 Thank you a lot to figure out make sure I'm you know prepared when I come in and If you if you want to discuss any of this feel free we can talk by phone or get to others You need a hand with anything Bring a plug-in purposely so that my computer dies. I'm leaving We're gonna be really quick I noticed the timing on it we have it has out of here by nine o'clock. I Think we can do it earlier than that and this is This is why listen to the announcements. Are we ready? Are we recording? Good evening. My name is Don Fillebert. I'd like to welcome you all to the development review board of South Burlington for Wednesday July 6th 2022 I'm I want to welcome members of our board who are here with us and online. I'll introduce them We have Frank Cokman Stephanie Wyman Mark Bear John Stern and online we have Dan Albrecht and Quinn Mann and also with us from the City of South Burlington is our development review planner Marla Keane online and Betsy Brown and Betsy. I don't know your title planning and zoning assistant. Thank you. Thank you. I had planning assistant So how's that? Okay, so there's pardon me. There's a couple of ways to participate tonight Pardon me. The first one is to attend as you are in the audience the second way is virtually and Excuse me for just a second. I'm rusty. I haven't done this for a month and a half the third way is to call and listen by phone and all of these ways will allow you to participate If you are attending virtually, we have a couple of Requests for you and that is to please keep your microphones muted and your cameras off unless you are actively participating in providing testimony or comments to the board And if you wish to participate raise your hand and we will recognize you and then you can turn your camera on and your microphone on and also the chat function is for administrative matters only Comments submitted in the chat will not be recognized as part of the meeting record. So please avoid talking amongst yourselves Our first item on the agenda is to review the emergency evacuation procedures and Those are as follows. There are Doors in the back of each side of the auditorium you would exit the doors in the event of an emergency And you can get outside by either going right or left Pardon me the next item on the agenda is number two additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items and I have one to bring up and that is agenda item number eight which is Site plan application sp. 22 o 2 8 of Riley Cohen partnerships the applicant has asked that we Continue the hearing to September and that will give them time to really work on some of the Comments and come back to us with a some answers for the issues that staff raised so Having said that I would entertain a motion to Continue that hearing to the September meeting. What's the date of September meeting? I don't have Marla. Do you know the date of the September meeting? Yep, September 7th, September 7th. Okay. I make a motion. We continue site plan application sp. 22 o 2 8 of Riley Cohen partnership to September 7th Second great. Are there is there any discussion? I'll in favor of the motion signify by saying aye aye any Any nays Okay, the motion is carried and we will see you see you in September as the song goes Are there any other additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items for tonight? Announcements any announcements hearing none Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not specifically related to the agenda? Hearing none, we're going to Move on to presentations by applicants now This is a little unusual tonight because we have three applications to review and they all have been written as Draft decisions usually we have a staff report which identifies the issues and we discuss the issues with the applicant, but These three projects were such that Marla thought she could draft the decision and move us that much closer so It'll be a little different format than we've had in the past Miscellaneous application MS 2 2 o 2 of Champlain School Apartments partnership to amend a previously Previous approval for encroachment into a class to wetland buffer Amendment consists of expanding the area of impact for the purpose of temporary construction impacts at 1068 Williston Road who is here for the applicant done. That's me. So I'm going to recuse myself Yeah, I meant to ask for recusals. Thank you Just so you guys know we can see the shared screen when it was being shared, but we can't see an audience or a Board member view How do we fix that I think it sounds like Travis is working on it, but I just wanted to the board to know, okay I'm just assuming it's Travis there. I can't see the back of the room so We're gonna swear you in Raise your right hand Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Thank you Why don't you? Pardon me. Why don't you give us a very brief three-minute overview of what you're proposing? Yep, so The project is the holiday in redevelopment project, which is at the intersection of Williston Road and Dorset Street The if you can bring up page six of the application it'll give you kind of an overview so the plan is to redevelop the existing holiday in building and Yes, that's great so you will be Demolishing well, they've already done it. They've already demolished the existing conference room and The boat they're calling B wing, which is the east to west portion of the existing holiday and hotel and they'll be doing renovations to that there'll be a New Hampton Inn hotel at the south of the site and also a new proposed mixed-use building Tow the east which will have Now it'll have 83 residential units and about like five or six thousand square feet of commercial space This is in the Form-based code t4 district so everything goes through administrative review However, we are proposing to impact the class 2 wetland buffer for construction purposes and So that's what we're here tonight for board approval. So back in October of 2021. We came in for approval of 670 square feet of buffer impacts But since that time, we've done some more geotechnical Investigations and some redesigned to the project So in the original design We had a parking deck that extended over the north side parking lot and that parking deck has now been removed from the project And parking is going to be underground at the underneath the building so because of that We'll need additional encroachment into the wetland buffer. So now we're asking for 2180 square feet of buffer encroachment and that's for You know construction of the deeper foundation for the underground parking Thank you It's framed I thought the explanation of the application was it was framed as a temporary Incursion yes Just for the construction period correct and then after that what happens after that There's going to be a very small portion of the building that it and that has been the same portion that was encroaching previously that will be Over the well and and then or the over the buffer. I'm sorry and then the remainder will be grass That's you can use and it will be maintained as long All right and restored as part of the buffer correct. Yes Yeah, so the total square footage after your finished construction of Encouraging will be what it was in the original and the original proposal. Yes Thank you Other questions about the Comments in the staff report or the way it's written or any questions for the applicant again just Building on that it's temporary and then it comes back to what you originally had requested correct Yeah, so the additional encroachment is for a layback area for built digging a deeper foundation and then for Construction purposes being able to get a vehicle back there. I'm sorry To work on the vertical structure. Thank you. Any other questions comments So maybe we're ready to move on to public comment. Thank you Stephanie Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Are you able to see the question and if anyone raises their hand the chat? I Neglected to say something Okay, I Neglected to say that if you attend if you're attending the meeting you should sign in on the back table to indicate that you're a participant in In case in the future you want to Participate in an appeal if you're online you can enter your contact number into the Chat box so that we have a record of your participation and if you're on the phone you can submit written comments and register your participation by emailing M Keen Keene at s B url.com I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that So hearing no comments. I think that Well, I'm feeling a little rusty. Do we vote to close this? Okay. Thanks mark So I would entertain a motion to close this hearing I mean I move we close miscellaneous application MS-2202 of Champlain School Department's partnership And I will second that Is there any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye Opposed Motion is carried. Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you Could you please repeat the instructions for online now registering to be part of the meeting I missed that sure if If you go to the chat function Hmm and just to enter your contact information and say please consider me a participant that would be Just your email address or email address. That would be fine. Thank you. Thank you Any other questions? Okay The next Item is number six And this is final plat application sd 2208 of being our developers ink to amend a previously approved planned unit development of four lots Approved for a single-family homes the amendment consists of modifying the approved grading for lots to three and four at 1420 Hinesburg Road Who is here for the applicant? Thank you, Brian. Is there anyone else participating? Test to hang would you make sure Brian's mic is on please it should be bright green Okay, good Is it bright green? There we go. Okay. No, it's great. Okay. Thanks, Brad Brian pre-court, would you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth in nothing But the truth your penalty of perjury. I do Okay Are there any recusals or conflicts of interest to be announced? Okay, why don't you give us a Three-minute overview very brief. We've read the report, but just update us sure It's a three lot subdivision on Highland Terrace the board approved it last November of 2021 I Entered into a purchase the sales contracted by the three lots the grading that was proposed or approved in the November 21 submission was Wouldn't really work So I'm proposing to change the grading on all three of the lots we raised the Finish floor elevation and change the grading so that there was positive drainage away from the foundations So that's what's reflected and we also adjusted the driveway layout There was a Y in front of each one and I made it more of a traditional So that's about the crux of it. Thank you. I have a question. I don't know if this is for you Marla, but the the Genda in describing the project refers to four lots I Think they single-family homes Marla Yep, so the original lot which is on Heimberg Road and then the three lots that are on Highland Terrace. Okay. Thank you. They're all part of one PUD. Okay Any questions before we start I Think the only question I had and I might be addressed in the staff comments or in or through understanding but was the issue of the construction of the The Retention ponder the planting in between the two lots. How is that being handled in terms of who builds it? When if the houses aren't built together I'm building all three of the houses will build it together. Okay in the initial decision. There is a We have to put up a surety bond for the cost of it And I think that's guaranteed for three years, but we would be doing the construction of it And that's been that was the I had submitted that to South Berlin and the planning department to approve The estimated amount they included it in this packet. Okay, doesn't that's included in that So unless there are any other questions about the project It it seems like we should be focusing on the main issue and that is the height of the buildings Yeah, I'm a little confused with the with the with the problem with that It's true. I'm I'm adjusting the from pre-construction. I'm adjusting it up five and a half feet But if you build a house regular house and you have a basement in it with basement windows you have approximately two feet of the foundation and Most finished floor assemblies are anywhere from 12 to 14 inches. You have three feet of Elevation change right there, right? So my proposal is basically I'm proposing two and a half feet of Additional and again, I said that was to get positive grade away from it The the ones that were approved those houses were in bowls You're not going to get a good product with that. I mean the rain's going to go in it It's it's not a steep slope on that property But it does slope from the Heinsberg Road to Highland Avenue So you have to bring the houses up a little bit in the grade up a little bit Otherwise all the water is going to run right into the house. So it's two and a half feet. So In the staff comments that talked about whether I could get a two-story house in 23 feet Even if I do a nine-foot first floor one foot Second floor eight foot you're at 18 feet there and you've got five foot, but I have plans and it shows I Have elevations and it shows To the point on this plan of 26 and a half feet so I'm confident that I can stay within the Regulations of 28 feet. I'm not worried about and that's showing Starting five and a half feet below finished elevation Above finished out and so he's starting a pre-construction grade. Okay, right So I'm going out five and a half feet and then measuring up. Okay, so and I'm coming up with 26 and a half They're relatively small houses as you can tell even with an 812 pitch, you know for that with You know, I have total rise about five and a half six feet. So I'm I'm not I'm not concerned I don't think any special provisions have to be made we can deal with the 28 feet regulation that's in place So so why is why do we have any issue at all? The question was on the plans that indicated 35 and so that just started the train of thought of like well Oh, they're looking for 35 that was in the table that That was in the table. So I think in the staff report It talks about me amending the the plan that table to reflect the actual regulation of 28 feet Which I'm more than happy to do but I I don't I don't foresee a problem with fitting With me doing homes on there and meeting the the regulations Okay, yeah, I mean if you have a plan it was more to flag the issue if you were planning on 35 And it can only be 28. I wanted to make sure you were going in Yep, with my eyes wide open. Thanks, Marlon. Yep. No, I understand I understand but I think it's been clarified. Yeah, okay Any other questions? Thank you very much Let's turn to the public for any comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to Comment on this application Yes, I would mark Abrams. I'd like to have some questions. Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Abrams The I'm unfamiliar with the various concepts Going back to the the grading or the degrees of grading Was that was that covered just now in the height discussion? In terms of sounded like you're talking about water drainage What's what's the actual Request or amendment In terms of that angle of water runoff if I understood it correctly So this it sounds like he needs some clarity on what's actually being requested so the grade on each one of the houses so the grade is basically going to if you're looking at Where the rain garden is the houses are going to be up at at such a level that there's going to be positive grade like towards the middle of each house and then headed towards the Culvert or the drainage ditch in the front of the house So it's going to go in between two and three There the drainage is going to go towards that The rain garden three and four it'll go sort of in between three and four and the same on the side of four It'll be like a small swale Everything is you're trying to get all the water to head towards that drainage ditch along Highland Avenue You mean the city-owned property That runs parallel to Highland Terrace is that what you mean? Yes without drainage ditch. Yep. Oh, it's okay. And is that Capable of handling whatever new amount of drainage Would be involved. They didn't want culverts through there. So yes, that's that's the way it was designed so I'm sorry. What's that mean? When my understanding is when this was shown to public works There was not enough coverage over the top of the driveway so they did not want Culverts underneath each one of the driveways and The ditch itself was to be maintained and those driveways will basically be sloped down a little bit It's similar to the houses to the To the south of it. They're done that exact same way. Oh, yeah Now my understanding is there's potential to develop Further lots along Highland Terrace to the north So I I hope the city takes takes Any any future runoff into account. Okay, so now I Have a some understanding of Of the amendment request. I'd like to ask just a general question as long as we're together Are the units? What's the water source well or city well? Well, and yes, I heard and What what what was the background investigating the capacity through the state One on feasibility of the well For the houses instead of city the city said that there was not enough pressure for Them to be put on to the city Service so that my understanding is that was not an option If I could just jump in and that's not a change from the previous approval So the previous approval did review the well the yield capacity in fairly great detail And it was determined that there's plenty of capacity For the proposed wells as they are designed and there's no change with this current application And and that's for this project or projecting projecting. What about the proposed? I don't know how many potentially it would be maybe Maybe three six nine fifteen. I don't know Is that are you folks? taking that into account in terms of the aquifer Well, this project stands alone and the city would be looking at those projects if they were to come in front of us I see. Thank you very much Welcome. Thank you. Mr. Abrams Let me let me let me just ask for one more Question in here. I appreciate your your attention in time Any possibility of accessing the new homes from Heinsberg Road instead of Highland Terrace. I think because all the infill It's it. I mean, it's done all the infill never never took into account An existing 35 year old neighborhood and it's and it's a character And so it would be if the homes go in Certainly in the future it would be As I as my main workspace hours a day are spent Looking west through the window to these areas. It would be real good to access them from Heinsberg Road but Any possibility of that going forward? None The board did consider that option when this project was originally proposed And they determined that that that was not going to work So the original approval, which is not supposed to be changed was to access them off of Heinsberg Highland Terrace What were some of the points? Indicating that it was not feasible. I would be happy to send you the record of that decision Okay, and on this chat thing to give my information I wrote it in the bottom deep Okay, I think Yeah, got it. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you very much Anyone else any other members of the public who would like to comment? Okay, hearing hearing no other comments, I think what we'll do is take about to close this hearing I'll entertain a motion to do so I'll make a motion to close final part application Thank you I will continue making a motion to close final flat application ST 2208 of B and R developers Inc Thank you, siri given us permission. I will second the motion, but only if siri gives us permission Is there any discussion not for me as siri any discussion about the motion? Okay all in favor of approving the motion say aye Any post the motion is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you Okay our next Application is Item number seven on the agenda. It's a continued site plan application sp 22024 of Beta Air LLC for a portion of the next phase of a previously proved 40.43 acre master plan for 3344,000 square foot manufacturing and office building a 37,800 Squarefoot Pardon me and retail building a 15,600 square foot commercial building and an 85,000 square foot flight instruction in airport use building the project consists of 24,000 square feet of a 24,000 square feet hangar which represents a portion of the 85,000 square feet flight instruction and airport use building at 430 Da Vinci Drive That's a lot of numbers Who is here for the applicant? Hi, this is art Clugo beta technologies. Hi heart anyone else with you Design team and support behind me. Yes. Well, they will they be testifying They may be depending on the questions. All right. Why don't we swear you all in? All right Do you saw only you do do what you saw do you saw me swear to tell the whole truth? The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do okay Thank you. Thank you. Are there any recusals? Oh Yep, I'm rickies You're Stephanie's recused. Okay. Sorry. He didn't raise his hand or say I do he's part of the their team Oh, I'm sorry. What is his name? Joel Yes You need to be sworn in if you're going to testify I do okay Why don't we do that if you're going to testify since we've been through that okay Why don't you give us a three-minute overview of what your project is and what you want to have approval for? Sure, so you did a great job with the summary. It's a 25,000 square foot less than 25,000 square foot Hanger that is mostly hanger. It is a secure building not open to the public generally We are in the second of Second hearing in front of you looking to close the hearing tonight We have a couple of open items that we're hoping to are anticipating Covering and and closing out. I just need to find it here Thank you So we've all read the draft decision and it there are two issues. I think we need to discuss but In addition to the two issues one of which is about the front door and the other one is about the tree caliper Are there any other issues or questions that people on the board have for the applicant? if I may there is one additional issue that we should discuss and that is in the findings of fact and the Decision have to do with the certificate of occupancy and when that can be received and the conditions that are applying to that So that would be condition number 12 or this decision number to condition number 12 and it shows up on page I guess it's page three of the report that went out last week So what is item number two? What is your issue with that? Well, this project is a much smaller project than the a build phase one that we reviewed some I guess once ago at this point, which is fantastic. This project will be completed prior to the assembly facility and the condition as it's proposed says that we may not pursue our certificate of occupancy until the larger building is completed and like to understand why the two projects are linked and how we can separate them so that each project may receive its Certificate of occupancy separately Okay Pardon me. Let's start with that Marla. Do you could you explain the rationale that page? You'll see that this is a condition of the master plan approval The master plan approval has the condition that the roses sidewalks within the blue phase shall be required to be constructed as part of the first phase to obtain a zoning permit so It's not really an issue of the building and I think that Yeah, so I Supposed you're right. I doesn't have to be tied to the building at all. It just needs to be tied to the roads and sidewalks So maybe that can be reworked only refer to the roads and sidewalks within the blue phase have to be completed before Certificate of occupancy of this building Can you hear her? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yeah, I was I'm my apologies Marla I was just thinking through the the timing of that and how that may work. I'm happy to work on alternate language I do think we need to look at a plan to make that Happen and certainly welcome the opportunity to work with them yourself and the board Well, so once we close the hearing we can't take additional testimony, so we didn't need to hash it out now, okay? And but I do take your point it doesn't need to be tied to the building that's a good catch So we do have a plan in the packet I believe Did not bring my master plan with me and I don't see a plan No, and there isn't one in the packet either shoot I mean, I would propose the condition is just that the road in the sidewalks in the blue phase shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a spot certificate of occupancy for this application and And I would I guess I would ask for for one caveat there slight change and that would be the the sidewalk and The road be constructed up to Valley Drive Because the construction because the balance of the road may not open until the the building opens So we can't pass through the construction site So as long as that loop and those sidewalks are connected it would seem to meet the intent of what we're trying to do here Sorry, which one is Valley Drive Valley Drive is the road that goes past the Mirbell's building the 3060 Wilson Road building So the new road Da Vinci Drive will intersect at the top of Valley Drive and so for some period of time until we open The entire site it'll be two ways both way We have a condition in the permit that in order for us to open the balance of that road We have to come back and reduce Valley Drive to a one lane Outbound or inbound only and and so we have some sequencing that we need to do there Facing of the work My expectation, but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea Let me pull up the master plan on my screen and I'll share my screen And see what the board thinks about that idea because I hear what you're saying about not wanting to drive through the construction site So it's gonna take me a minute to pull that master plan up I think she froze again. Yeah, she's frozen. Can you hear us Marla? Does this here I can share something. I don't know if it'll help but you guys are talking about, but let's see Bear with us Is this helpful or no? This was in the packet It it's Yeah, it it's it's helpful. It's it's not the drawing that Marla was looking for. I know which one she was looking for She just texted me and I'll see if I can find it Betsy, I don't know if you can get to that fast just taking a minute to load on my computer I'll try I'll stop sharing this one and I'll see if I can get to it faster Oh, hi, you can pull up the plans for mp2102 Um, and I just got it up so I can pull it up now. So I might Share screen No This one Okay, this gives me a little bit weird picture and picture for a second. Okay, so This building is over here on the left. It's part of the l-shaped building. It's in pink The Roads and sidewalks. This is the non-record drawing. So this shows all the oh actually this is the master plan So it does show all the parking so What art is saying is they would build the road from eagle drive here on the top left of the page down to this point And then this connection here correct That's exactly right We would not do the work marla right there that reduces that throat where they connect from Two lanes down to one lane until after we took down the construction fence and opened up the balance of the road Then we would come back put a temporary fence around that reworked that and have it constructed to the conditions of the decision So board, what are your thoughts? Um going back to the Condition of the master plan the condition of the master plan is the roads and sidewalks within the blue phase shall be required to Be constructed as part of the first phase to obtain a zoning permit So is what art is proposing? adequately compliant with the condition of the master plan Well, we would have to amend the master plan when It it's really just a timing issue That work will be ongoing and mostly complete. It's just that our construction fence Will be up protecting the site from the public until all the work is complete So it's not that we're not doing it. It's just how it gets turned over And being able to since the smaller building will be complete first How do we use the smaller building and not have it sit vacant and and one of the ways that we can do that Is to make sure that we construct the road up to that intersection that marlowe was talking about connected to valley drive So we've met the intent and then the the balance will be opened up After once the uh the balance of the big building is complete Which would be when master plan condition doesn't specifically reference the co It just it says constructed as part of the first phase to obtain a zoning permit to That helps it all I'm fine with that sort of proposed phasing staging Given the uh the master plan construction, you know schedule Is there anyone on the board who who wouldn't be fine with that? well It's it's the same issue we We're discussing in deliberative session the the tension between What might make practical sense and insisting on compliance where we don't have Discretion so if there's a master plan requirement That we're not observing. I don't think we can Simply forego it Without an amendment to the master plan Betsy do you want to bring up the condition of the master plan again page three of the packet? item number two I'm sorry, which one marlowe Page three item number two Oh, yes, sorry Because i'm not sure it's really I don't think it's Ignoring the master plan Yeah, I don't I don't think it is either because I think what it is is all this work is ongoing as part of the phase The first phase of the master plan And it's going to take a certain amount of time to complete it And they want to be able to use the building that they complete and have Correct safe public access too while they finish the other blocks of work That's all taking place under the same phase Okay, and is that is that A little bit on the blind here. I'm talking about a theoretical issue of principle because I don't remember I don't remember the master plan and i'm just trying to determine whether What art is proposing Requires an amendment to the master plan or it sounds like what mark is saying is well, it really doesn't Are you saying it doesn't should be in front of you now? Yeah Yeah, look it's what it's the master plan is what it says in the master plan is in front of you now On number two help me out. What what what sex what what paragraph we in number two? The roads are defined somewhere specifically um, and you You're still building part of the road, right? Is what you're Yeah, the roads are defined in two places one here is a reference in the master plan, but then also in the The sd application that was approved four weeks or six weeks ago that shows the blue phase of work that we're undertaking right now So the road that's in question Is being constructed as part of the work that we're doing It's just a timing issue on when the construction fence comes down and allows the general public to use The entire road versus just the first portion Which is the part that marla described a few minutes ago So marla do you believe that a master plan amendment is necessary or not? I do not You do not okay Frank thoughts about that. Well Uh, let me ask you this how long after This particular item we're working on Today is finished will the rest of the blue phase Be the rest of the building for the blue phase be finished It'll likely the the balance of the construction will lag The general aviation hangar in front of you tonight by four to six months So is there A reason you can't is is there a reason you can't do finish the road? Yes, because there's other infrastructure that needs to go in to support the broader The big project that just the timing and the sequencing of that work Doesn't align with when the general aviation hangar will be completed Well that will that infrastructure be completed In time so that within the four to six months, you'll also complete the road. Yes It's really awkward. This is one of the worst cases because in fact, I mean if you ask for a literal reading I Don't see it, but it's ridiculous Well, that's why that's where we come in so I mean I think that It's a reasonable request and it's follow it's it's it's the complexity of construction You know, I think it's trying to write the condition that pertains to the real-world timing of construction is difficult at best and You know, I particularly now, right so How many people do we have voting on this? Six six six. Yeah, Stephanie recused herself Stephanie were keys right. Okay. So so so an abstention wouldn't hurt anything, right? As long as four other three other people besides me thinks it's fine Well, I don't hear anybody else clearing our throat. Well, let me let me ask Quinn and dan Mm-hmm. Pardon me. Do you have any issues? What are your thoughts about what Frank's concern is I don't have strong feelings about one way or the other but Yeah, I I Hear what the concerns but I I don't have any I don't share them and Fine with with moving forward without an amendment. Okay So are you okay if we move on to discuss the other issues Absolutely. Okay. Good So Let's talk and I was not At the hearing on the 21st But I understand there was a quite a bit of conversation about the front door Good conversation. Good conversation. I'm sure So what are your thoughts at this point about Our concern about the front door And how How can we get to yes around that issue? Yeah, that's that's a really good question, especially given the nature of the building That was part of the discussion that we had in the last meeting that This portion of the building while there will be public that will be Inside the building. It's not a public building. It's a secure building There'll be security on all doors including the airside door The public component of the project gets built under the next phase And and with the the changes that the design team specifically Wagner Hudson Did for the site amenities. We feel like the the The description of the standard That's in Where does this come up in the actual language here So under 14.06 the general review standards, which is where this the door question comes into Play here relative to street frontage building placement orientation and pedestrian Orientation in this particular case The guidance that's provided by the paragraph above just below 14.06 As we chatted a little bit About it's intended to provide a framework. It's not a Uh, prescriptive. It's not do x y and z It's think about a b and c And find a way for to meet the intent in a creative Invention and in event innovation Way and we feel like we've done that, especially with the refinement of the site amenity, which now includes the rain garden And a larger It's not a park at park. What are we A snippet And and so we would still advocate for Leaving the door in the place based on the other improvements that we made Following comments from the drb during hearing number one my understanding is Pardon me that no one is asking you to move that door The question is The regulations call for a front facing door Yeah, but the regulations the regulations actually don't call for a front facing door There's not I went and I'm happy to You know if there's a sighting I'm happy to review that and and step back But in all the references that we have the public entrance It says that it's usable and open to the public during business hours Any such door must at a minimum be use Usable and open to the public for entry Distances between an average frequency of public entrances shall be measured per building This is outside the form-based code district So that in the definition of public entrance, it doesn't say that it shall be Street facing for form-based code Absolutely. There's a requirement. It has to be street facing so many doors Or they have to be so many feet apart all of those Pieces would apply here if it was in the form-based code district This is outside of that and so the the design Opportunities are different than the form-based code So um So the they they don't require the LDRs for our project don't require that the The main entrance be on the front of the building um It does provide this kind of unique Unique framework that says establish a consistent orientation We're building a new road and we're establishing the orientation as we march along DaVinci drive in the projects that Have been before you and the others that are planned So we're creating this as we go um There was some reference that that the entrance was Car oriented when we would say that it is Truly pedestrian oriented in the way that the the rain garden the interplay between the rain garden The snippet park and the sidewalks now all come together It's very pedestrian oriented and it's a nice space to come and hang out and even though it's not intended to be a Public building so when you go through the criteria and you match them up with the design that's been presented We would suggest that the The door as it's currently conceived Is doing what the broader land development regulations are asking us to do Thank you Milo, what are your thoughts about that? So you have the staff report The or sorry the draft staff decision 1406 a talks about You know the standards that we're all comfortable with the variable transition from structure to site The new standards are street frontage Building placement and orientation maintaining and establishing consistent orientation to the street Pedestrian orientation Transition contrast and scale which is not an issue here So, you know the staff report kind of summarizes what you guys talked about both pluses and minuses and It's really up to you if if the board feels that in order to be oriented to the street, which is b Um, and this is under the the drb shall consider the following If in order to Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street They need a door facing the front and they need a door facing the front if you feel like they Achieve that without a door facing the front then they don't need a door facing the front Given that the snippet park Is along the street And that is the way that people would walk into the building Could it be argued that the snippet park is what needs to be front facing? And not the door. So why don't you pull up page 20 of the packet and we can take a look at that? That's a great question I have a quick question marlon. I may I'm sorry. I haven't read reread. I read the new regulations but the parking to the side of the building is well, it's partially to the side and partially not I mean That's not an issue, right It's not no because the parking to the side of the building is relative to a public street And so this is the side relative to the public street because this building is on a private street yeah I mean, I'll throw my two cents in here. I I still feel it's very car oriented. I get it. It's not a public street, but you know The first thing you do is you drive into the parking lot And where this where this a public road would be We'd be saying gee isn't that car oriented still I still maintain its car oriented oriented And I guess Yeah, there's it doesn't require it is not the form-based code district. So I just it's It's hard because where this is this is the new regs We've got this language here. So if we are if we do say We have to be careful about this because whatever we do here sets the pattern for other applicants down the road What what constant let me finish our yeah. Yeah, what constitutes pedestrian orientation? Yeah, so okay Yeah, two follow-ups to that dan. Um, the placement of the door will not change how people Park their cars and and walk to the building The parking will still come off of the the eagle drive they'll still walk from their car onto the The snippet park and then enter the building and Whether the door moves From this current location to the front of the building that sequence that arrival sequence won't change the the piece about the precedent which we understand the It could be argued that because these The way the language in the regs are written. It's relative to each individual street Not that everybody gets to use DaVinci drive and how those are laid out The the buildings there are laid out to argue for some other street In some other neighborhood or location in south brillington I'm not trying to understand that but I'm just seeing that crosswalk and You know on the on the southerly drive. I guess that's DaVinci the area Um so I The door may seem superfluous given the operations. It's just Right now Especially because I'm not I'm not seeing a sidewalk that leads in Is I'm not seeing a sidewalk that leads into the parking lot nor a sidewalk Along the edge of the parking lot or something where people would if they were walking The the the standard is pedestrian No, you froze for a minute Yeah, no, you're you're right when we did this vignette Dan we cut it short the the sidewalk is off to the to the right and it has to be a certain distance from the intersection The way that this was written put together So there is a sidewalk there if we brought up a different plan from the previous packet You would see how close it is to the to the park here Um and and the rain garden It just happens to be off slightly to the right Okay, board Other comments questions. I was under the impression. There was an express requirement That the door be front facing and I I think art is correcting that Impression and I don't hear any pushback from Marlowe on the point. So my view is I don't care about the door You're referring to his comment that because it's not in the Form misco district It doesn't have to be on the front Well Exactly Well, I think it's a argument also is that a door on the front isn't the only thing that makes a building have pedestrian frontage or you know positivity, I mean I I my opinion hasn't changed since the last meeting that I think if we stick a door in the front of the building, it's just to check off a box and we've talked about whether or not That's important. I don't think that's important here because The way the site is laid out and the way the future phases are laid out The door on the front of the building is not an important criteria for how this building is used compared to when the Next phase of the building is built which is going to have a prominent front door for pedestrian access So and I agree with that completely my only concern had been if it's black letter I don't you know, we we always have the precedent issue. We always have the But I don't think we have that here so I don't look at every application on a case-by-case basis So marla is is is this um, can you live with this? I know it's our decision I guess the only thing I would say is you know, don't rely on future buildings, right because that's Future building is I still think even without the future building this building doesn't need the the front door because it's not meant to be like an open to the public Door public can't access it, but it's not like it's a retail space. It's not like it's, you know, it doesn't have to be welcoming right Well, and I think Dan's point is very well taken that the standard is pedestrian orientation not Front door. Yeah, so pedestrian orientation typically means A door facing the front but having the park facing the front Could be a way to achieve that. Betsy if you go to page 24 you can kind of see how the sidewalk lays out a little bit better Yeah, and I just wanted to Just weigh in on the discussion. I would agree on the The the update we've seen with the The rain garden and that amenity in place I do think that achieves the more pedestrian orientation Goal of of that standard and I think our discussion around precedent previously was um to Marlon Dan's point of pedestrian oriented oriented one of the ways that happens Kind of standardly is a door on the front but I think what has been presented to us here is an improvement and is more Pedestrian oriented based on based on those improvements. So Okay, are we ready to move on from the door issue? Okay All right, let's talk about the caliper of the tree issue The regs call for 2.5 inch caliper And They do and um, I think and Jeff I think he's here. You want to come on up? He talked or spoke to this really well last time I think you want to give the board an opportunity to say their piece and thank you agreed So board What have we got to say about this? What was I wasn't here. So what was what was the concern? What was the discussion? Can anyone summarize it? Concern was that it's trees says 2.5 inches. They were proposing two inches They did say it's difficult to find two inches and the city arborist said he was fine with the two inches And I kind of my opinion on this hasn't changed that it's not part of the Shade tree requirement street tree requirement. It's a decorative ornamental Trub It's kind of a Cross it's somewhere between a large shrub and a small tree Trub in the way I think we can cut it short because I think Mark's redefinition which we're hearing repeated here publicly and we've had a chance to hear it before It's kind of persuading everybody. So I think we ought to just with all respects are Go maybe go with yes, you know And leave it to the board see if there's somebody on the board who's in a no position And if not, let's Let sleeping dogs lie Well that you know The existing dogs lie Okay, anybody having a hard time with the with the two inch shrub Let's show that issue the door to the door to the door to the drug Okay, thank you very much You were very persuasive I do have one question We did ask for you to look at alternatives. Did you do that? I'm sorry alternatives for the tree the tree the the lady who was sitting back there said Something about can't she would talk and see what was available. I'm just curious if you yeah I mean we we didn't really because it's it's meant as kind of a not really a shade tree It's meant as kind of a ornamental tree. So okay, fair enough. Thank you Anything else? Let me ask if there's public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Seeing none I'd entertain a motion to close the hearing. I just have one question. Sure And I guess it's more for marla marla. Do you do you have the information you need? for condition number 12 to be modified per the The comments and requests for phasing of it and the board's acceptance of that Yeah, I'll drop it and I'll have it ready for you with the next hearing Okay And if need be if there's a supplemental piece of material that needs to be submitted in that 30 day window We're happy to do so to clarify that as well. Yeah, we can't accept any information after hearing you've closed Fair enough. Okay. Thank you. I'm comfortable. Okay. Um a motion I'll make a motion that we close site plan application sp22024 of beta error llc Second second. Okay. Great. Any discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Upstate. Aye. The motion is carried. Thank you. I do have one more item for the board. It's been a long 12 months and we really appreciate all the work that everybody's done. We're making fantastic progress on the construction out there We started pouring concrete and in the next 30 days, we'll start to see steel go up I know you all can't come out at once without warning a meeting But certainly would welcome the opportunity to let you tour the site if that's something that's of interest to see Where all that hard work went? We might take you up on that. Awesome. Okay. Thank you. Thanks heart Okay We have some minutes to approve And I was not at the meeting on the 21st Um But we can approve them in one fell swoop if someone would like to do that So anyone have any comments about anything in the minutes? Nope All right. Shall I move that we approve the minutes of april 25th june 7th and june 21st So just june 7th june and april 25th. There's no june 21st available. Okay. That's what I haven't read them Second all in favor I opposed All right Okay, any other business Are the any of the draft decisions such that we want to Go into deliberative to close them out or do we do you have stuff you need to do to each one of the marlott? Um, I would also ask What marlott's energy energy level is to I'm just wondering if there's any Yeah, we're relatively early. So I'm good. Um, if you Want to do a deliberation? um, I guess what we did last time is We have to plug in the computer Take the take the hdmi out of the computer and are out of the the um screen and plug it into betty's computer directly In order to make that work. Let me ask you this are any of them timely with the applicants I mean everybody always wants their approval as fast as possible, but I think that Um, I mean we would love to see what? Let's get them done if we can you can't talk well So that one's not going to slow it down. Yeah, I said yes. I'm ready I'm sorry dan I just said if I mean just because we ended so early if there's something we can knock out, you know, let's do it But any of the marlott's worked hard already are any of them that had no comments or changes to the draft decision Yeah, the miscellaneous had no comments. Um, the The curwin one unfortunately did or brian brian pre courts did so He has changes to it Yeah, because I had to change. I mean it wasn't major, but I had to change the language about the um height Oh, right. It'll only take me, you know, 10 minutes or so without 10 minutes of you sitting there watching me work No, let's let's hold off on that one. So can we do the miscellaneous? Sure. Champlain school apartments. Yep Okay, well you were still recording and I'm going to Leave as well if that's the case Stop recording as well No, you don't have to close the meeting what you have to do bet see is you have to lock the meeting Um, and I don't think anyone is on that isn't That doesn't belong so if you just lock the meeting Then you're fine. You don't have to kick anybody off and actually you can just stay presenting the way you are It's one of the options