 board. And if you wish to later on participate as a public commenter, you can turn your camera on and raise your hand and we will recognize you. The chat function is not is for administrative uses only. Please avoid discussing anything via the chat because it's not part of the public record. Okay, turning to number one on the agenda, emergency evacuation procedures. In the case of an emergency, there are doors in the back two corners of the room. You would simply exit those doors and turn either right or left to get outside to safety. Item number two, are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none. Are there any announcements and reminders? I would remind you that this hearing is being or this meeting is being recorded. Are there any other announcements? Just a reminder around the rough times we've established for they're not set in stone, but yes, try to be sure we get through the agenda. That's all. Thank you. You will notice that we have the agenda shows times assigned to each review or each application and we will try to keep within those times and fairness to all the applicants. So thank you for respecting that. Any other announcements? Okay. Number four on the agenda comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda. Hearing none. We will move ahead with our first our number five on the agenda. Number five is the appeal number 20203 of Bruce Levitt appealing the decision of the zoning administrator, administrative officer to issue a zoning permit for, or zoning permits for construction of two, two family homes at 2931 39 and 41 Elm Street. And so we are going to proceed by having our zoning administrator first provide testimony or answer questions for the board. And then we will go to the appellant who's being represented by by Roseanne Greco and then any other interested parties who would like to testify. So Marla, we have may I interject just briefly to ask to open a public hearing as you normally do and then to ask those who would like to provide testimony to swear themselves in and make a statement as to whether they are interested are claiming to be interested person. So go through that first. Yeah. Okay. So if if anyone would like to be considered an interested party, would you please raise your hand? And I think as the appellant you are, you are an interested party, definitely. And could you identify yourselves please and why you believe you're an interested party? Okay. Okay. Pardon. Did someone say something? No, okay. So if you're not participating in this part of the hearing, please keep yourself muted. And then when there is part of the hearing that you're participating in, you can become unmuted. So are there any other individuals who would like to be considered interested parties? I don't know about you board, but it seems to me that all the people who have expressed interest are very legitimate interested parties. So, okay. Thank you. I'd like you all to raise your right hand so I can swear you in. And I guess that includes you, Marla. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth on your penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So Marla, we've had a chance to read your very thorough testimony, your written testimony, and I don't think that we have to dwell on that much more. It was well written. Unless you have anything to add to that before we start asking questions. I wanted to make it clear that the blend development regulations as noted in both the excerpts of provided in Paul's memo, I'd like to make it clear that both the blend development regulations in both Paul's memo and in my memo are the definitions of height. So there are no there are no explicit instructions for what to do when you have a multi pitch roof when you have a roof that has one side that's higher than the other. Are my decisions were based on past practice and what we believe to be a neutral position. Thank you. All right. Board members questions for Marla. Can I just ask for clarity on how the, in your memo, how the calculations, that was not very, my math I say T score was not very good. So I'm just trying to figure out what the, the calculations are. Sure. But we'll just meet back and I don't make it a simple question. So there's like, there's your calculate, the calculation you did and which doesn't reference a foundation or anything like that. It's just the grade, the dirt, the ground, whatever. And I'm just trying to figure out what your calculation was under that formula versus and, and yeah, so I'm just trying to figure out what, what number was in under your methodology. What were the heights. Yep. So under my methodology and under the methodology reported by the applicant, I guess Marty, if you could pull up the bottom page 29 to start. So I think just to get everybody on the same page, what Dan is referring to is my simplified calculation on the bottom of page 29. Oh, sorry, the bottom of page 30, just shows a grade, and then the roof and does the math. So it's the average of the eaves. And then the average of the average of the eaves in the apex. And then you subtract the average grade and then that's the difference. What happened with the applicant is they have a building. So if you scroll to the top of the next page, Marty, they have a building that is has a flat foundation. So that same calculation is still excuse me, what do you mean by a flat foundation? Well, a building, when you walk into your house, everything has this level surface, right? It's not a split level. It's just one level. Okay. Thank you. But the grade around it isn't flat. You know, if you stand on one side of your house, more of your foundation is exposed than on the other side. So they had to make an adjustment for that. And so my simple calculation on the bottom of the previous page assumes that the top of the floor when you walk into your house is the same as the average of the grade around the house. Their calculation and the calculation that I even further simplified on this page takes into account that difference. And if you want, I can go through it, but I'm just sort of the gist of it is that that using the historic formula of the city, your first illustration is 26.5667. 26.5667 feet. That's for one of the zoning permits. Yep. Yeah. And that's the same. That's actually the same answer. That's the that's the final answer. Oh, because what they're saying is the foundation isn't equal to the ground outside the building. And so in order to know the height, you have to measure from the ground outside the building. So once you get the height from the foundation, you have to adjust it to take into account the foundation, the ground outside the building. But that adjustment is already in this 26.5667. So is that what really this comes down to is the difference between the average grade and where the foundation is? No? No. Go ahead, Mark. If I can offer architect way in. Well, I would only say that, you know, barring an actual clear definition of how to measure a building height, I would probably go back to how the residential building code, which I know hasn't adopted the residential building code, but, you know, sort of the standards that we have to follow. And building height is defined as the vertical distance from a grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. And in my practice, typically the way I would measure it is you wouldn't be taking all the multiple roof planes, you take the predominant major roof height, which is going to be like if we go to drawing or sheet 13 of the set and south elevation, it's the main gable, which has the board and batten center, the louvert and then the little decorative timber frame detail in the gable. It would be that roof plane that's to the right that comes down and meets the Eve. It is sort of the way the appellant has defined how you measure the building height, which is the bottom of the Eve, which is 21 foot seven and a half, the apex, which is 32 foot eight, you know, take and divide that in half, which gets you the mean that's five and a half feet, you take and you add that to the 21 foot seven, you get 27 foot two. That's the from top of foundation to the midpoint of the highest roof surface. And then it sounds like there's a two foot difference between top of foundation average pre-construction grade. So you do get 29 foot two and that's how I would measure it as an architect with single family building height. Okay. You know, it's you kind of it's not really a judgment call, but you kind of have to pick the main predominant building surface. It doesn't go into multiple surfaces because if you do that, there's always ways you can play with it by running it all the way down to the ground, then you get measurement here and then measurement up there and get the average. Mark, my question is though, our definition says the average level. Right. But then it goes to so so measured from the average pre-construction base up to base to the highest point of the roof. If the roof is unable to. Right. Okay. Right. To the highest point of the roof. And when they met defined roof, it's the highest surface. So they assume that house is going to have multiple different planes, multiple pitches, certain higher, certain lower. They tell you to sort of use the predominant main pitch. So like on a colonial, you know, you would have the center, you know, pitch on the front of the house. But if it's a salt box, it goes up and then it goes all the way down in the back. You wouldn't use, which is sort of what this one does on the side. You wouldn't use the two together. You use the main one on the front that goes from the second floor Eve up to the apex. So given the calculation that you just cited and given the fact that the LDR say the maximum height should be 28 feet. Right. Do you, are you suggesting that the, that Marla's calculation was a bit off? Not her calculation was off, but I think the methodology would, you know, it should just be the main roof height, you know, not averaging it because you could then go and find all the different ones. You know, where do you stop? You pick two to sort of try to remain neutral. But the building code just says you take the highest roof plane surface. But Mark, what about the fact that the LDRs define the methodology and it's a little different? The LDRs, the LDRs don't really define it any differently than the building code does. Okay. Just as single pitches pitch, pitch roof and flat roof. Which is also building code talks about flat roof and average and pitch roof, you take the mean from the apex to the even. So this is pretty much the building code, you know, and the vertical distance of a building measured from the average pre-construction grade level at the base of roof building to the highest point of the roof if the roof is flat or mansard or to the average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof if the roof is of any other type. Okay. So basically what it's saying is, I mean, I know what you're saying is the eaves doesn't save the eave. You know, eaves you pick multiples, but you know, standard practice would be you just pick the main roof structure. Sorry. Two things. One really small one. I didn't want to quibble about the definition of eave for eaves. I think that was something brought up by the appellant. The bigger, the question I had was, did you say at the beginning that the IBC is only to the highest or that it's to the midpoint as well? It's to the, well, it's to the... What's IBC? Well, it's IRC in international residential code, building codes for commercial and above two-family residential codes for one and two-family structures, but it's to the highest roof surface. But the midpoint or the apex? Okay. And then it goes in and says the mean is, then there's a further definition that says mean building height is from the average lowest, the grade to the midpoint between the apex and the eave. So those two definitions are clearly outlined in the residential building code. Thanks. Any other board members have questions or comments? Now, I believe people have who were interested parties can ask questions. Is that correct? So next would be the opportunity for the appellant to make a statement if they choose. And then other interested parties that we might suggest you start with the applicant and then anybody else. And this is not when the appellant is providing testimony. It's just... This is when the appellant is providing testimony. You can always go back to another round of questions, but if you're done with questions for the zoning administrator, then it would go to the testimony of the appellant. Thanks. Any other questions before we move on to the appellant? Frank, are you with us? I am. My only question went to the calculation of average pre-construction grade. I assume that if there were fill that that would have to be discounted, correct? That's a great question. This project obviously was approved before my time. Decisions before not to take any credit, this is probably Paul guiding me in the right direction. Decisions before my time were not explicit about whether there was an approved adjustment of pre-construction grade or not. So we had no guidance. What we did is we took the approved grade, not the undeveloped farm field grade. Today we would write a decision that says the board holds the applicant to pre-construction grade or the board approves the proposed grades as the new pre-construction grade. Neither of those statements were made in this decision. Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead, Frank. Wait a minute. Aren't we obliged to make a determination about that in order to arrive at a decision in this case? Perhaps Paul, do you want to help answer what may have happened then? What does then have to do with? Well, because I don't think the rules have changed. I just think that perhaps it was reviewed a little more sloppily than it is today to be blunt. I guess, Marla, I'm sorry, I'm missing your point. It's our job to interpret what the meaning of average pre-construction grade is in order to make a decision in this case, to have a hopefully consistent policy understanding, interpretation of what average pre-construction grade means, and whether or not it allows that grade essentially to be raised by Phil. Well, I guess, Frank, I would adjust your statement slightly to say that the board's job is to determine whether the administrative officer was correct in their calculation and interpretation of how height is calculated, which might lead you to the same path that you have, but it is your job to determine whether the administrative officer correctly calculated the height of the building in its totality. I understand that's the ultimate question, but in order to get there, we must know what average pre-construction grade means. Whoops, I just muted Frank by accident. Marty, can you make sure that you're taking care of that part and stick to your role in testimony? I just tried to unmute myself, did it work? Yes. I don't see how we avoid deciding what average pre-construction grade means, and the question for Marla is, was there Phil involved in this case? The short answer to your question, Frank, because I know you like a short answer, is yes, there was Phil involved in this case. The administrative officer's interpretation of the SD1714, the final plot decision, was that the board had approved the proposed grade as the new pre-construction grade. However, the reason I have been up and to this point squirrely about answering your question directly is because that's not really the subject of the appeal. The subject of the appeal is whether the multiple pitches of the roof should have been used, and so that's why I've been trying to avoid talking about it. So, in the interest of time, I think that it's time to move on and have the appellant provide an opportunity for the board to interact with her. So thank you, Marla. With us, yes. Thank you. Your choice. And if you would please introduce yourself. There it is. Yes, now it's on. Hello. So my name is Roseanne Greco. I'm a neighbor of Bruce Leavitt and his designated representative. I met with Bruce before he left for Rwanda, and I'm familiar with the issue. I trust you've all read Bruce's statement. Very thorough analysis of the issue. Well, in the interest of time, I'd like to read you a three-minute clarifying statement. It does not include any new information, which I know is not allowed in these areas. Okay. The intent of regulating the height of houses in a neighborhood is mostly about how the house looks in its setting. This house clearly looks much taller than nearby houses. Lots of my friends and neighbors commented on how massive and out-of-character it looked, which is what got Bruce's attention. The LDRs give a relatively straightforward way to measure the height of a house with this type of roof design. Take the height of two points on the building, the peak and an eve. Add those two numbers together and divide by two. If you do that for these two houses, both exceed the LDR height limit of 28 feet. In contrast, the calculations shown on the permits take the height of three points on the house, the peak and two eaves. The developer added two of these points, the two eaves, and divided by two. Then he took that average and added it to another point on the house, the peak, and divided that number by two. This resulted in an average of an average. Calculated that way, the height is less than 28 feet. Logically, the LDRs intended that the uppermost eve on a house is the one to be used to determine the overall height. But the developer used two eaves, one of which was over the first floor. It makes no sense to determine the height of a two-story house by using an eve over the first floor. The developer devised a new way to assess house height, which resulted in his houses meeting the height limit. Rather than using the two points on the house, he used three points and took an average of an average. This is not what the LDR said to do. We think the city administrator aired in approving these two permits. And I request, if possible, I don't know if this is allowed, that this matter be continued until Mr. Levitt can attend the meeting in person. But thank you very much. Thank you. Board members, questions? One question I have. Do I understand that these houses are already built? One house is up, a duplex, but the foundations are there for, I guess, 40 more or so, but not built. Frank, this is Paul speaking. To answer your question, a zoning permit was issued for the first duplex last year. The house was, construction was started on it. It was identified that the roof was too tall on that one. The applicant, Chris Snyder, removed that first roof and applied for a permit to replace it with what is now the subject of this appeal. So that house is partially constructed. There is a second duplex that was applied for at the same time as this one that was appealed. I don't know if initial work is started on that, but that's the status. Is the roof completed yet on the one that was partially constructed? It was removed. Well, you can ask, the applicant is here also, and you can ask them under that testimony, if you'd like, Frank, to get them the exact details on that. Because, I mean, based on what Mark is saying, it sounds like the appellant is right, doesn't it? Well, that's for us to decide, I think. Yeah, but we are appealing the second roof. Yes, it's on. Go ahead, Frank. We haven't been shy about weather reports in the past. So, you know, Mark, in other words, the appellant's calculation seems to be consistent with what Mark says is the construction industry standard, the design standard. Mark, is that correct? In other words, are you saying the same thing as the appellant's plane and the statement that there's alright? Yeah, my calculations came up the same as their calculations, 29 foot 2. Right. So, does anyone see any reason why? My challenge is that the residential building code, and of course, the illustrations aren't any help, but it assumes that every roof, it assumes that every roof, both sides of it only have, you know, they're all little boxes. Nope, they're neat little boxes. It doesn't assume that. No. Because it tells you to take the highest one. Right. It assumes there's going to be multiple planes, and they tell you to take the highest one because that's going to be the greatest impact. You go worst case scenario. That's what the standards say, but that's not what our regs say. Our regs say the average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof. The highest point of the roof is whatever that top is. Right. But this LDR was written as if the two sides of a roof were the same pitch and length. There was nothing in here to get to the principle, the thing of a building with, yeah, a second story or one and a half or one and three quarters or two and three or whatever. It assumes everything was a neat little child's diagram. Then that said, then that said, Marla should have done every eave and every apex, not just two. That's potentially two. But that's, that's, all right. I'm just, I'm just looking at what the regs say. I hear what you're saying. Right. I guess we have more of an argument that I thought we did. I thought it was kind of open and shut, but if, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to have the whole debate here. I thought we would. Yeah. Let's keep collecting testimony. I just, yeah. Any other questions for the appellant before we move on to the next interested party? Thank you, Roseanne. Thank you for listening. Thanks. And would you like to move up to the table? Is this, are they Mike? Okay. Go ahead. Turn your mic on, please. And introduce yourself again. Chris Snyder with Snyder Holmes. Andy Rowe, Snyder Holmes. We have not seen any written testimony from you. So in the interest of time, could you very briefly summarize your perspective on this? So I think our perspective on this in, and I do appreciate the comments made tonight. However, I do think that we do need to go back to the land development regulations and the definitions section of the land development regulations. And it clearly does say there's an average level between the Eves. And that's how you measure it. And so we took the words as literal, and we utilize that. And what I would comment on is that if the one side of the roof, as shown in Marla's description, was interrupted on page three of hers. So I don't, yeah, if there was an interruption of the long shed roof section where it was cut off, and it was a different height, but then like a gable or some other portion totally intercepted that roof, we could not have counted that lower Eve. And so while performing this calculation, we did meet with the city to clarify the language prior to the final submission of the application. And so based upon the language that we read, and also that interpretation because of the direct connection of that Eve line, we figured the height. And so I guess I would counter that. And, Andy, I don't know if you have anything else to. Only to note, and I think it's probably most easy to visualize using Mr. Levitt's photos, but the height was calculated from the highest peak. When you look at the entire duplex, the peak that runs parallel to Spear Street is the highest peak. And although there's a lot going on with the roof lines, there were two eaves that were used, and there's two eaves that would apply. I think Mr. Bayer made a good point that you could certainly get to a point of ridiculousness where you have multiple eaves, and this becomes a very convoluted calculation. But in this case, there were two eaves that were used, and those are actually the only two eaves that would apply. The other eaves are interrupted by other gables, other formations of the building shape. And so those two eaves, again, when you go back to the saltbox diagram that staff put together, it's indicative of the calculation that the applicant used following the plain language of the definition in the LDRs. Okay. I have one question for staff. We must have measured other heights in other applications with things where they were different, where one side of the roof was longer than the other. Have we not? Anywhere in the city, there's never been a house built with a- Can you? Can Marla answer that question or- So, the research, if it's okay with you, Paul, the research that we did indicated that it was not previously, it never previously mattered. So if you slice it, one way or the other, in the situations where it was different, typically a saltbox is a smaller height anyway, so it didn't matter. This is the first time in our collective memory that it mattered. I can add that we've had a couple of circumstances where a portion of the house was a different height from a different portion of the house. And in those circumstances, it was identified that that roof on the- The roof of the highest point of the house is the calculation as opposed to if you imagine a three-story and a two-story portion of the house. That was the case study that I could think of where there was a discussion over on the South End of Spear Street. But that's a different question than this one. Yes. I could answer that. There was one other case and it's on pinnacle. The second house in, this happened before I moved here. If you go there, you'll see that instead of going to a peak, it's chopped off. And that is because someone brought it to the attention, I guess, of the DRB at the time, this before my time. And then the city went out and measured it, or however it was measured, and determined, yes, it had exceeded the height. And then the builder had to chop off the top of it. You can see it. It looks a little- Well, no one's looking at it. But I think I know why this is not happening a lot. And this came up when Bruce raised this issue, is that the city doesn't go around measuring the heights of buildings. We don't have that kind of capability. And unless someone brings it to the attention of the city, you wouldn't know it. Only someone who isn't a butter, we found this out, and Bruce happens to be, can do it. I drove by it. I saw a lot of my neighbors drove by it. I was commenting on it. But legally, we couldn't even raise it, because you have to satisfy various conditions in order to call it into question. So there may be other houses around like this. And the reason, no one either noticed or were not able to bring it to the attention of the city, because they didn't qualify as a qualified applicant or a butter or having an interest in it. So who knows how many houses out there might exceed the height limit. I mean, that's- Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for any of the, and do any of the interested party parties have questions for the, for Marla or the appellant? The question for the, I would have for the appellant, and I confess, I'm not sure it's material. I think this is a really difficult problem as a policy man. But the question I have for the appellant is, what is the practical, the difference between one view versus the other was about a foot? Is that correct? First? Two feet. The view. What is the difference? I think the question was- It's 20. Oh, oh, the, oh. Actually, I'm asking Marla. If you don't mind. What's the difference between the developers, between the appellant's calculation and the developer's calculation for the maximum height of the building? In other words, how many feet does he lose if he has to lower the roof in some fashion? Well, I don't say this to be a smart ass, but I didn't calculate it the appellant's way. But from what Mark testified tonight is that he did try calculating it both ways. And he came up with a number that agreed with the appellant's calculation, which is 29 feet two inches. And I have no reason to doubt that. So that's a 14-inch difference, right? Yes. Yeah. All right. So the question, my question to the appellant again, I'm not sure it matters. I just want to know. What's the practical impact on the appellant of- Not the appellant. I'm sorry. What's the practical impact on the applicant of having to lower his roof by 14 inches? Is it practical? And what is the harm to- He's got a lot of houses to go, right? This is a big project, apparently. And this is sort of the test pace. So I think it's one I'd like to- I appreciate Paul's comments before we realized that we had made a mistake and we did remove the roof previously and submitted a updated zoning application utilizing the data that we have presented and discuss that with the city staff. I think what is the harm? I think that we haven't really considered what changes could or could not be done to the roof lines. And we would need to look at that more seriously for the existing structure, but also for future structures within the neighborhood. But obviously, if the DRB decides that our calculation was done differently than the land development regulations, then we would have to follow the land development regulations and what the DRB is stating. Our perspective is obviously that we follow the land development regulations and that we should not have to modify the roof structure. But if you so determine and then if the courts determine that that's the way it should be done, then we would have to consider what that looks like. Thank you. Any other questions or comments before we conclude? Do we need to discuss the appellant's request to post- continue this? I don't know what the appellant's additional information could be. I think it would be more emotional than factual. Well, Bruce can see this development from his house. Well, yeah, there are 40 other houses that will be going down, so this would impact him. I don't know if it's emotional, but I think he believes follow the rules. He had to follow the rules. I don't know. Yeah. And I try to contact him today, but he's in Rwanda and I can't get through. We also believe in following the rules, but the rules aren't always crystal clear. So thank you. I think that the question is, does the board feel we have enough information? I think we do too. Before you close the hearing, because you asked for interested persons, you should also give an opportunity for the public, not an interested person to provide comment if they choose. Okay. So before we conclude, are there any members of the public who would like to provide testimony about this or comments? Not testimony. You have one from Andrew Cholmick. Okay, Andrew. Hi, thank you very much. A couple points. I read Bruce's submission with great interest and I guess I just wanted to point out a few items there. In terms of the definition, it does use the words average level, but I think the way to read that is average level between the eaves on the one hand and the highest point of the roof on the other. The way that Chris is trying to read it is another average level. The average level between the eaves and the average level between that and the highest point of the roof, which I don't think the regs say that. You have to read those words carefully, I think, to understand what they're saying. And then I just thought it made sense because Rosanne didn't focus attention on the last picture that Bruce had in his submission, which I think is really important to look at, so the picture below that. This is how the house looks from the road and height is all about how something looks. When you look at this house, you can't see that back eave. You see the front eaves. It just seems to me, because this is what Mark was saying, it makes no sense when you're measuring height, which is all about how something looks, to take some eave that you can't see from the back of the house into the calculation. It's got to be just really straightforward. You take this face, you look at the eave on this face and you measure it. What Chris is doing is just entirely too complicated. It's not consistent with the purpose of this regulation, which is to regulate how something looks. And when you're regulating how something looks, you measure what you can see. And it's pretty obvious what you can see here. You see the top of the roof and you see the second floor eave. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay. I guess you're a member of the public now. Well, I guess it is a rebuttal to that, just to the extent that the board is going to consider those comments. I think it's worth noting two things. One, Elm Street is a public street, or at least will be, which the second view that was referenced, very visible from Elm Street, a public street. And secondly, in this case, the peak elevation of the roof is visible from Spear Street. It's prominent. It's up in the front of the building, but this building just as easily could have had a dimension where the peak of the roof is not as prominent, is set back. It could be on the other portion of the duplex. There's a whole variety of architectural types where you would get into that the peak is not front and center. Thank you. Any other public comments before we conclude this? I'll just offer a rebuttal to both. It's not a rebuttal, but just offer. Building height is never, you never get building orientation. It doesn't get taken into account when it comes to building code. In land development regulations, you certainly can throw it in there, but when it comes to building code, you don't say the front of the house, the back of the house, the street front or something like that. So I do appreciate both comments in terms of the view and the perception, but that's the whole beauty of building code. It doesn't allow for perception. It's pretty cut and dry. Right. Okay. Thank you. All right. I would like to conclude this. Do we have to vote? Yes, you do. Okay. Thank you. I make a motion to conclude the hearing on appeal 80-22-03 of Bruce Leavitt. Second. Thank you, Mark. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. The motion is carried. Just for everyone's understanding, the board will now have 45 days in which to deliberate. They will, their decision will be issued in writing. That will speak for the board, and that will be delivered to each of the interested persons. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is agenda item number six, and that is site plan application SP-22-043 of a Brian Farm Road LLC to amend a previously approved plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowed in the zoning district. The amendment consists of removing 400 linear feet of sidewalk and constructing approximately 500 feet of 10-foot wide recreation path at 255 Kennedy Drive. So before we ask who's here for the applicant, Marla, I think the reason I was so confused by this was it says 255 Kennedy Drive as opposed to Old Farm Road. Yes. So the O'Brien Hillside Project considered in its totality, in particular the master plan approval, is at 255 Kennedy Drive. The O'Brien Eastview Project is considered at 500 Old Farm Road. I didn't know that. Okay. Good. That's why I really didn't understand this. Okay. Who is here for the applicant? They are Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. Hi, Andrew. Are there any other people here for representing O'Brien? No. Okay. Just me tonight. Thanks. All right. Once you raise your right hand, do you soundly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thanks, Andrew. Okay. We've read the staff report on this and I wonder if in addition to the staff report and what it says, if you have any comments to add for the board to add to what's already been provided to the board in the interest of time, we'd ask you to be very brief, please. Sure. Do you want me to just kind of explain what the project is or are you all... In a nutshell. Sometimes you ask me to do that. Nutshell. In a nutshell. Sure. So I believe it's on page... Oh, I can't see the page. In a diagram would be really helpful, Andrew. Page nine. I'm trying to find the page number of the site plan we submitted, but there you go. The next page. The view I'm looking at doesn't have it. So the project's pretty straightforward just to give you kind of a one-minute summary. In the permit proceedings for another O'Brien Brothers project, the Eastview project, the board requested that the Eastview project continue a rec path from our project off-site through the Hillside project to connect to Eldridge Street. And this application is seeking the necessary approval within the Hillside permits to construct that path. So it's shown in the red cloud on the screen. Currently there's a five-foot sidewalk there. That sidewalk was required by the board as part of the Hillside construction. And with the Eastview project coming in, we're looking to turn that into a rec path to create that east-west rec path connection that's mentioned in the report. And so the idea is to remove the sidewalk and replace it with a 10-foot rec path. The street trees are between the sidewalk and the curb, so there's no impact there. And there's plenty of room on the park side to accommodate the extra width within the right-of-way. So it's a pretty straightforward project. The reason that it's being requested is in connection to the Eastview permit proceedings. And that's kind of the summary. So I'm sorry. I forgot to mention in terms of disclosure that I purchased a town home in this development, and it is right next to the park, but I don't believe I have any bias either way unless anyone disagrees with me. So thanks, Andrew. So in looking at this, I see that it's the park side, and there is no sidewalk there, I don't believe now. The sidewalk is on the other side of the street. Is there any way to pull that down? No, pull it down the other way. Okay. The sidewalk, I don't believe there's a sidewalk there, Andrew. You're going to make me think I'm losing my mind, but I'm fairly certain there is. I think that there is. So regardless, it's on the approved plans, and if it isn't, they wouldn't get there. We wouldn't take over the roads until they built it. Okay. That doesn't really matter, though I understand that nobody wants to think they're crazy. I'm confused. I do think that it's in. I don't have a picture. But I think this is important to know where it is. So on those rectangular black boxes, the highest one, would that be the one next to my place? Am I oriented correctly? Nope. So that might be the confusion. So this, if you look in the sort of middle of the page, you can see the playground equipment. There's like a little, like three little shapes that show you where the playground equipment in the park is. Okay. And the half moon path that is running through the park, the, you're looking at the south side of that path right now, whereas the townhomes are on the north side. Okay. I was disoriented. Okay. The roadway to the left is Two Brothers Drive, heading up towards Ledgeway and Split Rock Court and O'Brien Farm Road. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I thought I was crazy, but I still may be, but all right. So let's go through the staff report. And the first comment is about, whoops, I'm on the wrong report. I'm sorry. Let me just, yeah. So this is actually a draft decision in order to go directly to final flat amendment under the new LDR. It has to be a draft decision. So that's what we did. But it's on page two, and it's about phasing. I have a question about the red text regarding phasing. Yes. Okay. Is the statement about the hillside homeowner's association and opponents? Is that necessary to this finding? We can certainly take it out. Jen, I'm sorry. Where are you looking? There's only one red comment in the second, the second page of the findings of facts and decisions. Okay. So this was the, you know, the sort of only, it was in red, I presume, because, you know, it was a subject that might want to get discussed. You know, if I could just sort of explain the reason that we asked for an extended timeline on this, you know, our perspective is that this project is being proposed in the context of the Eastview project. So hillside at O'Brien Farm is virtually fully built out in terms of the residential component, the sidewalk is built, the street is built, all per the plans that were approved. A different company, it's obviously still O'Brien Brothers, but the land is owned by a different company, came in and is permitting the Eastview project adjacent. This request was made of them in the context of that project. And so the request here to sort of put in this permit and extended timeline is only to ensure that the project doesn't need to be completed until the Eastview project is approved. And the theory there was that the board could put the timeline they want on the sidewalk construction in the other permit. So here you would be saying this sidewalk can get changed to any time in the next five years. And in the Eastview project permit, you could say, we want this connection built in the first year of the project. Okay. But the theory there was that this permit, we don't want to be in a position where this approval has expired and the Eastview project has been appealed and we're in court fighting with that and now this approval has expired. And to this point, the homeowners association is appealing this future to come back and try and renew this because 18 months have passed and the Eastview project still isn't approved. So that's sort of a doomsday scenario. But our take on it was it's not about the timing of it here. It's more about just approving it. It's on the shelf. It's good to go. As soon as Eastview is required to put it in, we can get a zoning permit and take care of it. So if that makes sense. Thank you. Other questions? Mark, you looked like you were posed to ask a question. I guess so we can tie this component to our other project with phasing. See, this is where it gets a little complicated because you're not supposed to be able to, you're supposed to keep them separate. Yeah, I tend to agree, Mark. I think that the I think that what Andrew was saying, one point of it was incorrect. I don't think the board can include a condition of the concurrent Eastview application that dictates what happens in Hillside. I mean, I totally see and appreciate his comments on the window of construction, you know, because, you know, he's this is a component of the Eastview, not the Hillside project, but it's taking place in Hillside. Now, it would be a component. It could be a component of Eastview if the city had taken over the road like today, but we haven't yet and we won't until the warranty period. Right. So they they're going to be building it, but they're building it under Hillside's ownership structure. However, that way too complicated even think, but so I understand and I'm supportive of that this seven year window. But I guess what I'm concerned about and I think the reason there's, you know, the pushback is I think we don't want it waiting seven years and we can't tie something approved on a separate property to another application. So not sure how that, you know, I don't think we can put a condition in here saying that upon approval of Eastview, this gets built. Can we? Yeah, I don't know. You could. Okay. But that's not the sort of condition you can just make up because it's not based on the LDR, but it is a PUD and with the applicants approval, you could. Okay. Then that's something I would support because I understand why he's asking for it. Why can't we say the shorter of seven years or 12 months after final approval of the Eastgate project? You can as long as it's in here and not in the Eastview approval. Yep. And I am with Mark and with Andrew on the substance of his concern and I think that's an easy way to accommodate. So Andrew, if we craft some sort of condition that along the lines of what we've talked about, that'd be amenable. Yeah, I think, you know, I would say, you know, just to sort of, you know, just having watched the last proceeding here just before me, you know, I would probably be inclined to say, you know, issuance of the first zoning permit for Eastview, not necessarily the final plan. I'd like to actually be in the ground constructing the project at the point that the one year timeline would start. That makes sense. And, you know, I would potentially say a longer timeline, maybe 18 months just to accommodate seasonality depending on if we start in January or, you know, July, you know, I'd hate to be so, but that those would be my two. Okay. I think 18 months would be great. And I think I would say, you know, if some way to do it to a zoning permit or just to know that we've gotten through the appeals and everything else related to the final plan, if those come. I think we can craft something. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Sounds like we have a path forward. Any members of the public or pardon me? Are there any members of the public online or I don't know? Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Oh, okay. Thank you. Do I make a motion to close the hearing on SP dash 22043 of a brand farm road? By the second. Second. Thanks, Mark. Any discussion? All in favor of closing this hearing signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Five minutes ahead of schedule. Yes. Okay. Do we need to take a break? No. Okay. Agenda item number seven. Site plan application SP22045 of SRTB Holdings LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of 3980 square of a 3980 square foot building addition on two facades and associated side improvements at 1650 Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant, please? Hi, Brian. And Kevin Warden with Engineering Ventures. Okay. You're both going to have to get really close to the microphone. Brian, if you wanted to, if you don't mind not sitting next to Kevin, you can have one of your own or you can just kind of get close. Okay. I'm Brian Hor from Gostage and SRTB. Are there any other people representing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Would you, anyone else? Okay. Would you raise your right hands, please? There might be a few people online. Is there anyone online who is part of this application and would like to testify? Hi, this is Matthew Tyler with SRA. Would people please mute their devices? What is your name again, please? Matthew Tyler with SRA or the Architect for the project. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Would you all raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Yes, I do. I do. Thank you. Brent, are you part of this? Yes. Are you part of this project? Yes. I'm with BBL construction services. Okay. Did you, did you raise your right hand to be sworn in? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay. We have a very thorough staff report that was written by Marty and you've had a chance to read it and we're going to walk through it, but I wonder if you have any opening comments very briefly to offer before we dive into the staff comments. Don, may I just make a disclosure prior to starting? So I live in the adjacent property, but I don't think that's going to impact my ability to be impartial. Okay. Any other disclosures or no? Okay. All right. Go ahead. Yeah, we're planning an expansion of the showroom and a service drive for our service customers. Okay. So that's what this is all about. Okay. Let's just dive in then. Yeah. Okay. Staff comment number one. Sounds like we need to revise the trip generation calculation. Yes. I think the 12 was based on experience at the dealership. The request was to do it based on square footage with, which is practice based on that using the land use code of 840 automobile sales new. We actually come up with closer to 67. I'm sorry. 34 existing total 67. And I think the threshold for a study would be 117. So we think we're still below that. Okay. So that's your revision. Correct. Great. Thanks. Any questions for Marty? Do you have any questions? No. Okay. Good. I have a question. It's not about a staff question. It's about accessibility for wheelchair, people using wheelchairs, if you have steps. Are there alternative ways for people to access your from Shelburne Road? Well, from, well, to get into your showroom if they can't go up those steps. Okay. Yeah. There's going to be access on both sides that's flat with no stairs. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Basically a sidewalk that goes around. Okay. Thank you. All right. So number two is about glazing. Now, this is my naivete, but isn't glazing glass and isn't glass always? Glazing is defined in the LDR as doors and windows. They don't necessarily have to be glass or transparent. This is probably transparent, but I just didn't say and it wasn't specified. So that's why it's on here. So can you help us understand if this glazing is transparent? I think we're going to redone it. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Sorry. This is Matt with us. Sorry. Yes. The glazing is transparent. If you bring up the elevation, the only part of the what I would call glazing that is not transparent is the spandrel band that we have at a right at 10 feet, which is designed to delineate a story level. Okay. So of all the glazing, that is the only portion that is not transparent. Okay. And we'll be talking more about that in a minute. Correct. Okay. Number three. Well, this is also about glazing. I think staff recommends the board revisit compliance with this criterion at a later time. Okay. Let's move on to number four. And it's all about how to achieve the appearance of two stories. And the key comment in my mind is staff considers a four foot wide divide with the top of the upper portion move two feet higher may achieve the required appearance of two stories. What are your thoughts about that? So we submitted something originally with a true one story building look for this project. And we had met with the board. They felt that that was not going to be approved so that we needed a two story approach. And what we've done here is we raised the building six feet from that. We actually have two stories in here. The back of the showroom is truly a two story portion. That band that you see right there is meant to delineate a floor structure because our spans are so small structurally. We do have a really thin floor structure. So whereas, you know, something with larger spans may have a four foot depth for floor structure. We feel that this delineates a two story look with a thin floor structure at 10 feet, 10 to 11 feet. So really our ceilings at 10, our floor feet, our floor height is at 11. And we feel that that's an appropriate look for a two story building. Comments from the board? I mean, the only thing I would say is that the proportions and the massing of it definitely have make it give a feel of being more like a large one story. You know, the proportions are off. I think the staff comments sort of had some suggestions of, you know, reducing the height from the the top of the parapet to the start of the windows and raising those windows up. So it gives it a little more to proportion of two stories. You know, I just it just as it feels like they're more like Claire story windows than second floor windows. Feels like what Claire story windows like the upper level windows for like, you know, a vaulted space. Okay. Other folks, I mean, the top of those windows are at 18 feet. No, I get it. But I'm just saying like the massing of it, the overall scale of it doesn't, it feels like it's more like a large one story than a true two story. Could you imagine a photograph of it, please and rendering? No, the other one, the first one. Yes. What do other board members think? Yeah, I don't get a sense that it's a two story building either. But at some point, could I offer? Sure, my opinion. Yes. I think that's part of what we're talking about is opinion. And the bank next to me certainly doesn't look like a two story building, but they did put a little piece up there that, you know, those little tiny rectangle that sticks up that's two stories tall and the Toyota store next to me also doesn't look like a two story. And we've actually gone out of our way to try to make this look like a two story. And I certainly don't think that taking that center line and building it up to four feet in the middle is going to help it make it look like a two story if it if it was going so far as to, you know, raising the window height a little bit, perhaps, you know, it just costs more on my end. But I suppose that we could do that. But I certainly think part of this is opinion. And I actually have a two story building. And from the road and Sheldon Road, I mean, you're literally going to be able to see the second story through there. So I mean, I think, you know, I'm hoping that you can see that we've we have worked at trying to do this without, you know, raising roof heights even higher and getting driving the cost exponentially higher to try to satisfy everybody here. For me as a pure layman, when I look at the first floor of the distance from the ground to that little dividing strip, that looks like the typical height of a room, eight, nine feet or whatever. The second, quote unquote, second story of glass looks more like visually mentally, seven or eight feet. And I don't know if it's just making that top window, the second story window slightly might make it more appearance like I wasn't talking about making the building taller. I was saying, you know, literally, you've got three bands of the the siding go to two, you know, because if you look in your building section, you have the window, the second story window, which is just the vault space is six foot two, you know, so typically windows, especially in commercial are like at eight feet. So it's like just raise the glass height two feet without building height the same. I think that's going to because right now, though, that that second floor window just feels squat. So Mark, are you suggesting decreasing the height? Well, the building height, the building height, not the building height, but there's like three strips. Yeah, go to two, go to above. Okay. Yeah. So there'll be less gray. Yeah, less gray, more glass and get that much more window on that second, second floor glazing thoughts. I'm the civil engineer. So usually I don't get into colors and aesthetics, but I just will stress that the original design was 20 foot elevation and we did meet with staff and, you know, gave it gave a best attempt. The the language does say the appearance of the second story. The ordinance is very clear with very hard specifics about percentage of glazing and a lot of other things. But then when it comes to this notion of second story, which we actually have a second, a two story building here, unlike many of the other buildings that are made to appear like two stories, but don't have two stories, some right in the neighborhood here and some either side of the building here on the screen. So there was an attempt to make meet that goal of an appearance of two stories. Okay. Well, given that that may be a matter of opinion, the defining opinion is the opinion of the board. It's sort of like what is reasonable, always a difficult question. But it's ultimately the decider of fact that gets to determine that. And if the board thinks it doesn't appear to be second stories, then that's that's the call. Do we know the size of those panes? They're two fans. So it's approximately two feet. So would it be of the board's opinion that if we were to go approximately two feet higher with the windows? Yeah, that's it. Sounds like that that would make a big difference. And I'm betting it's actually cheaper because those panels are not cheap, you know, those building panels. Maybe right. And I hope you are. But I think ultimately it's going to be a better looking building. Okay, sounds like you've gotten some good feedback. Let's move on to the next page number six. Sounds like we need some information about rooftop mechanicals. So we don't actually have the rooftop mechanical size yet, but it's we do have a parapet on the building. And it's our intention that the parapet will hide mechanical equipment. Repeat that last sentence, please. It's our intention that the parapet will hide the mechanical equipment on the roof. Okay. Marty, does that work for you? Yeah. Okay. And are there cornices? So there are no, there are no cornices on the building. You know, the cornice would be at the top of off the top of the wall. We feel like the goal of this project is to, we have a large expansive glass, all of our architectural detailing and architectural elements are around that glass. That's a chamfered edge where we bring in the wood, the wood look on that chamfered edge. And, you know, with the intention and the goal of this project being to sell cars, well, we want people to see into the showroom. We want people to see what the product is. And, you know, so by putting a cornice on the building, I feel like we're, we're taking away from the architectural elements that are focusing people's eyes into the showroom through the glass where those extra details are currently. Okay. Is that work for? No, unfortunately, and I'm not disagreeing with you on the design of it. But unfortunately, our LDRs do say shall, which is not a debatable thing. And we've had this discussion on another, a similar project across the street or just down the road where they had a very similar design. And it's unfortunately a requirement that, you know, where flat roofs are used, the architectural elements such as cornices shall be included on all primary and secondary building facades. The previous application, you know, there was, it was solved with as simple as I think like just a six inch cap, you know, that had slight, maybe I don't know what if there was a dimensional or color, but maybe like a two inch relief to it. But it, it, it's solved, it's, it satisfies the, the LDRs and it didn't really distract. You know, we kind of had to say, okay, you've met that check the box, which I hate checking the box, but it is in the LDRs. I mean, what you described, I think we'd be okay with. Yeah, that previous one was okay, because it really doesn't distract and it checks the box for saying you've got, you know, architectural elements. Cornice can be very small. Yeah. It doesn't have to be a cornice. It's still just a such-ass. Such-ass. But typically it's all done this type of design with like a six inch similar panel, you know, two inch relief, a band around the top. Almost looks like a parapet cap, but a little more detail to it. Yeah. So I know I'm jumping in a little bit and it's not really my place to do so, but Marty's only been to one hearing, so I'm going to do so. Can we get somewhere specific enough that we can include it as a condition? And I guess I'm looking at the board and I'm looking at the applicants architect. Like if, if we can write it and everybody agrees today, then we don't have to see another plan set with it. Is there anything else in here that we need to see? I don't, I didn't write it, so I don't remember. Okay. I mean, if the applicants agreeable to a six inch, you know, cornice cap with a two inch relief, that, you know, to me is going to meet the, the regulations and it's not going to be too much of a distraction from the sort of clean lines of the, you know, that the architect described. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Good. Thank you. Okay. Number eight. It sounds like this has done an issue with the proposed materials. I think staff just sort of wants confirmation rights. Yeah, it considers it to be met. Okay. Are we good with this? I think it's met. Yeah. Okay. Number nine. This is about the cross-lot connections. Sounds like there are, there's no need for cross-lot connections or an easement. But this criterion is not met with regards to the property to the east. Staff considers that existing topography precludes creation of a cross-lot connection and therefore recommends the board not require. So how, how is the criterion not met yet? We need to require that. I'm a little confused. Yeah. The LDRs require inter lot connectivity between commercial lots. And just because of the grade change between this property and the one to the east, we felt that it was best to just waive that criterion in this. And can we waive it? I believe so. Okay. All right. Works. There's no standards for waiving. There are. So under the current LDR, site plan approvals can have limited waiver authority of dimensional standards. Um, the board has consistently over time allowed waiver of this criteria when circumstances prevent a reasonable cross-lot connection from being made. Okay. Okay. It sounds like this, this is one of those circumstances. Okay, good. It does. And we, we should, we should in our decision, we should waive it and explain why it's waived. Yes. Okay. Good. Moving on, um, right before comment number 10 at the kind of top of the page, it says staff recommends the board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the city arborist as a condition of approval. Are you prepared to do that? I believe so. I think we were, I was on the, uh, on the trees. Right. There's two comments and then blue just right. Just rereading those. Yeah. So we're good? I think we are. Okay. Good. Thank you. Number 10, um, need to specify, you need to specify the snow storage areas. So snow is stored in the southeast corner of the parking lot currently and we would propose that would continue. Um, it displaces, I think a couple of, um, vehicle sales vehicle spaces, but not any of the required vehicle spaces. Or are we okay with that? Okay. On to number 13. This is about landscaping minimums and, um, staff considers this cost not to count toward landscaping. So, no, we are in 11 at 13. We what? Page 13. Oh, it's 11. I'm sorry. I didn't. 11 on page 13. Right. I'm sorry. Um, so I have a question. Why aren't mulch and loam and planting, um, supplies counting toward landscape minimums? Oh, that's a good question. I will throw it to Marla. I mean, if I, if I have someone come to my home and plant an azalea or a rhododendron, they're going to charge me for putting in compost or peat or whatever. So I should write. So this comes down to, um, the fact, well, history. The board has historically been very strict about the landscaping standards, only trees and shrubs, nothing else. In the past three and a half years, I would say, the board has been finding that South Brillington is pretty well landscaped. And you can't always add more trees to a site. So they have been becoming more flexible and allowing things like perennials or decorative grasses to count or, you know, patios. When a site is otherwise well landscaped, we have not crossed the bridge into saying that South Brillington is so well landscaped that we can count lawns towards the required minimum landscaping budget or loam, which is, you know, soil admixture to get it to be healthy or mulch around the plantings. Okay. You know, if they were to propose perennials or grasses, that may be acceptable. But I think if I recall correctly, there are some at least one other comment on additional landscaping that might be needed before we can start to count those things. Okay. So let's move on because we're continuing to talk about, no, we're not talking about landscaping. So, Board, what do you think about this landscaping minimum? Where's the landscaping plan? Looking and not seeing it. It's going to be 28, 28. I mean, the site is pretty well landscaped. That's the thing. It's an existing site that they're redeveloping. And the only reason that the landscaping budget is so high is because the cost of rebuilding the building is pricing, you know. So I'm not saying I want to set a precedent by accepting lawn and mulch and loam because you're right, we never have done that in the past. But I also don't really see where we need additional, you know, plantings to meet the budget. What do we do then, Marla? I forgot, you know, because normally we, I don't want to be that short. But right. When you can't fit any more trees, then you say, well, put some hardscape in. And you're shorted. Hardscape. It's being punished for having already having a lot of landscaping. For, for building an addition when they have a lot of landscaping. Yeah. Right. Any chance we can waive that? Speak to the rain curtain. I would say no. Marla. Yeah. Yeah. I was just going to say, I mean, we can add a little bit. The area that I'm, you know, we're considering is, and I don't know if this meets the criteria of landscaping, but the stormwater treatment area was just proposed as grasses, but could be ornamental grasses and, you know, typical plantings you would find in a rain garden. And it's pretty front and center. So that would certainly add to the landscape's nature of the site. Sorry to interrupt, but Marla, I see we can't waive it, but we are allowed to grant credit for existing trees, right? It says it right there on G3. Yep. So trees that are to be an existing tree that wasn't previously required and they went out of their way to save it, that would be a tree that you'd get credit for. Not trees that were, you know, required when the building was built and they just, because the LDRs already require them to be retained. So that would be double counting. Heartscape areas are an option. Forgive my not understanding completely what you, but the trees in the front, how do we know if they were previously determined to have been part of an approval process in 1970 when Willow Racines built it? We have the plans. It does show that, that the big trees out front, we're all part of that. I think we looked at that, didn't we? I can't speak to that. Yeah, I mean, I guess that was, you know, that would give us an answer. I don't know if those were required or if they're, because if I look at them, I would tell you that they look older than 40 years old. So maybe not. I grow. I mean, I would look at them and say like 25, but I'm not a tree person either, right? So what do I know? How about the Heartscape option? Is there something that would go toward that budget and maybe do something for the owner in making the place more attractive or inviting or somehow add to its commercial utility that would qualify as Heartscape, some kind of patio arrangement? I'm asking the architect again, the designers. Thoughts? I would leave that one cabinet right there. I mean, that's, that's, we, there's an existing display area for a Jeep to be out on the rocks and that's something that the manufacturer likes and it goes well with the brand. So, you know, if the board would consider another one of those, perhaps on the opposite side of the showroom or something, that maybe that was something we could do and it would look nice. So I'm noticing in your table of plants that you have perennials and ground cover, but then in your table of landscaping values that we were just at, we didn't count perennials and ground cover. Yeah, I think, you know, you already have something that we could just add. Yeah, I think between my comment that we can add landscaping to the stormwater area and, as you say, Marla, count some of the perennials that we hadn't before we can meet this requirement. And if the stone wall, the decorative vehicle display, if that's acceptable, like the stone wall, that that certainly can make up the difference. Can I make a request for the long-term health of mental health of staff to this perennial and ground covers? If you can provide a calculation of what just show like a hatch or something, what area that is, we'll write a condition that says this area shall be covered in perennials and ground covers. And that means later on, if you have to remove a hosta and put in a day lily, you're not going to get in trouble for it. Sounds good. Okay, great. Thank you. Then I don't have to jump in on landscaping. Sure. Okay, there's just two things that I think one was there were 10 bushes removed as part of the construction that we're not accounted for in the landscaping. Like you had to replace those and then do additional. So that's just one thing I wanted to bring up. And the other thing was on page, the bottom of page five of my comments, page five of the sheet, there's a comment that is not in red, but was supposed to be a staff comment. That's my error. It's sort of an interesting one where similar to the roof height thing, this is a corner lot. So it has two front yards and the standard here says that buildings with a front yard of 50 or more feet have to put at least half of their landscaping in that front yard. However, this has two front yards. Most of their landscaping is a budding Shelburne road, which sort of makes sense. That's the primary street. But technically that front yard is only 34 feet back. So they have two front yards. One of them is over 50 feet. That's the one off of a green mountain. So this would suggest that at least 50% of their landscaping be in that front yard as opposed to the Shelburne yard front yard. If that, if you follow, if everyone follows, it's sort of interesting. I think it's meant for industrial facilities that are set way back from the road and have one front yard. That way you're putting landscaping there as opposed to side yards rear yard. But because you have two front yards, it's sort of interesting. For clarity, when you mentioned over 50 feet on the north, on the side, you're talking from the building to the road? Correct. Most of it's pavement already. Right, right. It's an existing non-conformity. So, okay. Yeah. So, does the applicant need to do anything to respond to that? Our recommendation was that in order to reduce the existing non-conformity, the staff recommends the board discuss and provide direction as to how to achieve compliance. Potentially just adding some of the additional landscaping we're talking about right now and that section just so that the existing non-conformity becomes less of a non-conformity. I don't think we're expecting you to remedy it completely as part of this application. Yeah, I think that's acceptable. We can, as part of the condition to make up the additional landscaping deficit on that north side. You know, there's two trees located on the back of the lot. Those could be relocated to that north side if the staff and the board prefers as well as the additional makeup that we're looking at. Okay. Thank you. Okay, number 12. The question is, can the applicant comply with all of the above comments in blue? Are you prepared to do that? And this relates to storm water. Storm water, the infiltration. Yeah, storm water. Let me just make sure I see those comments. Yeah, I think the one kind of comment we would suggest is that either conduct a soil boring or we also have a geotechnical engineer on the project that I think we can talk to to convey that the soils are consistent throughout the site. So we have done infiltration testing and the storm water treatment area moved a little bit after the testing, but the soils are consistent and we have soil borings to demonstrate that. So maybe a letter from the geotechnical engineer would be acceptable. Okay. Board. I defer to staff if that's acceptable from their standpoint. Yeah, I think it's at the applicant's risk. You know, there's testifying that it's good. If it turns out to be not good, then they're going to have to come back. Yep. Okay. The last comment is staff recommends the board confirm with the applicant that no building mounted lighting is proposed. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. That means no illuminated panels or anything like that. There's no illuminated panels. The light from the glass will shine out, but there's no building mounted lighting. All right. So board, do we think we have enough information to, so they need to come back? Okay. Yeah. Never mind. Forget that. Yeah, I was going to say, I think, I think there's enough changes to the landscape. Okay. We're going to have, have you come back, but let's take some comments from the public first. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this? I'm sorry? Are there any members of the public attending virtually who would like to comment on this? Hearing none. I think we should entertain a motion to continue this hearing. To when? To, well, still October 18th. October 18th. So what happens when you're continued is that we need the revised materials two weeks before the next application, the next hearing date, and the next hearing, the very next hearing date is two weeks from now. So that's physically impossible. So I'll put you on the one right after that. That's great. And that gives you two weeks to turn around, changes to your plans, and then us two weeks to look at them. Great. Okay. Thank you. It's on motion. Yes. Motion to continue. I'll make a motion to continue at SB 22045 to October 18th. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. We will see you back here on October 18th. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's take a four-minute break with the appeal. I know. It's all in today's work and from future development. And so this is really a question that the board had left a little bit open at the last meeting, which is, you know, once you've seen the easement plans, do you feel that additional restriction is necessary? And I can probably show the easement C14, which is sheet 26. Oh, sorry. I'm already got a lost Wi-Fi and so I can't, he can't show it right now. Hang on. But you can talk about it. Talk amongst yourselves. So we believe that there is no physical room with all the easements shared use, excuse me, the recreation path and everything else back in that area. And as we have said previously, the medical center has no intention of doing any further development on the site, especially in that area. So what do we need? Do we need them to state that or what would be necessary? Well, so the board felt that potentially nothing was necessary if you look at the easement. So we just wanted you to see it and understand what and be able to determine. So you can see the dash lines and I'll do a little annotation here. You can see the dash lines that are the areas that are otherwise encumbered. So this guy, and then so like over here would be encumbered. This is encumbered. Oh boy. And this area is encumbered. So the area that would be potentially developable in the future is this sort of yellow squiggle area. And it goes off the page to the west a bit more, but not a ton more. It doesn't look very developable. Board, are we still concerned about future development or are we satisfied that that is highly unlikely? I mean, it could be just a notice of conditions. Okay. That was going to be my question. Can we do it with a condition if the applicant feels that they're comfortable with that? Can that be the mechanism? Yeah. So this is a little bit new area and the reason this is coming up is because without when there is remaining development potential, the applicant is subject to master plan and the applicant set it sketch and then set again at the last hearing. They don't have any intention of developing. And so the question is what does it mean to not be, not have the potential for future phases? So the board, it's kind of the board's precedent setting, though a precedent doesn't really matter with the board, board's quasi precedent setting on what, whether a notice of conditions recorded in the land records would be adequate or a conservation easement or, you know, something between or nothing. What do you think, board? It seems to me as a condition is good enough, but I'm not a lawyer. Frank, do you have an opinion about this? I was afraid you were going to say that. As soon as you say you weren't a lawyer. And if you don't, that's fine. I just wanted to give you the... Geez, I hate to be without an opinion, but at the moment, I don't have the basis for one. Okay. All right. Thanks. Go ahead. Sorry. And I would just potentially an interest of time if the applicant feels, you know, we've got confirmation that they're not looking to do that. Maybe is that something we could confirm and deliberation what we want the mechanism to be? Because or if we want it just a condition or a record, as I stated before, we have no objection. Yeah. So I'm just wondering. All right. Let's move on. Thank you. Thank you. Comment number two, staff recommends the board consider whether they will direct the applicant to require a short spur from the rec path to the proposed building. Do we have any art that could show this? I think so. We have a little park proposed. I think the drawing that's up is fine. Okay. So the rec path, you know what? I'm going to do this. This is much better. The rec path that is proposed is here. Okay. And then the idea, the comment from the biking pet committee at the previous meeting was that it connect directly to the parking lot rather than all the way up to Tilly Drive. You know, staff's comment that you guys reviewed earlier tonight about the importance of this regional connector is that this path connects not just to this property, but it connects Hinesburg Road to Williston. Hinesburg Road at Old Farm at Eldridge Street to Williston. So staff feels pretty strongly that it should not dead end at the parking lot for the UVM medical center, surgery center. However, in recognition that people will in fact walk to work, maybe it makes sense to have a spur, you know, here or here or something so that people don't have to walk, you know, way the heck out into East Cosh Cosh Cosh and then walk back to work. Though it wouldn't, I guess I drew my second line too far here, because it'd be back to the front of the office. So what do you think, Ward? How costly is a spur? Could we provide some additional comments on this? Sure. Let's just hear from Frank first. Go ahead, Frank. No, I think I'd like to hear the additional comments. Okay. Go ahead, Gil. Thank you. We did provide a plan today that shows, it's the illustrative plan that shows the Green Mountain Power easements that's again right through the middle of the site, and where this one spur connection that Marley had pointed out by the chillers and where all the HVAC equipment is, is a very steep grade. It's over 10% to be able to make any type of connection from the road parking area to the shared use path in that area. We do have the connection to the path that does go out to Tilly Drive. The Tilly Drive has a shared use path that does go East and West, and in addition, we do have a sidewalk that goes out. And while, yes, it's a little bit farther to walk in our day and age of trying to get people out and walk, we think that that's a reasonable connection. We just don't want to have a connection coming into the parking lot. There's no sidewalks in that back parking lot at all. Yeah, and most of our facilities on Tilly Drive, the path we're proposing, provides a greatest utility for that. It gets people from the community to the larger complex, which we have a number of facilities in that location. So we think we've got a good solution there. If we did something, some kind of a spur connector by that pocket park into it, if we had to do something, we could, but we would not want to see that developed as a recreational path specification. More of a footpath. Probably would not be ADA, just given the grades and so on and so forth. So we're willing to make a connection. We just don't want to create something that's really not to our advantage at this point. Okay. What do you think, Board? Go ahead, Frank. Of course, I have a bad sense of scale here. I'm not sure how long a path we're talking about, but let me make my point. There is a little path, a little brick path. Between the diocese's property on Joy Drive and Rice High School, that is actually quite charming. It winds for about, I don't know, 20, 25 feet. And it goes through what would otherwise just be vegetation. And it's quite attractive. I don't know if the distances are amenable or something like that. And it's really just a footpath. It's already about a couple of feet wide. It's very nice. To think the other perspective that Gil mentioned is when it terminates, it's going to be terminating in a parking lot. It's really not pedestrian oriented. So except for people going from the cars to the building. So if that's an acceptable condition, we don't object to that. Frank, the path you're talking about, does it terminate in a parking lot, in the rice parking lot? It doesn't come in a parking lot. It comes out essentially on a service road next to the baseball diamond at Rice. And it comes out on a service road gate in between the diocese and the medical building next to it. I walk that every morning. I think the applicant should have discretion where they want to put this connection and that they want to make it brick or something. This is a tough one because the shared youth path is by and large the public benefit. And if we start saying, oh, you throw this in there and throw that in there, then we're defeating the purpose of bikes. And excuse me, now pending 30 mile an hour electric bikes, they're going to be zipped in five years. We don't want them cutting through the parking lot. So I mean, all it does is sort of invite people. I see someone with your hand up. Are you part of their team? No, your public comment. So Donna was the one who made this comment on the behalf of the bike and pipe committee. Generally we take public comments at the end, but since this is the only thing Donna commented on, maybe it's appropriate to do that. Go ahead, Donna. Thank you. I think that having a different pavement connection to the parking lot would be acceptable because it would show that the public path does go to Tilly Drive. The main reason I had suggested the connection to the parking lot is that it doesn't, you know, basically anybody who's going to this building is going to want a shortcut through the grass anyway because it's a fairly steep hill going down to Tilly Drive. And it's, you know, and if you follow the grade across to the parking lot, there's very little grade change. And so I'm just thinking that it would be better to preempt those who will cut a path through to the parking lot and keep the, you know, keep the main public path access to Tilly Drive. And I think that kind of works for everybody, but it also acknowledges human nature that nobody really wants to go down a steep hill just to go back up one again. And even e-bikes don't really enjoy hills. And they don't typically go 30 miles an hour on a path like this either. So let's not demonize e-bikes. I have one and I tend to go the same speed as everybody else on the rec maps, especially because they're super bumpy in some cases. Okay. All right. Thank you. But I think that's acceptable. I think what they're proposing with a, you know, with a different kind of pavement, even a gravel path would be better than, you know, just mud. Okay. Can you work with us on that applicant? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Yes. Okay. Frank, what's the width of the path you, you talked about between the dice? I'm guessing, I don't know. Two to three feet, I think. I don't think it's more than that. Maybe three feet, Max. Okay. Good. Thank you. Number three. This is, I'm not sure I understand this. The board determined on A2 that the parking to the front relative to Old Farm Road, I don't understand what that means, is allowable under three below, but required the applicant to add additional screening. What to the front relative to Old Farm Road? I'm not sure I understand that. Can you pull up page 21, please? And this was talked about, and I think everybody got it at the time, but I understand it was a little while ago. So this shows the whole site. And let me go back to drawing on it. Okay. Old Farm Road, Tilly Drive. So on the left, the pink line is Old Farm Road. The property has frontage on both Old Farm Road and Tilly Drive. There is parking to the front of the building relative to Old Farm Road. I was thinking Old Farm and Tilly were more parallel, but that's why I was confused. Okay. So this only comes up because there's frontage. There is an exceptional allowable for sites, site constraints that would allow parking, but not other things. And the board determined that because there is, I'm going to switch colors, a wetland in Hirish and the power line is meant in Hirish. The available space to put a building to the front would be very tiny. And therefore, they would consider it site constraints and would be allowed, but said, please put in more landscaping. And so what they did is they put in more landscaping. So what we need is a side-by-side diagram. Is that what we're looking for? No. No? What does the staff comment say? Board determined the applicant indicated in their cover letter that they have done so, but staff has not been able to find any difference with a side-by-side comparison of the landscaping plan. Oh, I see. I'm sorry. I've been training this so long. I forgot. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify. We're a little confused on this as well because the circle, the purple circle you have with showing the additional landscaping is what we added in addressing this comment. There's existing vegetation right now along Old Farm Road in this area. We've added landscaping kind of outside of that area for screening. So I guess we're a little confused as to what additional landscaping that you didn't, did you expect different one or I guess we're just confused? You know, I'm just, like I said, I wrote this a while ago. I think perhaps was there not a sheet that went out that far maybe? Like a landscaping zoom-in sheet that went out that far? On the landscaping plan, that little rectangular piece is off to the side. It's not in just due to the layout of the sheet on the landscaping plan. There's a break line on the drawing. Let's call this a trust and verify. What? Let's call this trust and verify. I will trust that they said they did what they're saying they did and then we will confirm it before we break the decision. All right. Perfect. Sounds good. Okay. Number four. Staff recommends the board determine whether to allow the applicant to use the pocket park amenity type. It shouldn't be noted that alternative amenity options are available to the applicant due to the relatively open nature of the underlying zoning district. I would say why not? It seems kind of interesting. What do other board members think? Okay. Any opposition to that? Okay. Let's move. Okay. Thank you. Number five. This is about needing to remove trees from the wetland buffer. What are your thoughts about that? The existing class three wetlands and the wetlands buffer, as you recall, are in front of the entrance to the building as well as near, well not exactly where that purple circle is on the plan still, but in that relative area. And to address the concerns of the neighbors, specifically the one neighbor who wants additional screening and to meet the buffer requirement between a residential property and a commercial property, we have put additional landscaping within the buffer area here. And so we feel this is important. We're trying to address and keep our neighbors happy here. You know that the plantings, this wetland right now, as you recall, in the information that we submitted, it really has very little functional value. It's pretty disconnected from anywhere. And actually the planting of the trees within this area will help with additional storm water benefits for collecting the water, drinking up the water, what may exist in that area. Well, there will be plantings that will be species that are consistent with wetlands. I mean, it's not, we're not. I did actually, I had that in here and then took it out, but I did check with the city arborist, and he thought that the tree species were wet tolerant, but not wet loving, so they wouldn't be happy in a completely wet environment. That was his feedback. The, our opinion that that wetland, when you go there and went in the spring on a snow melt, it's wet. This type of year, this time of year is pretty dry. So it's not after the last few days, but typically this time of year that it is dry. So we relied on the expertise of our landscape architect to specify species. And I suppose if there was a condition that they're going to be warrants in any ways, if something didn't work, then we would be obligated to replace with something that didn't work. And it sounds to me like you're trying to dance to many fiddlers. We're kind of, you know. So the way the LDRs are interpreted, and this is specifically from the LDR, is the more specific standard governs. So Article 1304 is the landscaping standards. Article three is the residential buffer standards. Article 12 is the environmental protection standards. Article 12, in our opinion, and I understand what you're saying, and I'm trying to find a way to yes. Article 12 is the environmental protection standards. And I would say they're more specific because they don't apply to every property. Article three, where the residential buffer standards are, does apply to every property. Can I jump in here also, Marla? This is James, the landscape architect online. I just would like to also say that these are all native plantings in our goal with these, with not only the screenings, they will increase the ecological value of these wetlands greatly. These are swamp white oak, all native and white spruce. And so another part of this planting was to increase the ecological value of these wetlands. Thanks, James. So the LDR says, I mean, and it's in your staff report, development in a Class III wetland meeting the 5,000 square foot threshold and associated buffers within all zoning districts is generally prohibited and shall be left in an undisturbed naturally vegetated condition. Can the board find a way to interpret adding plants to the wetland to be allowable? Could I offer a suggestion under 12.06 F? You're allowed to have modifications for impacts to the wetlands. Well, we don't think it's an impact. We think it's a benefit. Going through those requirements, I think we could easily fall within that criteria and have a way to allow these to be within the buffer. So I think this might be what the alkaline's getting at, and I haven't looked closely at kind of those items in a little bit. But I recall when we had this conversation around the site design generally, and this is this is a new regulation under the new LDRs, right? And so I'll just emphasize that bearing with us as far as kind of trying to apply these, right? That there was room for to the extent possible or like to, you know, minimal impact to the wetlands to the extent for the site to serve the purpose that the applicant's going for. So if that kind of applies to this statement we're looking at that's been pulled out for the staff report with respect to plantings, I wonder if there's a happy medium where some of the plantings are kept to, you know, present sufficient buffer, but it's less so. So more of it is undisturbed. So yeah, I think the way I can turn your comment into an LDR interpretation is that the modification has already been made to allow the Class 3 wetland buffer impact and this is part of that modification. Yeah. That works. Okay. Yeah. Does that work? Perfect. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Quinn and Marl. Thank you. Okay, on the next page, I want to read something that's not in red, but I think we should highlight it. Staff right in the middle of the page, staff recommends the board require the applicant to incorporate BFJ's recommendation. Since these modifications will result in a relatively modest adjustment to the number of predicted PM peak hour trips, staff considers this can be addressed as a condition of approval. Can you live with that? We actually have a traffic engineer Cory Mack online, would love to have him address this. Okay. He did put together a memo that we did put in the package. Thank you to address these comments. Okay. Cory, if you would speak up and address these, please. Definitely. Thank you. So again, I'm Cory Mack, a professional engineer at the traffic study. I and I reviewed BFJ's technical analysis. I appreciate what they wrote in there. I do have a couple of disagreements with their recommendations to disallow the internal capture and reduction in the TDM credits. Regarding the internal capture, the outpatient surgery center in the red barn market in Delhi form a really nice complimentary land use pair. And the OSC doesn't have a cafeteria or food service for staff care or staff or the care partners or patients. And the red barn market in Delhi really will provide the services. So, you know, they share a driveway. They're about 500 feet apart. So while I agree that existing trips to the red barn market in Delhi won't go to the OSC now. People that go to the OSC will very likely go to the red barn market in Delhi rather than getting in their car and driving to go to some other other kind of facility like this. The BFJ review said that some staff doctors, they even agreed that some staff doctors, visitors, and patients might walk to the Delhi. They said that it wouldn't be likely to occur during the peak hours of traffic. And again, I would disagree just because this site is going to open at 6.30 in the morning and close, you know, after six o'clock at night. So during the peak hours of traffic, there will be staff that are mid shift that want to go get a coffee break or there will be, you know, care support people for patients that are waiting for a procedure to wrap up that might walk over and get a cup of coffee or something like that. So I think that internal capture really is something that will be occurring at this location. And our recommendation continues to be that we allow a modest, you know, an accounting for that. So we follow the standard, you know, practice for this engineering for a nine-trip credit in the morning or four-trip credit in the evening, which is 7% or 3% of the total trips that were estimated. So, you know, relatively modest regarding the overall trip generation of the site. Secondly, BFJ noted that the TDM credit that should be reduced after reviewing their recommendation. I agree that we may have double counted some features. So we have a credit for parking supply management and we also have a credit for membership within TMA, CATMA. That's a little duplicative because one of the primary services that CATMA provides for the medical center is parking supply management. So we do recommend agree that we should remove that 3% parking supply management credit. But then also BFJ recommended that the TMA membership credit is reduced from 9%, which is cited in the VTRANS transportation demand management guidance. Reducing that from the statewide guidance at 9% to 5% or 6%, I forget exactly which one it was. But they didn't really provide any detail of why it should be reduced. You know, the VTRANS guidance recommends 9% for medical land use, which this is. So I think that it's applicable and was developed to be applicable with medical land use. You know, the medical center is a founding member of CATMA. There will continue to be a member of CATMA. And I think that applying the TDM credit using statewide guidance is just a way to conform to standard practice. So in the end, I think that it is valuable to maintain that internal capture to recognize the internal trip making that will occur between the outpatient surgery center and the Red Barn Market in Delhi. And also I agree that we can reduce the TDM credit by 3%. But we should say that the TDM credit was capped at a percentage at 12%. So when we reduce that 3%, it goes from a 14.5% to 11.5%, which is very close to 12%. It's really a negligible change in the TDM credit. And that's all written in my memo. It's a lot of really dense technical stuff that I just said. And I understand if it was a little challenging to follow. I'm happy to discuss it further. Okay, hope there's not going to be a test on this. I know. Sorry. So Marla, what are your thoughts and stuff in terms of this? I know he just threw a lot at us in terms of numbers. But if I were to summarize, because my recommendation ultimately is going to be the shortage of side deliberations, because what it comes down to is the applicant is saying they should, what are the total numbers, Corey, that you're asking for? So the total credit and trip generation reduction? So without any credits at all, you're generating 129. How many credits would you like? So it's, I don't know if I have that number right in front of me. I can find it out for you. I mean, it should be in your memo, right? Of what you're saying you should, you would like to be the number of trips. Well, there's like an am peak hour and the PM peak hour. PM. Okay, so it's for PM trips for the internal capture and it's six TDM trips and the PM. Yes, it is in the memo. There it is. I see it. Okay. So a total of 10. Okay. So a total of 10. So the effect of this decision is whether the applicant pays impact fees for 129 trips or 119 trips. And so the three things Corey was saying is they would like credit for internal capture because they think that some of the new trips generated by the surgery center will go to the red barn instead of Haniford. They would like credit for traffic management using a using an industry standard. Is that a fair way to summarize it in one sentence? Yes, for the internal capture and, you know, participation within the transportation management, TMA, CATMA, just a way to manage, you know, how people access the site. Okay. So is that enough information knowing the bottom line of the request to for the board to decide and deliberations? What do you think? I'm seeing three nods. That's almost that's almost more than half. All right. Okay. We're good. We're good. In the interest of time, let's take that and move on. Number six, given the barn road extension is likely to be built at a later time than construction of the official map roadway. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide for a direct connection to the future official map roadway. I think I need a visual for this. Let's draw on the one we have open. It's so great. Yeah, top right ish. I should have this this plan open when I was reviewing everything. It's way more useful than the individual sheets. Okay. So official map roadway somewhere here ish barn road extension from from O'Brien's view here ish. Actually, Gail, you submitted one that showed both things today, didn't you both O'Brien overlaid with? Yes, there's a I don't know whether it has the roads on it, but it has the shared use path. It's a composite of both Eastview and this project. Maybe that's better. Let me just finish what I'm doing here. Barn road isn't a connection to the deli, the red barn deli. No, barn road is the name of a road and he's got it. Okay. But yeah, if we go to the handouts, I bet we can see it even better. So they're proposing the driveway to be that third red line. So you know what the sheet name was? Because that those things on the left hand side of the screen are what the sheet names were. Oh, was it the first one? It says Eastview. There you go. Yes. Look at that. Okay. So can you kind of zoom into the middle bottom? Yeah, that's great. Thanks. Okay. So lines again, official map road barn road extension. The question is, and then the applicant is proposing to reserve this land for a future connection to the official map road. The question is whether that should instead be a direct connection. As we had mentioned earlier, the grades are the issue here, the grades and this being the lowest part of the site where we've got the shared use path, we've got the stormwater wetland ponds. It's just impossible to make that direct connection. We felt that it was better to make the connection to the future barn road instead for the site. So the staff comment here, and I don't have a lot of feelings about this. This is just more genuinely a question for the board. The north south road, the right hand red line is the official map road that we talked about is sketch. That will be built by the city at some future point. This smaller connection to barn road is also going to be paid for by tax payer dollars by the board's determination. And because it's smaller and is not a regional connector, staff's assumption is that it will be even harder to get taxpayer dollars to construct. So if the intention is to get this surgery center to connect to the north south connector, you know, it'll take longer to do to happen if it connects directly to barn road rather than the north south future map. But doesn't that dump it into the parking lot, which is what we're trying to avoid? Yes. I mean, we've, we, we proposed this, well, what you see on the plan is what we think is the best suitable practical solution to this. It achieves the connectivity, it avoids disturbing the east side of the site where we get into very complex stormwater issues, the grades at which I think are actually 13 and a half percent. So it becomes really impractical to build the road in that location without extensive regrading and, you know, dealing with, you know, stormwater upon intersection that we have there, which we think we have the best site plan that we can bring to you. Board, what do you think? I have a question for Marla. Sure. So what would be the classification of the north south road? Because I think the typical practices you want to go off of, you know, you're, if you're going to add a connection, you want to go to the minor instead of the, you know, major road. See a fewer points of intersection. It would at most, well, I suppose it would never rise to the status of a collector because it's really a connection, right? Because Tilly would be extended first over to the east and then the north south would go, or maybe the other order, depending on what the Wellands, State Wellands program says. And they would never really rise to the status of a collector. The barn road would always be a local road. Is there something between a collector and a local? Not really. Isn't the north south road supposed to be a future connection to the future except 12B? One of the ideas. One of the ideas, isn't that? But it's not the only reason. It's also because the part of the top part of the page in the Eastview development would be sort of an industrial commercial center. Okay. I mean, I think Dave's point about constructability is, you know, worth something as well. So what do we do with this? I mean, I would just echo what Marla just said. I think the applicant from the beginning has expressed the difficulty of this site and given the topography there, it sounds like they looked at making that connection and it's not the most feasible. So I think it still works, but. Are we good? Mark? I'm good. Okay. All right. Hearing no other. We're moving on. We still have a lot to go. Number seven. These comments have not been addressed. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide clarity on these items before closing the hearing. We can address them right now. Okay. The little label on the plan sheet that says B is for blue lights that are out on the site for pedestrian safety for both visitors as well as staff. The shading that was shown on the plan has been removed. It was part of what's on the plan sheet showing where patient parking is. That was the only label that it was. It's no longer on that sheet and the incorrect property owner name has now been removed. So I believe we have taken care of those. Okay. Thank you. So blue lights. I don't know if that would be subject to our lighting standards. Are they downcast? Can we talk about the blue light? They're basically, it's just a name, their security button. Somebody thinks that they're in danger in the parking lot or they push the button and it summons security to the police department. We actually may not. There's a cap with a blue light, correct? Just so people can identify where to go to push them. And all over campus. They're all over the UVM Medical Center campus now. What I can tell you is we probably are not going to use those at this location because we don't have an on-site security function. So if somebody pushed the button, where's it going to go? So that was just a design standard from our main campus that was introduced here and we're revising that. Every college campus has a mall over the place. Your question is, is it downcast? Yeah. I mean, I don't mean to get in the way of safety, but you know, our LDRs have lighting standards, but it sounds like they're not going to be there. So it doesn't matter. It's not like this override lighting standards. It's not federal. It's not preempted under. That's kind of the downcast lighting for the safety light kind of would block the view of it from certain angles. I know. The whole idea is to make it visible within like 100 feet so somebody can run to it and push the button. They're pretty standard. I know. I don't know how to reconcile this. But if there's no on-site security, what's going on? Well, we haven't made that final decision, but that's the way we may be going. But right now they're in the design, but what we could say that we believe they're not. I mean, we're using them in residential areas on the main campus in Burlington. I guess it's, you know, it's in the eye of the beholder, but they're there to just provide a visual for somebody to seek assistance. Well, so there's like ballard lights that are functional for letting, you know, these are that are shielded. You know, the light is within a shield and then it glows out the sides. I appreciate that. These are, I think, are pretty much a standard design for my security company. It's something we're willing to look at and see if we can come up with some sort of alternative. But I think if we, if there's a picture that could be shared, maybe it's too late to introduce at this point, and we'd be happy to provide more information on that. We don't think it's going to be visually disturbing. It only comes on if somebody gets the panic on. It's on all the time, isn't it? Wait a minute. Oh, I thought they are. No, they're on all the time. They're on all the time. They're on all the time. That's how people in the dark can find them. Right. Right. Yeah. So that like at night you can see, you run to it, you hit the button. And on college campuses, there has to be one from every vantage point that you can see. We don't have kids in college. All that tuition pay. So where should we go with this? There must have been other projects that had these. Maybe in the UBM campus improvements within South Burlington, they would have had, they would have incorporated those all over the place. But I would suggest that they're not lighting at all. They have a, that's not their function. Right. Good. We don't have to worry about the media lighting standard. Right. Good. Rule them out categorically. I doubt they put off the foot candle. No, right, right, right. Okay. Okay. Good. So that's the solution to that. Just disregard the lighting. Thank you, Frank. Okay. Number eight. We need an indication of the size of the landscape islands. We provided a plan that shows this, that's been marked up that the numbers are slightly different, but we're still over the 10% where at 11% for landscape islands within the parking lot. I'm going to look at it because I can look at it at a glance and figure it out, but keep moving. Can we keep moving on? Keep moving. Okay. Good. Number nine. This is regarding the shade trees. Are they adequate? Great. So, Marla's staff's comment is in the middle of that paragraph. Staff considers this criterion to be just met. And it struck me that you're trying to be responsive to one of the neighbor's request. And if the criterion is just met, isn't it met? I have a more pertinent question for staff. Does the, are the trees placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare, yes or no? Well, that's, you know, for you guys to say our interpretation is no. It does not provide, so the, sorry, I guess I shouldn't have said considers this criterion to be just met. Staff, the number of trees is just met, but staff considers the spacing a portion of the area is not met. Can you pull up the landscaping plan? Again, we were trying to be responsive to our neighbors. Two of the neighbors want to be. Yeah. No, I understand that. The standard is the standard. So, This is James again. Also, as the sun goes to the south, the trees that we, where we have the break for the neighbors visibility is to the northwest of the plan. So those wouldn't actively be shading the parking lot anyway. So north is up on your plans, right? Just straight up. Yes. Right. So if you look at it, there's a lot of trees to the north. Those are counted in staff's calculation of 54. And then there's no trees to the west of the parking area. There's just shrubs. Right. And to the west of that one bay. To the west of that one, that double row parking that's represented. Yeah. And that's where the neighbor asked you not to have trees. They wanted us to preserve views to the east from the residential areas there. It was a major design intent from their standpoint that we could achieve. But they felt that would be more satisfying to them than have screening that they couldn't see the mountains and views to the east. I mean, it was, we're responding to their request. There is a berm in this area as well as the shrubs on that berm. Right. So the standard is about shading for the parking lot, not about views. What's the relative grade between the back of that house and the center of the parking lot? What's the, is there any height differences? Is it flat as a pool table or what is it? What are the relative elevations? I believe the parking lot is higher by about eight feet. So that western edge of the parking lot is eight feet higher than the back than somebody sitting on their patio in front of the pool? I think that's about right. I don't have the plan directly in front of me, but we've essentially created a swale between there. Yeah. It's already in ours to control the water and we're not directing water towards them. Right. But the issue is shading. I mean, I hear what you're saying. It's nice to try to be accommodating, but the standard is the standard and it's the shall not end. There's no things in the standard that says if trees providing reducing glare and providing shade block the budding neighbor's view, this may be waived. I just, I mean, is there a way to, you know, take four of the trees from the north and put them on the west rather than the north is obviously got a lot of trees. And I don't think that the intent is for there to be a shade for every parking space. No, you're supposed to, you're supposed to evenly space them around. And yeah, that's the standard. Yeah. Marla, I think we could find a spot for four trees to the north of that west edge and not encumber the owner's views. Okay. Thank you. Number 10. We need updated itemized landscaping costs. Breakdown of landscaping costs to evaluate compliance with this and landscape budget requirements. Have you been able to do that? We have. We have actually that along with number 12, we've provided updated landscape costs for the project. So we did provide a breakdown of all the plants cost estimate prepared by Wagner-Hawson Landscape Architecture for us, which James did. And that breaks it down by the trees, shrubs, perennials, and grasses. And the costs? In the costs. That number still does not quite meet the requirement. And in the staff report, there was a couple of options to consider to try to meet this. So we presented two options. The first one is we looked at adjusting the overall cost of the construction for this project because it's got such special surgical center requirements that make this project much more expensive than an average commercial building. So based on that, we were able to reduce down the project construction cost, which then the proposed landscape budget would meet. The second option was looking at what other landscape specialty items are proposed for this project that could potentially be included in the landscaping to try to meet the landscape budget. And I know the conversation happened in your previous project. So anyway, we've proposed for the pocket park, the proposed granite benches that go around the perimeter of that park. We've included that as a landscape cost. The paver areas for the patient visitor area in front of the building and for the staff terrace area in the back of the building. So we've included those paver areas as, again, another option. And then the third piece was, I'm sorry, you had that up on the screen. I'm sorry, I thought it was the wrong page. Thank you for my fault. For the patient visitor terrace out front, we have stone seating wall with a cap. And so again, we include put that in as a potential for a landscape specialty item. So with either one of those approaches, we would be able to meet the landscape budget for the project following the criteria in the requirements and the regulations for the paver areas. Don't we usually do a differential between the costs of the paver? Yeah, but even if you didn't count them, if you look at the numbers, they've got, even if you have zero for the pavers, they have well over what they need. No, I understand that. But just for the record, since we've done that with other calculations, the difference between regular, the cost differential between regular, concrete paver area or asphalt versus. Yeah. So I would, I could write something that says in the decision, no matter which way you slice it, they are meeting the landscape budget requirements. But is that because they reduced the cost of construction? No, so they've done it both ways. They've tried their, so the previous page, if you want to show the previous page, so this is the 50 C at the top. Well, it doesn't matter. So if you go up a bit, actually it's right there on top of the page. So their, their estimated construction cost is 50 million. If they take out the specialty equipment stuff, they're only at 43 million. And is that legal to take that out? Well, so all I can think of is the CON application. No, no, no, it'll be all in the CON application. Okay. This is really try to, to reconcile the project to a typical comparable benchmark that you would find. If somebody builds a building of this size, what would be the expected landscaping for a building of that size and the cost? Because the percentages are driven by cost, we're building a very sophisticated building well above any type of base building that you would see in South Burlington. Right. So we're just reducing to get equalized value for landscaping purposes. We just took the, the value of the project and discounted it for the specialty construction. So it's not like leaving the parking garage at the medical center out of the CON. No, no, no. All right. This is all the costs for this project are fully identified. This is just an equalization exercise for the purposes of calculating the landscaping budget based on conversations we had with staff. Okay. Works for me? Okay. Thank you for good ideas. Let's see, number 11. So I would like to call up the rendering of the front yard meadow, please. And Dan's going to sing for us. Well, can we back up a minute? Sure. I mean, I appreciate the ingenuity of the specialty construction argument, except, you know, I don't, what I don't buy is the is the comparison with a hypothetical hypothetical standard building. I mean, any commercial, not any, not everything's a warehouse. We're not just talking about bricks and mortar. Many buildings have specialty needs. Are we to make this as a general exception? We weren't trying to say that we were, this is a plain Jane building. All we did was took the value of the construction and took out the operating room specialties, the mechanical electrical specialties you find in the surgery center. So it's still very and it's, we're, this was a method that was proposed by staff to look at. So this is what we've come up with. I would leave it to the board and their wisdom to come up with the final answer. All right. I'll save it for the liberation. Okay. Thank you, Frank. Okay. Okay. Front of the yard meadow. It was the elevation. 11. It was what we just submitted today. So it was in, it was listed under elevation. Yes. So that, that is the front, the view from the front with the meadow in it. That's right. And again, our approach here has been to create a beautiful and also ecological or a solution with a higher ecological value and less gasoline carbon maintenance footprint. Okay. Also very beautiful. How often does it need to be plowed? Plowed? Never. Not plowed. I mean, um, what do you do with grass? Pardon me, I think we would do it after the lightning bugs, maybe once or twice a year. Okay. So like brush hogging? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. What do you think board? Okay. Nice. All right. Good. Good. Any opposition? Okay. Number 12. Just curiosity, not opposition. What is the, I assume that the color is not an actual representation of the building color. Is that right? The gray? No, the building is just black and white line work. Okay. And what, what, what will it actually, what will, what are there going to be colors? What's it going to be? I believe there's other elevations we've submitted to this. Perhaps the architect can speak to this. All right. And then I don't want to take up the time now. All right. Thanks, Frank. Okay. Number 12, I think we've addressed. Let's go to 13. It does not appear these comments have been addressed. Staff continues to recommend the board require the applicant to address these comments prior to closing the hearing. So have you had a chance to address these? I think we, these have already been taken care of the plans for some reason had not gotten to the city engineer for review. These are the stormwater plans. They have now been submitted. I believe today the engineers said they were fine. So I believe we're good. Yeah. So there was one issue that came out of this and I agree with everything Gail just said. The stormwater section is great with this. They, the city stormwater director or sorry, this DBW director, and this might be later, I don't know where it comes up. Oh no, it's just totally random comment. When he looked at it, said, Oh, they're proposing this rec path to be permeable pavement. We won't accept a permeable pavement rec path. And then the stormwater director said, we want a storm. We want a permeable pavement rec path. And then I made them find it out. They had a thumb warm. Sorry, it's late. And ultimately, the, you know, the stormwater director said, Well, what if we, what if we try it? And if it fails in 10 years, you know, then we replace it. I would argue that the rec path along Dorset street has been in place for 30 years and we haven't had the budgets to replace it. And that's permeable. No, it's standard pavement. I would not plan on having budget to replace a rec path in 10 years if it revels. And I think that it would be not, how can I say this in lay person terms, I don't think it would have any impact to the stormwater runoff quality to have it be standard pavement because it would be disconnected. It wouldn't be running directly to a water body. And so my recommendation would be aligned with DPW, which is to make it standard pavement. Okay. All right, clear as mud. Can you use the mic? Sorry, you have to touch it down the bottom. There you go. Sorry, Derek Reed. I'm the civil engineer. We did apply for a stormwater discharge permit and we did that before this was required. And so because it's below our stormwater ponds and it's right on this, basically the boundary line, there is really no space to provide. We can provide the water quality, as Marla said, which should be through a disconnection off property, but that requires typically from the state easement language to get that. And that might be possible, but we don't have a way to provide the channel protection or the overbank flood, which is the one year in the 10 year storm. So that's in essence why we went with a permeable in this option. And we did ask in advance of doing the permeable design, and I know that I talked to Dave Wheeler or not. So that's why we went forward with this. And the medical center has agreed to maintain that path? Yeah. And I think that the perspective is that the city wants to own the path in this case, because it is such a regional connector. Now, is the permeable, is it the permeable asphalt is what you're planning? Yeah. Yeah. So it's basically just doesn't have the binder? Yeah, it has a different, right, right, different binder. And is it going to be designed to capture the stormwater? Like, you know, you're going to have like the gravel subbase. Yeah, it'll have an 18 inch subbase to handle the voids and provide the requisite volume for the storm and to make permeable. The city's position that permeable pavement is not as durable as regular asphalt? And the concern is that it won't last as long? Yeah. So I'm going to read directly from what Tom said. I guess I'm not, because I don't see it. What Tom said is that it's not permeable pavement as a concept. It's that Vermont asphalt plants have failed to produce viable permeable asphalt. He said that while flower lane deteriorated, the correctional facility on Farrell Street, and there are other examples outside of South Burlington. So he just hasn't seen it be successful. Okay, so it's not permeable pavement in general. It's the product that the Vermont asphalt plants are producing. That's the concern. Yeah. That would be an answer too, because I mean, I've used permeable pavement in plenty of projects, and it's just you got to basically shop vac it once a year, you know. It would definitely require regular maintenance. You know, we don't know how often yet, we'd have to see, but it certainly does. Can we task Derek with getting together with Tom and Dave and figuring it out? Because it sounds like it's a pretty big issue. It's a technical issue. Right. Yeah. I mean, I like the idea of it, because also you don't get any ponding. You don't get any, you know, it pretty much rains and it stays dry. You know, it's a great product. But if there's concerns because of the product that's been coming out of our local plants, then that's a valid concern that should be. But ultimately from the board's perspective, the path is on the plans, and it will be, it will continue to be on the plans. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. Thanks. In the interest of time, let's push through. We got a few more, but I'd like to be out of here by 10. We need revised legible lighting sheets. We provided that. Okay. Perfect. Thanks. 15. Staff recommends the board confirm with the applicant that no approval is sought for the future fuel cell. That is correct. Okay. Good. Thank you. And 16. Staff recommends the board then discuss whether all five or six pieces of equipment they consider screening to be adequate taking both this criterion and the requirements of 13.04C into consideration. So the question is, is screening adequate? Right. So there's sort of a long text above that comment about the emergency generator is 12 feet high and is enclosed by an eight foot fence surrounded by trees. Marty, can you actually put the bottom of page 12 up? Thanks. Rather than me just reading it. The original 12. So emergency generators are 12 feet, eight foot high fence, chillers are nine feet with no fence, oxygen farm 15 feet with an eight foot high fence. Transformer does not have screening. Typically we don't see fences on transformers. We have evergreens that we've planted, proposed planted all on the eastern property line there that would provide screening from the future north south road. This whole part of the site where all this HVAC equipment is lower than the parking lot and the budding neighbors. So again, we're avoiding having any conflict with the neighbors for seeing this equipment. And we've got the fences around both the oxygen farm and the emergency generator that have evergreens around those as well. So we've tried to propose as much as we can landscaping. It's hard to landscape a, I mean to screen some of this big equipment, but we've tried to place them as best we can and have provided the screening on the east side. Do you have a, is there art that we can look at or visuals that? We did provide images of what the equipment looks like on several other campuses of the medical center that was in a packet, I believe. I think we've seen that. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, looking at the standard, it's a May and it's screened or not visible from residential zone parcels. It's got some screening of things. I would say it's adequate, given that there's some discretion there in the standard. Are we good with this then? It's adequate? Can it's good. Is there a reason why the chillers, there's no screening around them whatsoever? Or there's no fence around them. There's no fence around them, but we have the screening. There's screening that's to the east. To the east. And not the north and south of it? I believe to the south of it is the stormwater ponds, the stormwater wetlands. And again to the north, it's down so low on the site we just felt that. If it's down, yeah. If it's down. It didn't do any additional. Okay. It's more attractive than the power line. It's sort of an industrial part of the site. Yeah, it's quasi industrial, yeah. Are we good? Okay. So we have come to the end. It sounds like we need to continue this and be so that we can work out the stormwater, stormwater, and a little bit of landscaping. We can't approve. We'll put four trees on the west. We need to actually show where those trees are and what they are. But I would propose to do this as a draft decision for the next meeting. I think that the things are just cleanup items. Yep. So we'll go to draft decision and get it signed after the next meeting, which I would propose to be on the 18th. And I've already saved room for them. Could we just make one request? I promise it's minor. The site plan approval is valid for six months before you need to come back in and get an extension. As the medical center still needs to go to the Green Mountain Care Board to get approval for this project, and we have to wait for getting the city approval as well as active 50 approval, this project is not going to start in six months. So we would like to request that that be a year approval, if possible. So the six months, you get a one year extension automatically as long as major circumstances haven't changed. So you would have 18 months? Are you thinking you need 24? No, we don't think so. I mean, it's... If there were an appeal, that would stop the clock. It's just if things are proceeding as they normally would the clock. I think it should be adequate. We need to get our CON application after we finished our local and active 50 permitting. The review and deliberation time on that is quite variable, but probably within 18 months would give us a one that we could work with. And if it didn't, we would be back to tell you why it didn't work. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until October 18th. Second. Oh, so I made the motion. Okay. Is there any discussion about the motion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you and we'll see you on the 18th. Thank you for your time. We didn't ask for public comment. I'm sorry. We do need to take public comment. All right. We voted to continue, but I apologize for not asking for public comment. Can you keep it as brief as possible? Please, Brian. Thank you very much, folks, for your service. The southeast corner of my lot is very, very wet, and I think, you know, just as a side note, appreciate your service tonight. The applicant's been great to work with. The one thing I will point out that I think should be looked at is the trees that are actually closest to old farm road and that jug handle. I believe there's infrastructure underneath there. First, you got the Champlain Water Discipline, which I'm sure everybody knows about, but I'm also, there's a curtain drain from my house that goes all the way in there, so I want to work with the applicant to make sure those trees were not planted over that curtain drain for future maintenance. Okay. I hear them. I see them nodding. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, they've been great. So thank you guys very much. Is that it, Brian? Thank you. Believe it or not, it folks, that is it. Okay, thanks. Other comments? Did you say there was someone else? Oh, Brian, okay. All right, good. So we have voted to continue this, and we'll see you all back here on the 18th. Thank you. Thank you. We have a set of minutes from September 7th. They looked good to me. July 6th. Did I include the July 6th? How come I only see minutes of September 7th on the agenda? Because I screwed up. July 6th is the actual attachment. Yep. Oh, I didn't pick up on that. Okay. It's been properly worn. I will have to continue. What? We do? No. Approve the minutes because we agenda them in the same minutes as July 6th. Oh my god. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of July? What is it? Six. Six. Thank you. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Okay. The mass has ended. Go in peace. Thank you guys. Long night. I said to Marlon, no more appeals. No, so no other business. Night, Frank. I'm meeting at the new 10 to 01. Thank you. All right, let's, um, no, I don't know.