street trees for many developments or redevelopment projects. Street tree plantings can be considered a type 4 buffer and therefore fulfill a portion of the developments over all landscaping requirements because the frontage along Redmond Road is buffered by existing vegetation. Staff doesn't think that requiring street trees is necessary or appropriate. There are no mapped watershed protection buffers on the subject parcel except for a small class 2 wetland on the northwest corner of the property which will be protected with a 50-foot buffer as required by state law and the Wellston Bylaw. WDB 29, 9, 6, 1 requires all watershed protection buffers to remain unmoan and in natural native vegetation. To ensure the watershed protection buffer is not disturbed, WDB 29, 9, 7 requires the buffer to be marked on the final plans and demarcated on the ground by planting offense or preferably a line of boulders. The site plan shows an existing stormwater feature east of Redmond Road and north of the access drive that receives runoff from a swale running alongside and parallel to the access drive. The site plan also shows a possible location of stormwater practice for runoff from new impervious surfaces. The proposed project is considered low-risk because the amount of land disturbance won't exceed two acres and is not anticipated to impact watershed protection buffers or steep slopes. Low-risk projects are not required to submit a runoff and erosion control plan but are required to submit the completed runoff and erosion control checklist. The site plan submitted with discretionary permit application must however show the locations of stormwater infrastructure. Outdoor lighting that is proposed as part of this project must meet all the requirements of WDB chapter 24. If outdoor lighting is proposed, the applicant should submit a lighting plan as part of the application submitted for discretionary permit. Lighting plan must include lighting levels, lighting locations, and lighting specifications demonstrating compliance with standards of chapter 24. Signage can likely be approved administratively for the proposed project and a master sign plan will not be required if signage is within the limitations of WDB table 25A. Signage exceeding these limits will require master sign plan. Subject parcel is not within any town designated conservation areas. Chapter 27 is not applicable to the project and the proposed project is exempt from paying impact fees because the applicant is the Chittenden Solid Waste District and there are some recommendations for you to consider. Thank you. Right, thank you. Okay, applicant is next. You get a chance to supplement Melinda's staff report before we open it up for questions from the DRB. So Josh or Tim or Doug, do you have any supplemental comments? At this point, it seemed the report seemed reasonable. I will take the advice and probably put in two of these spaces and three carpool spaces in the parking area and it looks pretty reasonable to me. Doug, do you have anything to add or Tim? No, maybe Simon can bring up the sketch plan though just for reference. While he's bringing that up, can I ask a question, Pete? Absolutely. Just a question on that on that parking demand. I'm curious how you came up with 41 spaces or I guess what a typical day would look like for this building? It ranges. We do hold safety committee meetings which is an internal committee that brings upwards of 12 extra people onto the site. We roughly have 25 full-time employees at our existing facility. I think it's 24 at this point. We have three positions to fill. We also do hold workshops sometimes until the idea with those would most likely be after hours, but there are times when we have meetings and bring people in. We are considering using this as our exec board meeting space as well. We do use the town of Williston for our full board. I don't think we're going to get enough room into it to go away from that, but we'll see. When architects roll their sleeves up, but yeah, that was the idea is just not to under supply the amount of parking. We've hit as much as 30 to 35 people. We've had the park over at a compost facility in the past to do that. We tried to get as many as we could. Thank you. David, it was basically an oversight that I failed to look at the new regulations and the new parking table. I would have maybe commented on that before showing the 41, but as Josh said, we definitely will provide some EV parking and carpool parking to get the numbers down a bit to be within the range of the current bylaw. Having said that, now that the plan is up, I'll just give a quick overview of what's shown for building is 10,000 square feet. Once an architect gets more involved, I'm sure that footprint will change somewhat, but that's sort of the general placeholder, if you will, on the general location of the site. We anticipate the building, as Melinda said, parking will be to the west down slope of the building. Then further down slope will be our stormwater treatment facility. Way down to the west, there is a proposed wastewater disposal system. We've done soil test pits. They're well-drained Adam soils in that location. We've done preliminary calculations to know that that area is sufficiently sized to accommodate the amount of flow. We anticipate from the occupants of the building. The existing, as Melinda said, we propose to come off the existing Velco service road for access to the new building. It's 24 feet wide, paved in great shape. It's a very aggressive cross-section because Velco brings very large equipment in and out of their storage facility, which is just off the site plan to the east. No problem with the adequacy in our view anyway at the existing service road to provide service for the office building. That's about it. We had a meeting with Peter Lynn from Velco. As Melinda went over, they're agreeable. They have a 300-foot-wide easement that's shown on the plan. The service access goes through that easement, but CSWD owns the land. They're absolutely amenable to accommodating us. They've looked at this plan. They're fine with the service or our driveway location. One of their only comments, which is a good one, is there's a gate right now down fairly close to Redmond Road. Obviously, that gate would have to be moved easterly, so it's beyond the entrance to our new building. They suggested it actually be all the way up to the common property lines, and our project would take care of that gate relocation. That's it. We've looked at the proposed recommendations and we're good with that. Josh, maybe an update on the water supply, which seemed to be a point of discussion. Yeah. Currently, we have it back with Public Works and we're working through finalizing it. We're going down their checklist. We met with Green Mountain Power to talk about power line locations and how our water line will work its way up Redmond Road. Things are looking good and the anticipation is we'll have a water line in place so that we can hook it into this admin building. By the time we look to construct the admin building. So obviously, at that point, the drill well proposal would be off the table. That's all I had. Anything else from the applicant before I turn it over to the DRB? No. Okay. DRB members, questions please. This is Dave Turner. One question is the people that will be working in this building, do they currently work in the Redmond Road facility or will they be coming from another facility? Everybody is going to transfer from the existing 1021 location over to this new administrative building. We've got about 30 years out of the raised ranch and we're running out of space and COVID's really proved that we don't have adequate room to keep a standard of each other's way. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Dave, what is the future of the existing building? We don't necessarily have one right now. We're kind of waiting for this thing. We've been talking about this building for about 15 to 20 years, this new admin building. So as soon as it gets built, we're kind of open. We are a solid waste organization. There is a much largest composting facility across the street from it. So we need, we haven't made any real determinations yet, I guess I should say. Other questions? Yeah, Pete, I've got one or two. I've seen that Melinda described that there was a, that you were proposing an end-of-trip facility within the building, but I didn't, I didn't see that in any of the materials that you submitted and I don't, I mean, obviously there's no floor plan here to do that. So can you confirm that there is an end-of-trip facility planned within the building as well as the bike storage inside? That's one of the requirements when we design the actual footprint of the building. Right now, we just laid out the 10,000 square feet as not to exceed, but that will probably, in my personal opinion, decrease a little bit. But yes, there will be, that'll be, that's part of our next, our next engagement with our next consultant, which is the architects to really design the building. All right. You know, I don't have very many comments. I mean, there's not a lot here to comment on without having a plan or any building elevations or I'm not sure that you've done, gone through kind of code issues yet either. So are any requirements that may show up on the site plan based on that, such as fire lanes or whatnot around the building? So, but I did have a question on where, where are the site boundaries that are going to have the buffering requirements applied to them? So I can answer that, John. So there is no subdivision proposed. This parcel is 34 acres. So we're at the far north end of the 34 acres. So the property line you see that Simon's pointing to is the, is the northerly property line. And if you would just scroll down a little bit, the easterly line is, is the dark line shown at the top of the screen. And then it goes a quarter mile or so to the, to the south all the way to almost the IBM entrance, rude. Yeah. Global foundry. Sorry. Okay. So when you say there's an existing buffer, you're talking about what's all along the road along Redmond road, not along the Velco easement drive. As I assume that's a driveway that's, that's running along inside your property. Is that, is that right? So there's no screening required there. Right. The screening or the buffers only pertain to the perimeter property lines, which are fairly heavily vegetated right now. Right. And I think we can, we can see that. I mean, the one exception on the, what is that the north on the left there? Is that actually that says CSWD, doesn't it? Right there as the neighbor and property owner? That's correct. Okay. But it's a different parcel owned by, by, by your client. Correct. Okay. Emily, would that or Melinda, does that require buffering between two parcels owned by the same entity? So our bylaw treats abutting parcels, even if they're physically separated by boundary, but if they're owned by the same entity that are treated as one parcel. Okay. So that entire north parcel is essentially the buffer. So, okay. That, that, that, that, that helps a lot understanding kind of the buffering conversation. And, and, and then, and I guess, Simon, maybe you can circle and make sure I'm understanding the, the buffer along the road is that cops of trees there just or that be west of the, of the septic field. Yeah. Right there. Yeah. It's a pretty dense. It's a pretty dense ticket. It seems just commenting out loud to the rest of the board. It seems crazy to tear those down to put in street trees along a road that doesn't really fit with the idea of street trees very well. I think I would, I think I would chime in here and argue that this is set so far back from the road with, you know, lots of perimeter buffering that I don't think there's a heck of a lot needed here. So to me, it's a, at this point, it's an esoteric discussion. Right. Exactly. Yeah. And I agree with, I agree with John's point is that for the character of the area, it would street, street trees would, would look odd. They would look pretty cool if you did them all along the Velco driveway, but, but that's not part of this conversation. Yeah, that, that actually could look cool, but we're not, we're not into cool here. But that's not something, it's not something that's within our purview here. That's all, those are all the comments I had today. Okay. Any other members of the DRB comments, please? Yeah, one comment. I'd like you to consider looking at the, the porous parking. We need, we need one of you guys to step up and actually build some of that because I believe in it. Well, I hope this will take a look. I'm, I'm a believer in it as well. So we'll, we'll see what it looks like. You know, Doug and I'll put our heads together. How's that sound? Yeah. Like I said, like I said, don't just immediately pull back from 41. We could have 41. Just make sure some of it's porous because I think it, I think it'd be a nice demonstration project. So other companies could say, oh yeah, you can actually do it. And we are in control of our own sanity and salting. So we could, we could regulate that pretty well. I just had a quick question on the site, not necessarily the site plan itself, but just looking at the aerial, I guess just east of that existing, the kind of teardrop stormwater, stormwater feature, it looks like there's a, a, is it a driveway that's like perpendicular to the road where the, the stone ditch kind of goes underneath? Yes, David, it's, it's a sort of a service, little gravel service road, probably built when they built the stormwater pond. Okay. So that was just to get access across that, that ditch. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't, doesn't go anywhere. It's, that's where, that's where I always just park when I go to the site. It's, it's big enough for, for a single vehicle to pull out and park. Yeah. Okay. I couldn't quite tell from the ortho what it was. Yep. Any other questions? Okay. Members of the public, any questions? Anybody out there that has a question for, go through the DRB, but questions pertaining to this application, please raise your zoom hand please. I'm not seeing any raised hands on zoom. So I don't think anyone's got any questions. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Okay. Last chance for questions from the DRB. Wrap up comments by the applicant. Thank you for having us and thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. 743. We're going to close DP 22-04. Thank you. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Okay. Next up is DP 21-20, Taft Corners Associates, care of J.L. Davis. I'm going to recuse myself from this, from this hearing. The reason is my employer, DEW, does work with J.L. Davis and so I have an inherent conflict of interest on this application. So I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Hemmelgarn to head this up and I will be a member of the audience for this application. Thank you, Pete. So at this time, I guess I would ask, I guess, Pete, did you actually open that hearing or is that something I should do here first? You're muted. All right, let's just open this hearing at 744, whether we need to or not. And so I would ask whoever's representing the owner to come forward, identify yourselves, give your name and your address, please. Jeff Nick with J.L. Davis Realty. Offices in Burlington, Vermont. And Jeff, do you have anybody else that's here this evening? Andy Rowe with us. Good evening, Andy. Good evening. I was having trouble turning video on and unmuting, but Simon's got me fixed up now. Thank you. All right, so your address, Sarah, Andy? Sorry, good evening. Andy Rowe, Lamarone Dickinson, 14 Morris Drive Essex. Thank you. Great. So I guess who's got this from a staff standpoint and give us the report? Emily. Hello, Emily. So this is a request for pre-application review of a proposed grocery store and three-story apartment building with urban parking and related apartments on a 2.34 acre project area located along right Ave. and Future Trader Lane. The land is currently vacant. The grocery store would be built initially. The apartment building in Trader Lane would be built in the future. The proposed use is commercial and residential. It will have access onto town roads located in the tap corner zoning district where it is subject to design review. Conservation Commission review is not applicable. Tonight, staff is recommending approval, but only if the DRB reviews recommendations about access, pedestrian safety, parking, site layout, and architectural design. This approval will also authorize the grocery store to proceed to discretionary permit and the apartment building to proceed to growth management review. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the application. It was originally submitted in the fall and the applicant requested a continuance and revised their application. Some may remember that this property was the Skate Land Roller Ranks from approximately 1977 to 2000. Since then, there have been minor changes to the lots around it in terms of subdivision. The land was subdivided to create the bank next door Northfield Savings Bank and Skate Land was demolished in 2003. The hack recommendations were submitted on January 4 and they are included below. Public works and fire comments are also included. I do note that some of the fire comments conflict with the zoning bylaw and they're noted here. No comment letters were received at the time of mail out. However, we did receive a letter from Brian Forrest yesterday and that has been uploaded online and emailed to the DRB. This property is located in the tap corner zoning district where a grocery store and residential are allowed uses. I do note in bold text some important points for the DRB to consider tonight. In terms of dimensional standards, the DRB should discuss the location of surface parking along right Ave. Noting the hack recommendation number four about reorienting the building to increase the frontage along right Ave while maintaining a strong facade on Trader Lane. Right now, the parking lot has a long frontage along right Ave where typically that should be set back to the side or rear of the building. There is a specific standard in the tap corners area for Adirondack views that the discretionary permit demonstrate how they will be featured. The site layout could be used to use those views in the urban park and the DRB may edit recommendation 1B. For example, the urban park is located downhill of a gradient change. The applicant mentioned a retaining wall during the hack review process so the DRB might want to discuss how those views can be better utilized in the urban park. The development standards are discussed below with chapter 22 design review and tap corners does have the 509 design criteria which must be provided cumulatively across the project area. The applicant is proposing multiple uses, multiple stories, wide sidewalks, an urban park, and public park. The DRB might want to consider discussing how this would be phased into the discretionary permit review and a recommendation is included below. I do have a note here about vested rights. Tonight, the DRB should focus on the current unified development bylaws but recognize that a form-based code is anticipated in the coming months which will change the development and design review standards in this zoning district. Projects are invested in the current version of a bylaw when a complete discretionary permit is filed and there are some caveats here that are noted. Similarly, with discretionary permit procedures, development agreement will be required for review and a boundary line adjustment will be required. The garage access for the apartment building is proposed on a butting and a butting parcel, a lot 12 of a different subdivision and all that land would need to be shown as one parcel at discretionary permit. The draft motion authorizes this application to proceed to growth management in March 2023. The site plan identifies 24 units and it is subject to the growth center criteria in Chapter 11. Access, right-ab and trader lane are proposed grid streets that are shown on the town plan at 4. I note here in this section that the DRB and Africans should discuss the bicycle and pedestrian access particularly in the parking lot and where vehicles will turn from right-ab into the parking lot. The DRB and applicants should discuss alternatives such as a reconfigured parking lot with a rank of parking between the entrance and drive aisle, one-way movement through the parking lot, raised pedestrian crossing with texture or protected pedestrian walkway through the parking lot basically to reduce that conflict between customers with shopping carts entering and exiting the store and vehicles turning in and out of the parking lot. Similarly, there's a recommendation for connectivity with the butting properties and also a recommendation that a traffic study be provided at discretionary permit. Parking and loading at discretionary permit it must include vehicular and bicycle parking in compliance with Chapter 14. This must include a shared parking study. The intent of this bylaw is to reduce surface parking to the maximum extent possible and there's possibility for a share between residential use and a grocery store. In terms of parking lot design the discretionary permit must include a cohesive parking lot shared between the grocery store and future building. As highlighted here you can see there's an inefficient use of space and unusual circulation pattern between the grocery store lot and the future parking lot. And reiterating the discussion above the parking lot design must protect pedestrians that are moving through the parking area especially near the main entrance. What follows is a summary of the parking requirements that would need to be finalized at discretionary permit. Under maintenance there are some specific recommendations that are included trash and recycling receptacles along the sidewalks near street corners, identifying snow storage or snow removal plans, and a plan for solid waste management. I note here that grocery store dumpsters should be hidden from public view and anticipate the storage of pallets, boxes, compost or any other unusual or bulky waste items that are associated with the grocery store that they all be screened and according to the bylaw. Compatibility potential nuisances and hazards. This section of the bylaw talks about the screen of mechanical installation particularly that rooftop mechanical be screened with a parapet not fences on the roof around the mechanical units. This may require raising the wall heights and the slope roof may also need to change to maintain the entryway proportions. Hack recommendation is included. Ground level mechanical should also be screened from view. What follows is a summary of density as it would apply to the residential component of the bylaw. Right now the applicant has not identified a TDR or affordability provisions that would allow for a density bonus. Design review. The hack reviewed the application on December 21st and finalized the recommendations on January 4th. There's a long list and all the recommendations are included. Generally they found that the building needs more articulation of the roof line, more windows and that the windows shown be true windows that let light into the building, more pedestrian space near the main entrance and a seating wall along the south elevation. They're generally pleased with how planters are integrated into the facade, the slope roof and how the main entrance connects to right avenue. Some of their recommendations are inspired by the Aldean plain city which is shown below. The hack did discuss and could not come into agreement with the placement of the stone veneer base, how it's different on the east facade from the west and south facades. And there's two options in recommendation number 4A for the DRB to review and choose. And this is the photo of the Aldean plain city where it has the more prominent entryway that utilizes art, however the hack does discourage the faint windows that are shown above the canopy. Discretionary permit must include a landscaping plan. The landscaping requirements will be different for the grocery store building, a retail or service commercial use, and the future building which is mixed use including residential. Basically the north property line can have different buffers in those areas. Along the south and west street trees will be required on the front. The recommendations for street trees, watershed health, outdoor lighting, and signs in public art are all standard recommendations. I do note that the sign area would need to come into compliance with the bylaw, reducing wall signage area. And lastly impact fees. Construction of grid streets can be considered an in-kind contribution and be credited towards the impact fee liability. And this would need to be shown at discretionary permit with a vehicle trip summary and cost estimate for road construction. What follows is the list of recommendations as drafted by the hack and staff. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. So there's a lot in here to discuss I think this evening. I think we'll eventually get to all of them, but I do like to give the app kind of chance to make initial response or to highlight anything in particular they want us to pay attention to or to comment on anything in the staff report. Great. Am I on? Yes, you are. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, we're I'm going to let Andy Rowe do most of the heavy lifting here to add to Emily's report. But just briefly, in terms of the architecture, we've talked to all these and they're certainly willing to work with the town and the board to modify the architecture to make to conform with the recommendations of the hack. There was one and we're willing, I think we're able and willing to adhere to most of the recommendations from staff. There are a couple of things that we might differ on. One is the L shaped building for the second building to add street frontage to right avenue. That seems to be problematic. It would get in the way of that pocket park. I was on the site this weekend and looking at those Adirondack views and they are quite dramatic from that location. That's where the pocket park is proposed. It would be blocked on the north would have the north would be the building and on the east side would be a retaining wall. And it'd be a public art introduced into that little park. So that's what we'd like to see there. And I think Andy can modify that parking lot so it would merge into the all these parking lot. I'll also say that all these is modified their floor plan, which you haven't seen yet, but they are introducing and a trip facility shower and indoor bicycle parking there. So with that, I'll let Andy, you want to add anything to what Emily said? I guess, depending on how the DRB wants to go, whether you want to work down through the staff report or questions. Yeah, can we put the site plan up on the screen? I think that's always a helpful backdrop here for us to be looking at. And then maybe you can give everyone a quick tour of the site to make sure we're all talking about the same elements. And we understand how the site is laid out and what's on there. Okay, so the grocery store is proposed at the easterly end of the site. We'll confirm this between or before discretionary permit, but I believe that the bank is actually on the least portion of this lot. And the future building, the grocery store and the bank are all on the same parcel again with a lease area being defined for the bank. So the grocery store is on the easterly portion. The future building is on the westerly portion, largely fronting on Trader Lane. And there would be two curb cuts along right avenue, one close to the front door of the grocery store. Again, there's access into the grocery store at the southwest corner to the west facing the parking lot and also to the south facing right avenue. And on the east side of the building is the loading area with that little appendage to the building being a loading dock, a single loading dock. And then trash. And we'll also look at the need for outside storage as suggested by staff for bulky items, pallets, that sort of thing. The two curb cuts are intended to allow circulation for deliveries through the site. So it would come in past the front of the building, back into the loading area and then continue to the west and exit back out onto right avenue. And if there would be 98 spaces constructed for the grocery store, the area that's shown to the west would be additional parking for the multifamily. And it is somewhat inefficient in that there's an aisle with only a bay of parking on one side. But we didn't want to have an additional curb cut onto right avenue. We will explore the possibility of combining the garage access and the access to that parking lot for the multifamily. That may complicate things as far as shared parking a little bit between the two uses. But we will look at shared parking. I suspect that a Saturday morning might be the peak here between the multifamily and the grocery store, but there may be the potential for a little bit of shared parking between the two uses. At the north end of the multifamily building, as I mentioned, there's a garage access that would be structured parking on the lowest level of the building. And all likelihood that would be a little bit lower than Trader Lane, but probably not 11 feet lower, allowing street level, either street level presidential units or commercial in there. But again, the design of Trader Lane, although there was an earlier design, the design of Trader Lane isn't complete, or right avenue for that matter, although again, there was a design done back in 2007-2009, so but there will be some adjustments to Trader Lane, I believe right avenue will probably remain much as it was originally anticipated. So construction of the grocery store would involve construction of right avenue to the intersection or to its end, to the intersection with Trader Lane, construction of the multifamily building, I presume would require at least a segment of Trader Lane be constructed if Trader Lane hasn't progressed on its own prior to that. To the east is a former TD bank currently occupied by dealer policy. I guess one of the, not to jump too far ahead, but so long as we're looking at the site plane here in terms of connections between this property and the dealer policy property to the east, if the access in front of the building was extended east, it would intersect the former drive-through lane, Teller Lane around the dealer policy building. I don't know whether the bank still occupies a portion of that, I know they did for a period of time. If the drive aisle to the west was extended, it intersects a parking area towards the westerly end of the property. Jeff can comment on this as well, but I believe that there's been some at least initial discussions about that property potentially gaining access to Trader Lane, and I guess we can report back on that more at discretionary permit, but if that property was to acquire access to Trader Lane in the future, would there be need to acquire access through this property to Wright Avenue? Construction of a public street would not only add cost, but it would also add the right-of-way through this property, which would have a ripple effect in terms of the right-of-way with street trees, potential setbacks, and as I mentioned with the drive lane there to the former Teller window, it's not the greatest setup for connecting parking lots. It's not like their parking lot comes relatively close to the property line in the parking lot on the grocery store side. It does come relatively close to the parking lot or close to the property line, but there's not a logical connection point there necessarily. So again, if the other policy was to connect to Trader Lane, I guess we question the need for access through this property to Wright Avenue as well. All right. And I can answer any general questions about the site or we can jump into the sort of progress through the staff report. Right. I think, yeah, I'd like to get there soon enough. I guess one of the questions I would ask is, I see on here the word future a lot. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about the intents here for the phasing of the project. Clearly, you know, the construction of the apartment building and the urban part and the artwork or the public art are all part of the proposal for the grocery store to gain approval here. So what is the timeframe that you're looking at here for the future development of the site? Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Okay. I mean, right now the market is certainly good right now for this type of project. So there's probably not going to be a lot of delay here, you know, within a couple of years, I would say. That's probably the time that the pocket park would be built as well because it's kind of adjacent to that building. A couple of years. That seems like a long time given the fact that this is a single proposal that we're being asked to approve tonight or to move forward tonight. Yeah. I mean, we could come back with a firm timetable for the next meeting. Well, yeah, I think just one thing to note on the future building, because it's residential and it requires growth management, you know, it would, they wouldn't be able to proceed with discretionary permit on that until after March of 2023, if they were fortunate enough to get all of their allocation, they could conceivably proceed right away with the residential building, but if they would have a year to submit the discretionary permit application after growth management was approved, but depending upon what the growth management allocation is, that may delay the construction of that building simply to a point where, you know, they can construct it and have growth management for all of the units being built. All right. Well, I'm just wondering about, you know, what if the market changes significantly in that period of time, and now there's no ability or desire to actually construct that, that kind of throws the permit for the grocery store, which is now complete and people are shopping there every week, you know, it's kind of hard to revoke that permit. And yet part of the, part of the approval of this project is contingent on construction of that apartment building. So I'm a little concerned about how we can get the assurances that we need to make that happen. John, I'm not so sure I agree with you on that. Yeah. I think the, this lot allows for a commercial building and an apartment building with requirements for a park and view shed, you know, view shed and what have you, but you don't have to build it all at once. And I don't think there's any requirement to put a, put an apartment building on here at all. It's simply allowed for it. It is allowed in the bylaws and there's enough room for it. Well, except for, well, okay, I'm sorry, go ahead, Scott. So I don't think that, you know, if you want, I guess if you wanted to just, you know, erase that from the area and they came back at a later date to put, you know, to put a, an apartment building here, you could run it, you know, you could do it that way. That's not what they've done. But I don't think there's a requirement that this be all built at once, nor do I think that the staff report even says that. Well, but it does say that the five of nine elements, one of them is the multiple uses, which in my understanding is that the residential use is the multiple use that's being proposed here. And that's where I was headed with that. I got it. Okay. So in that case, you know, in that case, it may be that those five of nine criteria don't, don't apply. And it may, and they may need to come back with a different one, you know, if, if the apartment building isn't being built. I don't know. In other words, we couldn't, we couldn't consider it. Right. Go ahead. I mean, just if, if I may, it seems like we might be hung up between two different, two different requirements that the town is imposed on us. One is the five of nine. We're happy to build an apartment building and hit the five of nine with the multiple uses at the same time as Andy pointed out, we've got growth management. So on one hand, you're asking for multiple uses, which we've complied with. But then we run into growth management, which delays us in, in that. So it is a two year process based on the growth, growth management requirement. So I'm not sure how you can hang us up on the fact that the growth management is the, is the kind of the culprit here. I understand. And I, and I would, I, you know, I can understand that this doesn't all get built at once. Certainly we have a large example, very close by here where there was a phased implementation of, of, of a, of a larger development. It was obviously much larger than this. What I want to make sure is that there's some assurance from the town and the, and the DRB, though, that what is approved is actually constructed. And I don't know, I don't know how to, I don't know how to do that. When I see here that these are, there's future roads that are involved here that, you know, we should be seeing something that doesn't say future. It should be, you know, proposed. And that, that's where I'm, maybe I'm getting hung up as I don't understand the difference between future and, and proposed and why we're not looking at something that says we're going to build the road here. There's going to be a road right there. And here's the, the building that's part of this project. Andy, can you comment on where, where, where's the town and everybody on Trader Lane and the act 250 and the permitting of Trader Lane? Because I think that's all we're waiting for, right? Well, I believe that the landowner in the town have been in discussions for quite some time about a cooperative agreement between the two parties that would advance that. But I don't believe that they've reached a final agreement in order to move that forward. I think I guess correct me, either staff or DRB, but I'm assuming that with this project moving forward, it would be a requirement that right Ave is constructed from where it ends now at Merchants Row to the intersection with Trader Lane with the grocery store and that with the construction of the residential building that at a minimum, the frontage of the, of Trader Lane from right Avenue to the north, whatever that distance is 200 feet or so would be required to be constructed in order for, for those projects, those two buildings to move forward, they would move forward at two separate times. And it may be that Trader Lane needs to go, would certainly need to go at least to the garage access, you know, it wouldn't just go to the property line, if in fact it was an easement for the garage access as opposed to a boundary line adjustment. I guess the other thing I might note on the future building is I think it's a requirement to meet the five of nine that a multi-story building be built there and that it be multiple uses, it couldn't be another grocery store, but it, not that office is a, is a really great market now, but you know, it could be office, it could be retail, it could be a number of different uses with residential on the upper floors, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be all residential, not that that's the applicant's intention, but I think in order to meet the five and nine, it's got to be multiple stories, it's got to have that certain footprint in order to meet the multiple story criteria and it needs to have multiple uses. Right, right, yeah. Well, I don't think anybody want a third grocery store in the neighborhood anyway, but so yeah, I think that's an excellent point that you make that it wouldn't necessarily have to be a residential use to meet the five of nine. I guess part of my question might be back towards staff here in terms of what is the time expectations to meet or to develop the five of nine elements on any given development. Obviously on Finney Crossing, it took, it's taken quite a long time to do that, but that's a huge development, much larger parcel than this. Right, the bylaw itself is silent on the timing that's required for, for the five of nine criteria to be met. It's kind of a reasonableness factor. What my threshold was when thinking about writing recommendation number one, A, is that the discretionary permit, if the grocery store is to happen in the first phase, the discretionary permit needs to show us with some certainty that the rest of the site can support the building as proposed. So show us cohesive parking and utility plan. One of the five of nine criteria is multiple stories, be 60% of the floor area. So if the grocery store is 19,000 and some odd square feet, the footprint of that future building needs to be a certain size and it needs to be three stories to meet that threshold. So discretionary permit, I would want to see that the application is moving in the right direction for the five of nine to be met across the project area and that the discretionary permit site engineering isn't hemming the project area into a corner where it can't meet the multiple stories, 60% threshold or it's not meeting the multiple uses standard. Wide sidewalks, we would need to see construction specifications for right app and trader lane. Whether trader lane gets built now or with the future building, that phasing can be somewhat nebulous, but knowing that the specifications are there, similarly with the urban park and public artwork, the DRB can think about does the discretionary permit show a solidified plan here or is it getting squished and moved to the side of the grocery store site plan? Do any of the other board members, while we're on this subject, I think I'd like to kind of work through this one first and then we can leave it go and dive into the other options or other issues that are out there. Any other questions or clarifications that you would want on this? One question, what happens if trader lanes never built? What I mean by never, I'm talking about in my lifetime. 40 residential units can be served by a single point of access, so they wouldn't need that two curb cuts for 24 apartment units. So I don't see anything in our bylaw that would mandate that, they would only need to build that portion of trader lane if they're proposing part of the access to it. Right, so as it's shown on the plan right now, there's a part of the parking for the proposed residential building that can only be accessed from trader lane. Could there be some other design of a similar building that could take all of its needed access from right avenue? Probably, and Emily's right, with a 40 unit limit. Under current bylaw, this 2.34 acre lot would serve up to 17 and a half dwelling unit equivalents. So it's unlikely that the applicants would go over the 40 units or fit anywhere near that number in a building of this size. So there's probably a way that this site could be developed with a building more or less in that location without constructing any of the trader lane. But you have to see that at discretionary permit. You know, you're either going to get a discretionary permit that proposes to build a piece of trader lane in order to build this residential building, or that doesn't, or one that offers the options, the bylaw requirements for safe access. Okay, right. So, you know, I guess, Paul, I appreciate that question. But you know, I think more generically is, you know, what if something else happens and that then that makes it difficult or not viable to to complete the development on the site? And I guess that's probably a question that can be asked of a lot of different developments. But you know, I guess I just looked at DP to have some assurance that this project is moving forwards. And that the developer is is moving deliberately towards concluding conclusion of all the of all the proposed items on the on the site. The other issue that I think was mentioned here at one point by Emily was the concept that the Williston zoning rules are about to change. And I'm not sure how this future building, whether it's going to even going to need to comply with the current WDB, or is it going to need to comply with the the potential form based code that's coming up. And Matt, I'm not sure even how that plays into this conversation. So, the point in our bylaw at which projects vast in the version of the bylaw that will be applied to them going forward is when a complete application for a discretionary permit is filed. So, to the extent that this future building is filed for as part of a complete application for a discretionary permit, i.e. if it's filed for discretionary permit as part of the grocery store, it's vested in today's version of the bylaw. Does that does that make sense, or is there something I could clarify beyond that? Well, yeah, I mean, that would that mean that there's a there's a full design for this building that's submitted at the time that the discretionary permit is put in front of us for the grocery store? And that's the case. How can you do that if it has to go through growth management first? Well, that's that's a fair question. Typically, we don't think of a discretionary permit application as being right for review if it's a residential project, unless the project has received allocation under the growth management system, which as you pointed out earlier, the hearing happens once a year. So, in this case, you have a proposed grocery store that relies on a residential building to meet two of the five of nine criteria for the grocery store's approval. I think that a complete application for a discretionary permit that is approval under the five of nine needs to show that that building can be built. It needs to show it on the site. It needs to show it at a level of design such that the DRV can review it against all of the requirements of the zoning bylaw. As far as the ability of that building to move forward as a residential building with allocation, you simply won't know that until March of 23. In other cases, where the five of nine criteria have been met across multiple buildings on a site, and I'm calling out fitting crossing as an example, the residential component came first and the allocation had been received by the time master plans for that project came into place. So, this is a little different than that. And we're in a little bit of murky territory. There's a checklist that was prepared by a zoning administrator prior to me that I use to determine whether a discretionary permit application is complete and ready for review. I don't necessarily, when I'm accepting an application, rule on whether that application is approvable or not, although we certainly as a staff help applicants understand where those sticking points might be. The ruling that is made when we take something in when I accepted the zoning administrator is the application complete. And so this is a unique situation. You could certainly submit a complete design for everything on this site, both grocery store and residential building, and you'd be submitting all of the pieces of information the DRB would need to review the project against the bylaw, except you would not be able to approve all of that single phase until growth management had happened. So again, I feel like I'm making it murkier rather than clearer, John, but I would agree. There's a normal course of events that is followed for a mixed use project, including residential. And usually what that means is there's not a build out of any of that project until there's the beginnings of a residential build out, and there's an ability to do that. So are you saying that we could receive this application, we could review it, we could deem it approvable, but we wouldn't be able to approve it because it wouldn't have growth management? Right, or rather, I might be able to accept it as complete, but you might not be able to approve it. But the applicant is asking us to approve the grocery store. Right. I would say the applicant is reasonably asking us to approve the grocery store. Correct. And so the grocery store by itself and its affordances does not meet the five of nine criteria. So what I'm concerned about, John, is that I'm asked at some point in the future to inspect and issue a certificate of occupancy to this grocery store. And the grocery store is there and on its site, it's meeting two or three of the five of the five nine and two of the other two are missing. And I would need to issue a certificate that says that that grocery store can be up and running, essentially on the hope that the other two criteria would eventually be met by the development of the second building. Matt, Matt, John, let me go ahead. Please, I think you're going to ask what I was going to. If maybe when form based code comes into play, does the five of nine, does the five of nine goes away? Correct. Yes. So is this where you were going to go, John? No, it isn't. Go ahead. You're more interesting. Well, so if at this point, we can reasonably expect that form based code is going, you know, is maybe going to occur by May or June, maybe a little earlier. Certainly, we hope to be done by the end of the fiscal year. Yes. Does it make sense to table this until that comes into play because because of the position you are going to get put in if a grocery store is built, but nothing else is leaving a, leaving a, you know, avoid in the five of nine? It would certainly be efficient if this project was definitely subject to one code or the other. But this project as proposed, at least under the current draft form based code that's under consideration by the planning commission, it's not approval. This project would not meet the building form standards or the street placement standards in the regulate plan in that draft code. So this project to go forward in any semblance of what you see on the site plan today, it would need to go forward under today's bylaws. So what I'm hearing is then that from the discussion that has occurred that you can't be put in a position of approving a 19,000 square foot grocery store without the future building being built at the same time. I'm not going to go so far as to say built at the same time. I think that the question of besting, again, what version of the bylaws applies to somebody's project happens at the time that a complete application for a discretionary permit is filed. So I go back to that point of it's when does the zoning administrator take that fairly detailed application across the desk and say this is complete and ready for the staff to write a staff report ready for us to put on a DRB agenda. Anything else, Scott? Do you want to follow up there? No, I'm fine with the timing. Okay, shoot. Because I'm having a hard time kind of putting this into a coherent format of questions. So Matt, is it even possible or are we allowed to review something, a residential component of a project like this before it has growth management allocation? Well, I will draw a parallel for you and maybe you can make your own judgment on it. The DRB does review overall subdivision layouts for subdivisions that only have partial allocation. So, you know, when you looked at, for example, phase one of the Northridge subdivision, there was allocations built phase one and there was an overall subdivision plan and plat showing street layouts, infrastructure and lot layouts, that included phase two for which there was not yet any allocation and, you know, phase two was not a complete blank on the site plan. It was designed and we certainly looked at it and made sure that it was in compliance with the firewall. So, in a sense, yes. And I'll say, you know, I spent a lot of time thinking about the complexities and timing related to this project and thinking about all the things that would make life easier. So, of course, it would make life easier if the five of nine were simply met by the grocery store as a standalone project because then we wouldn't worry about what was going to happen on the rest of site. And as Andy mentioned earlier, it actually makes life a little easier if that additional building was an office building. Because then it's not bogged down by the timing element of growth management. Some folks in this day and age may question whether it's wise to propose to build any additional office space in Chittenden County given market conditions. But an office building meets the multiple stories criteria in the five of nine and it meets the multiple uses required office uses are generally more than different enough from a grocery store to meet the multiple uses criteria. So, neither of those things is the case at Pre-App, but could be modifications that can move this forward in a timely manner that might keep it under review under the version of the zoning that exists today. And that required, whoa, I'm getting some feedback there. Here we go, it's better. So, and that, as you say, would be to get a DP in front of the, or into your office before the form-based code goes into effect? Correct. And, you know, the timing on that is a little bit up in the air, but if a DP is filed before the form-based code is warned as a hearing by the select board, then the DP would be reviewed under today's bylaws. So, now we have a new player, the select board. Right. And, you know, this is playing out in our neighboring community to us right now where South Burlington has zoning changes that are warned as a hearing by the city council. And as my counterpart in South Burlington referred to it, it's the zoning vortex where both the current zoning and the proposed zoning are applicable for a period of 150 days while the city council reviews that proposed zoning at its hearing. So, for the purposes of DRB, I'm really not trying to make this any more complicated than it needs to be. Suffice to say, there is a date in the relatively near future at which point the bylaw we're reviewing this project under tonight as a pre-application will no longer be all of the requirements that a project of this piece of land will need to be. Right. Well, it certainly is the task of this board though is to review projects based on what the current enforceable zoning by-law is. And so, this board requests clarity always about what the rules are that we're enforcing. So, I guess I also don't want to be encouraging development that nobody wants. I mean, I think we should be trying to make the best Williston that we can. And I think that this, you know, it seems that this residential use right there is consistent with a lot of things that we're looking at that the extension of these roads in a grid pattern is what we've been looking for for a long time. So, I'd like to find a way to to make this work. You know, again, I'm going to go right back to where my initial concern, which is what happens when this, when you have to approve the grocery store and the rest of the foundation upon which this permit is based, the five of nine isn't in place. And how does the board get assurances that that's going to happen? And what happens if who knows what happens that would keep that from going forwards? And so, that was my question of what's the time frame that would be required to actually complete this? And do we give out a contingent to occupancy? I've never heard of such a thing. Can we tie some kind of like bonding requirement to that, the kind of completion of construction, the second phase of this? You know, David, we looked at the required improvements and bonding provisions in our bylaw that they don't generally list this sort of thing as some, you know, bonding is typically for sidewalks and landscaping and erosion control measures and urban parks, things that things that we require that are generally a little bit ancillary to what the applicant wants to develop. You know, I would say that the more that what is designed and proposed before the board is a unified site plan, the better level of comfort there is that all of the project will be built. So, you know, when you see an integrated parking lot that's all going to be built at one time, when you see the access is feasible, when you see that the buildings are both designed at a level where they can be approved and built, when you see everything on one final plan coming through together, all the way to the point of does everything come in on one permit? You know, certainly we have people who do things where they take something all the way through permitting and then they only go part of what they get a permit for that does happen. I would really not want to be in a position where there was some kind of conditional approval that said you get you get open the doors of the grocery store until the apartments are ready for occupancy or something because that would that would be a reach beyond what the town has ever done before and frankly be almost impossible to enforce. I mean I can try but I don't think it would work. So, Matt, I have one last question on this for you which is are there any any ambiguities in the code here that you think a legal opinion would be helpful if we ask for it? Given this conversation we've just had. Do you think there's any ambiguities? Yeah, unfortunately I think there are a few. You know, one is the way the five of nine criteria is worded it says, you know, maybe maybe achieved cumulatively across a single development proposal. Proposal is not a defined term, I would take it to mean an application but it's not there. The question of whether the board could review the design of a residential building at the discretionary permit level prior to the needed growth management hearing to actually build that building. You know, essentially that might my generalized question that I have to do a lot of explaining to the town attorney be can the board move forward? Can the board reasonably move forward with the discretionary permit review of this project with the criteria being proposed to be met as they are? Maybe that's a question for the applicant to see if that's something they would be capable or interested in doing. We repeat that question again. This is Jeff again. Jeff, sorry, it's Scott. I guess the I'm posing this to the chair in reality is, you know, John, and maybe it's asking the applicant, you know, if that is something that they can reasonably achieve by having a three-story apartment building designed to such extent that it can get through DP at the same time as the grocery store. Right. Meaning that is there sufficient time available to and the will to do such a to go through that? When you say design, design to the fullest extent ready for construction or? No. I think what my understanding of that question is that it's sufficient that we would be able to have a full review of that as a discretionary permit. I think it would have to be ready. It would have to be ready to go and meet all of the requirements so that staff could approve it, you know, or at least run it through their approval process and get it ready for the approval and review by the board. Right. But growth management wouldn't growth management dictate what the building looked like depending on the number of units? Well, no. You're going to get the amount of units you want. It just may be spread over time. Right. But then you can't build the building all at once if you're spread over time. Yeah, but I don't think that's what I don't think that's what the question we're posing. It's more do you have the building, you know, they say you want to build a, you know, a 35 unit building, you'll get the units eventually. But just again, maybe spread over time. You wouldn't build it until you had all of the units. But it would be a but but you would design it to be approval. But earlier, somebody mentioned that, I mean, Scott, I think it was your project, Scott, that the five of nine wasn't built all at once. But you're asking us to build the five of nine all at once. No, I'm actually I'm actually not I'm simply responding to that. Matt's comments. Okay. Jeff, all Jeff, all we're asking for is you to basically show that hey, I'm ready to go if you guys are going to approve this. That's what we're asking for. Yeah, so to show the design of the building and some more detail in terms of the dimensional requirements and utilities and whatnot. Yeah, materials. The hack comments. I assume the hack. We have to go back to hack. Yeah. But rather rather than just having a dotted line there saying future building or say, hey, this is what the future building is going to look like when it's finally going to get approved with everything down the line. Yeah. Is it correct that it would essentially be the discretionary permit review without the growth management that it would it would be a DP review with everything except growth management, growth management would be allocated. And then I'm guessing it's probably going to be a formality to come back to the board to have the final approval granted once the once the growth management is allocated. Is that the sequencing on how this would go? That would be my feeling. That's how I'm understanding this right now, whether that's legal or not. I have no clue. I do think that's accurate, Andy. And I think that we're balancing a couple different chapters in the bylaw. There are provisions that allow for discretionary permits to be for projects that have more than one phase and to allow projects to be split into phases. I think I think we can take what the board is expressing a desire for i.e. a mostly designed residential component and and then identified in that initial DPS phase two because it's it's got to have allocation. There is always going to be some level of uncertainty about all of a project building out as as planned. And you know I'm not I'm not pretending that there's a way we can offer the town 100% certainty on that with this one. I think the DRV is having a good conversation about how to achieve a level of certainty that gives them comfort moving forward with the next stage of review. Yeah, he doesn't break ground until he's got it all on the on the on the on that building. He builds the he builds the grocery store. He has everything has the housing structure ready to go and then he doesn't break ground on it until he's got however many units he needs to build. Perhaps Matt covered this in a little bit of earlier discussion, but I guess I'll ask the question if we go through that scenario where the next discretionary permit application comes in before form based code becomes effective not necessarily adopted but effective and the DRV reviews the design of that building. Growth management is granted and then the applicant comes back to get final approval for this residential building. Would they have vested rights under the current bylaw or would they be subject to form based code at that future time which may substantially change the appearance of the building? I believe they could be vested under the current bylaw but in my in my mind as we have this conversation I'm starting to write my request for legal opinion pulling in a bunch of the bylaw citations you know there's a there's a fact pattern here we're talking about that leads us to a couple of questions about the right procedure you know we didn't want to focus the staff report for tonight on that because it's a preliminary review of the site development there's there's a lot to talk about about design but I think you know with with maybe the DRVs agreement I would like to ask if I could seek some legal advice not wide open hating town lawyer what do we do here but rather my theory is that there could be a phased discretionary permit review as we've just talked about and town attorney based on the bylaw citations I'm giving you is that an acceptable way forward that leads to a durable approval which is you know a justifiable decision by the DRV and I'm hearing from DRV members that they'd like to be on a little bit firmer ground with that when we go into that DP review I mean not only that Matt I'm with Andy and that if we if this group as a DRV reviews that that in this case it proposes a residential building and we give it our approval that's you know essentially conditional on allocation being received I'd like to think that a future DRV couldn't kind of pull that back when they came back in to kind of get a rubber stamp we know what change so so being being clear about exactly what an applicant is vested in mm-hmm would be important is that is that correct okay including being vested in a growth management allocation review process that exists today that might not exist in the same form under form-based code geez what a time to be alive so so that growth so growth management goes away with with the proposed form-based code it doesn't entirely go away but its administration is proposed to change it's it's proposed to become essentially part of the permitting process with the same unit limits in place same same rules for using allocation and all of that oh and I did want to mention just because Jeff Nick said something about you know you have to wait till you have it all remember that growth management was changed in 2019 2020 and as long as you have a unit in the coming fiscal year you can start your project and build through all of your allocated units without waiting for the valid year of each unit so there's essentially a start date in growth management now for the overall project and the units are spread out across the years but if you if you build faster than that schedule that is acceptable under the system now right does that make sense yes it does to me but I don't think you're asking me I was asking Jeff but we can we can go over it no it does make sense it does make sense Matt I know if you're asking me yeah I mean I mean one thought I have maybe if if you can phase this like you're talking about that I think that makes sense I mean just to talk about this particular project for a second it I mean it does feel a nice niche the all these model fills a nice niche in the supermarket supermarket market or grocery market I should say one thought I had earlier in hearing this unfold is affordable housing is that exempt from gross man growth management and if this was an affordable unit would that be one another avenue to pursue yes if it was affordable at or below 80% of the area median income DRP members will recall the recent Champlain Housing Trust hotel conversion project created 72 new residential units but did not have to go to growth management due to the price restriction on those units and similar to Matt with with senior housing too right would be exempt yeah so senior housing as it's been approved at Finney crossing and in Blair Park is approved under the health care and social assistance use category as opposed to residential so that is not subjected to growth management either good to know thanks all right board members you have any more questions on this subject or should we move on to the kind of what we what we really like talking about on to something new let's do that so if we go if we go right through the the the package here of that the issues that Emily was uh was speaking of um maybe John John I had a couple of just random site plan questions do you want to wait till after you want to go through the list just shoot shoot them we have a day all right can you reshare the the site plan on the screen let's see first off the so so just south of the grocery store there's a note of a new new sidewalk and paved path is that is that intentional to have both of those right next to each other yeah I think the intent is to carry the paved path that exists along right avenue but to carry or to to carry that hardscape from the paved path up to the edge of the the grocery store not only um up to the planer that's proposed along that elevation but also carry it all the way down to the entry at the southwest corner yeah okay okay and are you picturing asphalt and then concrete kind of two different material types yes yeah yeah um and then in the same area I guess right where the pointer is to Emily's comment about the that that that door they at the entrance there coming right out of that around that radius with cars coming in that I would agree that's not ideal from a safety perspective and just curious if you've thought of alternatives and um and one alternative I thought I mean is it possible to shift the store to the north and you've got I mean it seems like you get the loading area can shift up a little bit to the north you would lose those five kind of parking spaces there but can can this be shifted to the north or does the building have to front on the does it have to be right along the the front inch or along the property line I'll let staff answer how far back it could be there is a utility line along the north side of the building that would need to be relocated so there is a bit of a of a pinch point there the overhead utility line would need to be relocated with the building's current configuration it'd have to be pushed even further to the north it would be a limitation on how far the building could move right so our pilot does requires that require that new buildings come to the sidewalk and parking and outdoor sales move to the side or rear so they are compliant with having their entrance and their primary facade along the right avenue yeah yeah Emily and David I'm sorry Jeff I don't just jump in a little bit but if you it's an interesting point to move the building north could you build not have the actual building but could you have planters or landscape designs or something that would qualify as a building but could allow it to be slid further north maybe like a patio or something or something yeah something that would quote unquote be defined as a part of the building a wing wall or something some some architectural component or and Andy is I'll ask Andy either it looks like there's room to slide it to the north right yeah it would just mean um you know working with green mountain power that overhead line may have to be pulled back to the to the edge of the lease line between the bank and the grocery store yeah I think the sidewalk standard says is new buildings must come to the sidewalk an exception of up to 30% of a building's frontage may be made for an entry plaza or courtyard the DRB may also permit exceptions for accessible parking so that this that this frontage here shifted back and then 30% is that plaza or courtyard that would be approvable and still having that main entrance where you can enter from the parking lot side or enter from the sidewalk um I'm just going to keep rolling um what one question on the um it looks like there's a is there is there a property line that diagonal blue dash line that's kind of two thirds the way west on the parking lot are there two lots here yes there is um there are some old lot lines that are in there the future building is shown on an old on an existing task corners commercial park lot the grocery store is on the lot that the northfield savings bank is part of and so would you be merging these lots as part of the the application you know I think there'd be some merger there'd be a lot of things going on because the lots would merge you'd also be creating the right of way for right avenue and trader lane so there may be either a boundary line adjustment or an easement arrangement for the access um into the garage on the future building to the north um there would certainly be some subdivision elements here um but I think it would be a number of things happening got it got it um the related to the boundary line adjustment the staff notes said that garage access would need to be there'd need to be a boundary line adjustment to bring that access onto this lot and um I think I thought you mentioned Andy that you were just thinking of an easement across that parcel is it a requirement to um have that access be entirely on this parcel or can there just be an access easement across that that property I'll let Emily answer that I would have to look into the bylaw a little bit more I think typically in projects of this size and scale we like to see everything contained within the subject property and access easement might be the bylaw requirement for safe legal access that can be worked out discretionary permit David that's a trade that triangular shaped piece to the north is kind of an orphaned lot from the trader lane extension so that could easily be merged into this overall site got that's not it's not tied to the to the bank claw yeah I see no it's not yeah okay um last question uh just uh in terms of the requirements to have that the connection to the north is that is there any wiggle room there or is that is that a must there shall be a connection to the parcel to the north no matter what there's some wiggle room uh what the access chapter says is where there are no physical barriers providing um that point for future connection whether it be constructed or the offer to the town to be able to connect through okay where there's no physical barriers okay question David I'm glad David brought that up all these would prefer not to create a shortcut if you will and have a traffic issue through their parking lot because dealer policy is eventually going to connect to trader lane they will have another means of egress from their land they wouldn't necessarily need a third egress across this line would they I guess that's questions for Emily right what this current bylaw says now that there be um future access connected to future properties on my staff report I show two options I don't think it has to be two I think one could probably meet the intent of the bylaw you're saying you're saying one Emily but Jeff is asking if zero is okay right right I don't I don't know if zero would be okay let me pull up chapter 13 for the quotation so what chapter 13 says is development should have safe functional connections with the joining developments for vehicles bicyclists and pedestrians interconnected street and trail systems shared points of access and shared parking will be required wherever they are not precluded by physical barriers including property ownership historic land use patterns and difficult terrain so thinking back to Matt's analogy earlier about looking at the overall subdivision approval for you know multi-phase residential development you look for where does this property above others and where could that access be provided in the future it's not requiring that it be built today but that the legal um connection be there for the future so Emily I'm I'm suggesting um that if we include that triangular shaped piece of land to the north of the apartment building and that becomes part of this overall lot then that would be the second connection to Trader Lane because it's all going to be owned by the same property owner Taft Corners Associates so that would meet the definition of the requirement right right now they only have one means of access to route 2a they don't have a dealer policy doesn't have an access to Trader Lane but they could in the future across this triangular shaped piece of land yeah it's it's weird because it's you know the garage access so I I don't know if that would meet the intent here if the intent is the intent to provide additional access points for the dealer lot or for the the uh the subject parcel both the intent here is to can create an interconnected grid of streets to avoid that frustrating trip where you go to the grocery store and then you go to the bank you have to go all the way out onto 2a to get to the bank right just allow me to envisioning here on this site plan um the recommendations about the parking lot circulation if where this access drive is currently proposed becomes a rank of parking this access gets shifted down then you no longer have a drive aisle like right in front of the building where all the people are going to walk if that ever connects through to the dealer policy property it would function like a secondary street and then reorienting the parking to provide better pedestrian flow through I think it would be feasible to put in have that access point available in the future where dealer policy then connects through and this parking lot drive aisle in the future becomes a grid street but these connections wouldn't necessarily need to be streets they can simply be connections between parking lots right right they could be connections through parking lots and they could be you know you provide the offer to the town for that right of way but it doesn't need to be constructed today just that the safe legal access is there to create that connection between these two abutting properties I guess that's what I'm wondering though is I think you're suggesting that there needs to be an offer to the town for a public right of way in a public street connection I'm wondering does there simply need to be you know sort of a self burlington does it you know you you build your parking lot to the property line when the other guy gets around it to it he builds his parking lot to the property line and there's connectivity not a defined street or certainly a right of way to the town which would have I think that would work because 13.7 does say shared parking as well shared points of access interconnected streets so I think that model could work as well I mean in that case then anywhere along that northern is that north on the top or is that that's actually what east yeah the top is the north it's the north okay so anywhere along there you could potentially put a connection through in the future if there was something to connect to my understanding when writing the staff report was that the bank and future grocery store were separate parcels so I think there's an opportunity as well if it is a land lease where that access point is you know associated with the bank parking lot it doesn't necessarily need to be to the west of the grocery store it could be to the east near the bank so I think there's a couple options if it is still one contiguous property under the same ownership that's being reviewed tonight so Emily if this is a definite requirement the option would be we would because it's hard to go to the bank they've got that ground lease be hard to tell them to share to share their parking lot with somebody but with the supermarket it's a new project you could create that easement on the western end of that parking lot seems like a logical place maybe through this from the supermarket yeah somewhere there there's a couple options here whether it's a given to the town or the shared parking between two abiding properties to provide that interconnected yeah particular and pedestrian flow so Emily would that is that something that we would want to see built right now a little hammerhead or something that went back to the property line so that the the next time the the property to the north comes up for approval for something we can require them to connect to that instead of still having a gap on this plot because it's not up for approval right now it could be built to the property line I think shown on the plat is acceptable as well you you know you think about large subdivision design where they're they're plotting that easement or right of way to the property line but I'm just trying to think of compelling someone to to actually build it I mean when would we be able to do that in the future if it's not built now as part of this project that's a good point I know from talking to dealer policy that they would like it we've resisted it but now it looks like it's a requirement so as long as it's going to be the least impactful for all these then I guess if dealer policy wants it then I would imagine they would build it right well you probably you've heard this mentioned already tonight and I think we'll be saying it before we're finished you know the board here doesn't necessarily like to do all the designing but we would we are I think you're hearing us say that we would like to see that connection be a possible thing in the future if the neighboring property wants to do it and the discretionary permit we're going to want to see where that location would be from from your side of the of the property line understood all right David anything else nope that was it well that was a great start because that was one of the very first items as we start to page through our our our our report from Emily here to begin with the I think that was under the dimensional standards right um to discuss parking so I'm not sure Emily what you mean by numerical setback from root two and two a what's a numerical setback um a hard number so 25 feet or 55 feet parking needs to be setback from root two or two a the bylaw is vague it wants buildings pulled to the sidewalk on side streets like right ab but it wants parking to the side of rear I see and the hack the hack has suggested or has recommended uh increasing the building frontage on right avenue are they talking about um the the the grocery store or the future building the future building I see and and um Jeff you mentioned there that that you thought that was the that was a piece that you objected to right off is that right yeah I don't know how you fit it on there and get that pocket park in there yeah I don't need it I mean this building is already shown to be along most of the the entire length of uh trader trader lane is that right but for but for the pocket park which it looks like you've oriented in such a way as to try to maximize the the Adirondack views exactly yeah thank you um is it anybody on the DRB want to comment on that further or disagree with the near near conclusion we just came to outdoor storage I don't think there's uh we talked about that I think you'll need to address that during the at the DP plans you know this is where where you're how you're dealing with all the outdoor uh waste and whatnot um Adirondack views um I think we just we just went over that where are you reading from John I'm at 41.9 on page three I'm sorry I'm going through the the staff report here um maybe we can put that up on the screen so we just discussed site layout how can be improved to use Adirondack views especially in the urban park well you you've put the urban park it seems to me where it's going to best be able to take advantage of those views I think you know when you get into to the design of the apartment or the residential building there may be some public spaces in there that can take advantage of these views but there's probably going to be limited public spaces in that building right and that's something that we I suppose we would look at at DP when it came up just to make sure you've done this as much as you can do reasonably um I'm going to go through this and if anybody has a comment just blurt it right out and stop me um development patterns um we're talking about building mass must be broken up using clearly to mark doors and windows including display windows variations in the building footprint um I think that this is Emily from the hack standpoint are they satisfied with with this or overall yes they had one discussion point for the DRB recommendation number 4a about the stone veneer base I guess this seems like as good a spot as any to get into the the hack comments then um I'm going to weigh in on this one first I have no idea why the hack is worried about this this building is designed to to to comply or to be acceptable or not um why are why is the hack deciding which materials go where um primarily the hack was concerned about that there's you know two languages on the building some places where the stone base is shown beneath the brown veneer and they're fine with that but then where it's shown below the brick and places where it's not particularly the southeast corner facing right ab there would be a stone veneer below the brown then all brick um and then the east elevation you would have that stone veneer below brick so there's a spot where we disjointed between the south and the east facades south and the east yeah so the hack is saying either provide stone veneer along all of the brick or take away the stone veneer on the east side below the brick just match the three sides to balance the building so that's the hack the hack's opinion of balance or symmetry I suppose to the design architects anybody have any more questions do we want to discuss this and uh during deliberations anybody out everybody understand what's what's at play here it doesn't matter to me either way yeah um so Emily where where do I find the rest of the hack comments that we may want to discuss or their recommendations recommendations number four starting on page 11 so they're talking about uh requiring building materials and specifications 3d renderings from right avenue okay that seems reasonable um form should follow function windows on the west elevation above the canopy should either be real windows or not windows all right so Jeff I guess these are all things that the board's going to have to consider during deliberations are there any is there anything here that that you take objections to um no not not really um they're happy to comply and I think they don't want to yeah I think they're happy to comply and whatever you come back with I'm sure we'll uh they'll be in agreement with they're they're willing to do yeah I haven't heard any objection although possible enclosure there was one item here 4d was the provided closure considering orienting the building at park so the park is enclosed on two sides by the building um that was kind of related to their recommendation about more frontage on right ab and the pedestrian connection I guess um provide a pathway through the parking lot that not sure exactly Emily what that means I mean right I think that would be something like a healthy living or the walkway between Walmart and Home Depot where there's a protect protected path for pedestrians so if you're going from one side of the lot to the other you don't have to do it entirely through the drive aisle how would that be how would that be done going from right so what the bylaw requires is that there be pedestrian access through and around the parking lot um and Deereau worked on this one for the healthy living building so I think he can probably problem solve something to get the drive aisle away from the main entrance um creative pedestrian path through whether that's shifting the angle or which way the drive aisles orient um I think there's a creative solution there Emily it seems like at healthy living that that walkway is a seems very successful in that it connects the public sidewalk along the road to the front entrance of the building um and I whereas I so I think the concept here is great I'm wondering on this site what we're connecting um I guess we're connecting the future residential building you'd be able to walk through this parking lot potentially on that sidewalk up to the front door of the building but the um you know but the public way that the sidewalks are here along right avenue and that's what you really want to have a connection with so I'm not sure what the purpose of that that sidewalk in the parking lot is for other than the people who are parked in the parking lot what the parking chapter says is how much pedestrian access around through into parking areas be provided there shall be safe pedestrian access in the form of sidewalks around all parking and loading areas the DRB may permit the use of the recreation path or other pedestrian ways as an alternative accessible routes must be provided from parking areas to the buildings of the destinations they serve and throughout the DRB will require that safe pedestrian access be provided through large parking areas okay does it define large parking area nope all right there's a killy teal um I mean I look at this and I wonder whether it makes more sense to provide you know those islands at the at the at the west end of the site you know path there from those parking spots if you don't if you didn't feel comfortable walking through the the drive aisles to get down to the sidewalk um but anyway right I think the way the the hack recommendations are reported here is that there it gives the applicant some flexibility and how they provide that pathway how they reduce those vehicle pedestrian conflicts I think that's a great way of putting this is that the DP we'd like to see how those conflicts have been minimized okay I mean I take exception to a couple of these I wonder why the hack is telling the the the applicant here that the the the the size of the overhangs on the building and whether they need to be symmetrical or not but if the if the if the applicant has no objections then I'm not going to I'm not going to adjust those John as John as always it is advisory not compulsory yes well we'll talk about we'll talk about what we want to say then in in the deliberation Frank Lloyd Wright would not build a building with the Williston hack around it wasn't the same building I think they would the we would like to stick as closely as possible to what all these has proposed for froze for the the building I mean in terms of the angles they've put on the roof line certainly we're willing to hide the mechanical equipment that should go without saying but in terms of the the other angles and you know overhangs they'd like to stick as closely as possible what they've shown we're happy to add the the overhang above the e-commerce store that faces west that's that's agreeable certainly right okay all right so we have I think we've we've we've talked about the five of nine plenty this evening did anyone else have any comments on the on the hack recommendations um not on the hack with the on the five of nine one of the one of the things is is could is is it possible to build the park while you're building the grocery store and parking lot I know it would probably be a little bit in the way of it I mean it's certainly possible um it might get in the way of the building the future building if we're up right up against it um it may even tie into the future building um but we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll take a look at it if that's what you come back with well the other issue is the urban park with art is not fully defined until the other buildings build I mean that could just basically be a couple of benches and a and a sculpture stuffed in the dirt and that would qualify until they build the other building and they put the finished product in possibly I mean Jeff I can I can speak for myself here that you know I'm hoping to see at BP for the grocery store you know a good faith effort here that that you're moving ahead with the rest of the project with all due speed and that is as approvals would be available and you're able to do it that you would be doing that um in a timely fashion absolutely no actually we've we've already been approached by an apartment developer that wanted to buy it from us so right there's yeah there's right and with what Matt right and with what Matt was saying earlier about you know what what would be involved with the you know looking at this at a DP level I think that certainly would demonstrate your seriousness about about moving ahead with this as soon as as you can in my mind for kind of a common sense standpoint that that seems to make a lot of sense based on the conversations we've had here tonight yeah understood obviously obviously the board will be discussing this as we we move forward here as we move it later into the night and you know we'll try to write it down here in a way that you can understand what we're looking for yeah anything else on the five of nine we've got the vested rights non-conforming lots blah etc I think we exhausted that one pretty good huh growth management we talked about that bicycles and pedestrian access we talked about how you might be able to adjust the parking lot to better comply with the the intentions of the of the bylaw I guess staff was suggesting that a rank of parking be placed up against the building that's an issue I think for the tenant I think the applicants talked about you know restricting that west or excuse me the the easterly curb cut to be enter only or potentially exit only works much better being an entrance only for deliveries I guess we'd be looking for some feedback from the DRB if there's a strong preference one way or the other we've also talked about some aisle and mangled parking scenarios as well yeah definitely the the the supermarket would prefer not to have a a bank or a line of parking against the building or that they prefer not to have that but as Andy said entrance only they're willing to think about that one okay we've got got we talked about connectivity parking bicycle parking that's all needs to be in compliance what else is on here that anybody have any comments on any of these items just going back just a quick question on the traffic study and did you have a sense of whether you would look at this assuming that Trader Lane was fully open to traffic or would you assume that this was a dead end right avenue I think given the again while the landowner has been talking with the town I'm not sure what the build out for Trader Lane would be obviously Trader Lane would open up a lot more opportunities for the distribution of trips from this particular site but it would also bring a lot of background traffic with it right it seems like we would probably need to look at this with just access via merchants row in right avenue initially unless the board thinks otherwise that feels reasonable to me so as I as I preview the rest of the items in here it looks like very standard stuff I don't see anything there that I think we need to the labor too long unless somebody has a question or a comment to make on the on the rest of the staff report so I guess I will open it up now to any anybody in the audience that has a question of the applicant here or has comment to make if he says to raise your zoom hand no chats and no raise hands no chats no raise hands so board members any any other questions here that we haven't taken care of Jeff Andy anything out there from you guys any last comments no I think we're good I think I'll probably follow up with staff maybe and talk about some of the issues we talked about earlier in terms of the phasing and how we accomplish all that yeah well we're very grateful for your bringing up stuff here that we've never had to deal with before happy to be a service so I think uh I think that's uh that's good so I'm gonna close this at 9 32 p.m and I'm gonna hand the gavel back to uh to our our chair Mr Kelly thank you everybody thank you thank you guys thanks thanks John that's uh that was a heavy lift I appreciate it okay um next order of business is before we go into deliberations we've gonna staff actually uh do we go into deliberation and when we come out of deliberation do we do agenda item number three or do we do agenda item number three now I think we should do it now I believe Brian courier here is um for the trinity discussion okay I'm I my preference is to do it now anyway so okay uh so now we're gonna segue into agenda item number three uh first under that heading is dp 22 dash 01 trinity baptist church review of legal opinion um um Brian sorry to disappoint you but this is simply just to acknowledge that we received uh the legal opinion and that the legal opinion will be considered at uh dp when uh that comes when that is filed uh other than that I've got nothing further to add uh do you have anything Brian that you would like to raise at this point before we transition to the next topic nope we're all set okay great thank you I'm sorry you had to wait all evening for that no worries zoom zoom makes it not that big a deal anymore so okay okay very good thank you okay next up is this final plan review for dp 09 dash 01 dot 23 uh which is uh building h and finney crossing uh that's something I need to refuse myself on I was that was where I was going okay scott so you're recused in this discussion so I would like staff to uh to take control of this please I did not have drawings in my packet um and so uh we retained we the drp retained uh final plan approval and walk us through um what has been proposed so that uh when we go into deliberations we can have a discussion about it right uh so the drp retained final plan review primarily because of the discussion about the urban park and condition number 21 final plan shall include revisions to the park to add elements that activate the social area and provide a defining defining feature of finney crossing what the applicant is proposing to do is split final plans into two and do two separate permits one for the restaurant one for the urban park we are recommending that you approve the final plans for the restaurant as submitted we did upload them and leave them online staff has reviewed them and finds that the building and its appartenance is um the landscaping along the walkway the parking the landscaping along hall and lane that is all in compliance with the drp's conditions of approval at a later date they'll come in and submit final plans for the urban park included including the element for the um activated central area and that will be a more detailed discussion for the drp what we're asking tonight is that you make a vote for staff to approve the final plans as submitted okay uh let's let's do that let's do that right now so is there a motion to uh to approve the restaurant final plans uh as submits as submitted uh i'll make a motion to approve the final plans as submitted for the restaurant second okay um is there any discussion no uh david did you have something you were gonna say i did yeah um so can you explain how this is different than the previous the application we were just talking about where so we're going to approve this restaurant they can build it how do we have assurances that they're going to come and build the park right so the development agreement will need to include all the required improvements that were part of the discretionary permit application uh the senior living building still needs to finish its permitting final plans process and i believe there's one more building infini crossing building a that can go through so the same way that throughout finny crossing's permitting history um it's been anticipated that this urban park would happen and other buildings were getting their permits and certificate of compliance um it's going to come down to you know those final few buildings that the urban park will need to be built before finny crossing gets its final certificate of compliance so we still we still have some leverage to use i guess as well well right we still have some leverage um and we're aware that the applicant is working on those urban park design elements and so i'd like to just chime in here remind people that are concerned and why we retained final approval then wasn't with the restaurant it was with the urban park and and so um but your point is well taken uh david seladino uh did that satisfy your question it did yeah thanks okay any any other discussion yes i mean i was going to make the same point but but probably stronger and that uh you know i felt very strongly before about that park and i and i fear that we're we're giving up too much leverage um at some point you know if everything else gets approved and we still are arguing over what that park wants to be what's our leverage this was this was put in as a single application and we reviewed it as a single application and now we're now we're dividing it in two i i have a hard time with that i mean at what point can we continue i mean if you take it you know if you exaggerate the thing you get to a point where the one there's one element on a site that somebody doesn't like or doesn't want to comply with and they get down to that they've got everything else done and then that thing you just argue about it forever because nobody cares i mean i think i think david is right that we have to be careful we don't give up too much leverage here this is our this is our bite at the apple this is our strongest bite is to get the get a park that we're that we're all happy with and uh uh you know that's that's my point and i for one will be voting to not not move ahead or not to uh to approve these vital plans i want to see all the plans together hey roger that uh any other discussion okay uh hearing none uh so there's the motion that has been made it's been seconded to approve uh the restaurant only plans and uh and i'll do individual rule calls on this uh paul christensen yay or nay yay john hemmelgarn nay scott riley is recused david saladino yay david turner yay uh and the chair is a yay uh four in favor one opposed one abstention uh motion carries okay uh next up is the uh appeal of certificate of compliance we've dealt with that uh out of sequence so that one's done uh okay uh we are now ready to go into deliberative session uh we will go into deliberative session at nine forty one okay uh welcome back to the wilson development review award for tuesday january 11th 2022 it's 10 30 we are out of deliberative session uh is there a motion for dp 22-04 yes uh as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i john hemmelgarn moved at the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town's staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of january 11th 2022 accept the recommendations for dp 22-04 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review thank you john is there a second i'll second this uh hearing done um paul christensen yay or nay yay john hemmelgarn yay scott riley yay dav saladino yay dave turner yay uh and pete kelly is uh yay uh all in favor non-opposed motion carries is there a motion for dp 21-20 tap corners associates yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i david turner moved the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of january 11th 2022 accept the recommendations of dp 21-20 this approval authorizes the residential portion to move is that should that say residential portion yes it should okay this approval authorizes the residential portion to move forward to growth management and the grocery store to move forward to discretionary permit review with the following changes okay under recommendations in motion item b will be changed to um incorporate great change in retaining wall foundation in the urban park and public park elements to create a shelter and comfortable space recommendation recommendation c um 41.7.1 to provide a plaza and courtyard near the main entrance open up the southwest corner to uh i can't see the make it a place welcoming from right avenue not just walking i think from the parking lot the pictures are going over my uh over the text for some reason let me see if i can move them there we go okay um and then item two item c shall be uh consider shifting the curb cuts to the west on right avenue and create a ranking parking between uh create oh sorry lost my spot ranking parking between the building entrance and parking drive aisle to improve pedestrian and vehicle circulation and reduce potential conflict points consider alternatives such as reconfigured parking lot with a ranking parking between the entrance and drive aisles one-way movement through the parking lot raised pedestrian crossings with texture protected pedestrian walkways through parking lots etc item d um wdb 14 pedestrian safety and accessible parking and circulation and compliance with wdb 14.3.3 and 14.7.3 the discretionary permit must include cohesive parking lot shared between the grocery store and future buildings bicycle parking bicycle parking and all right we're gonna go on you keep messing with you all right is it gonna move bicycle parking and end of the trip facilities must be identified for the grocery store apartment building and urban park compact car spaces strongly encourage to reduce surface area of parking lot next under item four we'll strike uh item a that's it that's it so i want to go back to um to the question you had about whether it should say residential or not in the motion yes i'm wondering whether we should be saying given a conversation tonight this approval authorizes the residential portion to move forward to growth management and discretionary permit review no we have to overthink that one what the biologist says is projects to go to growth management they need to be authorized at pre-app yep okay okay so there's a motion i need a second second okay john hell guard seconds any further discussion uh hearing done yay or nay paul yay john hell guard yay scott riley yay dave saladino yay dave turner yay uh and i recused myself so that's five in favor not opposed one recused recusal uh motion carries okay next up is the meeting minutes of december 14th 2021 is there a motion to approve the minutes i'll make a motion to approve the minutes sky riley makes a motion to approve the minutes is there a second i'll second it dave turner seconds it any discussion nice job whoever wrote that up it's a lot of work there's a lot in there anyway i did look at them uh paul christensen yay or nay yay john hell guard yay scott riley hey a saladino yay dave turner yay chairs the yay six in favor none opposed minutes are approved is there any other business to bring forth at this time so i have a question for matt people there yeah um i i sent you an email the other day what's the progress of getting us another member um so i did check in with the town manager on that and they are scheduling i believe interviews for two possible candidates coming up in the next one or two select board meetings right i didn't see it on any of their agendas it being budget season it's been slow getting it there yeah well we have enough recusals on this board that it's it can be a little frustrating yeah we do yeah i mean when we when we have to when there's only four of us left it it unfortunately though it shouldn't it does change the complexion of the of the of the decision-making process so anyway i as fast as they could do it it would be great okay anything else is there a motion to adjourn oh should do it all in favor all right all right opposed hearing that motion all right we are adjourned night everybody thank you everyone