 Well, we do it every year. Yeah, or if they don't say it, you can only say this. That's also the third, especially if they're not here. Welcome to the South London Balm Review Board for Tuesday, July 17th, 2018. We've got a full agenda tonight, so we've got a couple of sketch plans on the agenda, so we want to give thorough guidance to those, but we'll try to make that thorough guidance as quick and efficient as possible. First of all, directions on emergency evacuations. If there is an emergency, we will exit either through the door that you came in or through either of these doors and we'll meet in the South parking lot, which is right behind me, and please, everyone, make sure you sign the sign-in sheet so that we know when we can count everybody and make sure everybody's safe. So please make sure that gets passed around. It's also important because if you want to be part of a future hearing on an issue that comes up tonight, you have to have signed that sheet to show that you were here for the first time that that item was mentioned. Additions, changes, or deletions in the order of agenda items. Hearing none, last meeting for Ray Belair. Not nice. Ray has been just an absolute treasure. The support to this board, my six or seven years on the board, it's just been a huge help to have Ray around and he's been just a steady, wonderful influence. Really going to miss him, so enough. Okay. I have an announcement, too. I sold Neville in the last two weeks, so my company of 30 years will be less of a conflict in the future, I assume. I also have one other announcement, and it's more of a statement so that people understand what's going on. I was at a meeting, won't get into it, the meeting, but with a series of community members. And much to my surprise, there was talk of graft on this board. And it was, you know, it was denied, I denied it strongly. And then there was talk of whether people were making money from knowledge that they had in the board, and that comment surprised me as well. So we need to, I think, perhaps Marla, if you could speak to the city council or whoever needs to be spoken to about making sure that there's clarity on conflict of interest, that there is perhaps a statement each year that nothing has happened from each person. I think something along that line is needed to assure the public because I was very surprised. I was hurt, actually. I mean, I was really, it was said that real estate people in particular had a problem, not just on this board but elsewhere. Being the only real estate person on the city council, the planning commission, or the DRB, it was aimed at me and I was bothered by it. So I just wanted to make that announcement. Very helpful. I just had to add, actually, I was at the same meeting and it was actually somebody from out of state commenting on how things work in a different state and with no means had any direct... The comment that bothered me the most was not that person. It was the one that had formally been involved in the city and that's the one that really bothered me was the comment that real estate people could make money off the knowledge that they had in these boards. That bothered me more than anything else and that's a person who was elected to office in the city. Are you talking about me? You bet. I never said that, John. I didn't hear anything. No, I said that. That's not what we said. In any case, I think it's very clear that we need to have a statement on graft. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I'm hurtful to hear. And I appreciate the comments that there may be other interpretations. Next on the agenda, a sketch type application SD 18-20 of the Brack Bay Ventures 8 LLC to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre parcel into five parcels, five lots ranging in size from 0.2 to 21.6 acres at 4.15 to 4.95 market street. Who is here for the applicant? I am David Shank, an owner of Brack Bay Ventures 8. Okay, and this is a sketch plan, so we don't need to swear you in. Conflicts of interest. David and I go back a ways. We know each other from South Brompton Business Association. I don't think there's a conflict. I do not believe there is either. Okay. Thank you very much. Please describe your project. It's very simple. We're here for a sketch plan. We are subdividing an existing 22 acre parcel owned by South Brompton Realty Company. Five chunks. Basically, we're going to retain four smaller parcels on the Heinsberg Roadside of the larger parcel, the fifth parcel being the balance of the property, kind of shown there where Garden Street is and whatnot. We're here in front of the DRB to create the parcels. The development will be developed under the form-based code process. So we've worked with staff to basically to ensure that the future development will meet the form-based code standard. So I think it's as simple as that. I'm happy to receive questions. I agree it is as simple as that. I'm not aware of any questions. About the subdivisions. So board members, staff, comments, questions? A continuation of a very nice project, right? Yes, and to that point, we actually are the developer who developed the parcel on the Heinsberg Roadside. So this will be a continuation of that. It'll be, from an architectural standpoint, similar, not exactly the same, but it'll be a continuation of that project. Comments, questions? Comments, questions from the public? Yeah, please identify yourself. I'm Bill Gerlach, and I represent 16 and 18 I.D. We're kind of used to having trees in the back there. And of course, if it's built similar to the ones further up the street, there's no large trees left. Will there be any landscaping that will put trees in that buffer zone along the fence lines? Yep, so as part of form-based code, there is a buffer, a big foot buffer, and it'll be a planted buffer. And the standards require it to be planted at a certain level of vegetation. I believe, I think you need to plant something, when I plant it, it needs to be, I believe five to seven feet or seven feet, I think is a standard. It'll be a mix of cedar hedges, and we are currently thinking some shade trees in there as well. Yeah, I'm interested in shade trees, because basically those trees right now do shade our yards, and when they go, the sun will beat right in there. Yep, totally understand. As part of the form-based code, I will be reaching out to you formally, legally, to invite you to a meeting, you and all the Native Street meetings. And actually, last night, I did knock on everybody's door along Ivy Street, I was only able to get one, it was more just to meet you, and I know I've met you before out there, and we had a nice conversation. So, definitely willing to accept input, we'll be receiving your input, and there will be trees planted in the buffer zone. One other question, and that is there's going to be drainage running according to this backside of this show. And again, have you determined the elevation of the drainage? And I'm worried about changing the underground water thing as I'm fighting water that's leaking into my mother's basement, which is next door to me, and I don't want to change the dynamics and find out I've got water problems. Understood. There's an existing state stormwater proof permit, and there... I don't know if you can kind of zoom into the area. There's a stormwater pond that we are creating that the stormwater from our parcel will go to. So, right there, see where it says gravel wetlands. So, right now it's cursors on a pond that the city will be creating. The down there on the bottom left is a gravel wetland. So, that is a part of the stormwater treatment, and then it daylights into the brook. Right. So, I guess I'm getting at is the elevation of that piping and drainage when you dig down through there, changing the dynamics of what flows underground. It'll be all gravity. We won't require any mechanical assistance for pumping, and it all will flow downhill. And you'll backfill with something that's going to catch water, I hope, and keep it going that way. Well, we're going to collect any of our hard surfaces. I understand. I'm looking at the subsurface drainage. So, we're probably not going to change the inherent subsoil nature of what's existing. We will be putting piping into... I guess what I'm getting at is when you run your pipe, if you can bed it in a permeable bedding that will maybe intercept some of this water and let it travel along your pipeline. Proper pipe construction is to bed in stone. I know this. Okay. I want to make sure it happens. That's all. Well, we'll be required to meet a certain standard and we'll be inspected. And these are the things I'm happy to share with you. Okay. Yeah. I'll be looking over the fence. Or you can do that. Okay. Any comments, questions from the public? I have a question. Yeah. Please identify yourself. Noah Hyman, NOAH, less than H1 in the end. You said that the City of South Bromance will be putting in the overflow pump? Yes, the pump for that? No, no, no. We pay for our parcel. Are anything to do with us? So you said that the catch pond is going to be paid for by the City of South Bromance, or the City of South Bromance will install it. I just want to know if we're paying for that or you're paying for that? There are two ponds on that drawing. I see that. The lower left hand pond is to serve our development. I pay for all that. Okay. The upper pond is a pond that was permitted by the city to service Market Street. The infrastructure of Market Street that the city is going to be building right now. Thank you. Thank you. I have a comments question from the public. Yes, please identify yourself. Sarah Duff, I'm just curious if the existing trees along this boundary that this gentleman just spoke about will of necessity be cut? Is there a reason to cut the existing trees and replace them with new plantings? So... David, if I could address that a little bit. Sarah, we've gone out there with the City Arborist and identified out there being all of South Burlington Realty's lands out there, not just David's parcel. And he's helped us identify a few handfuls of trees that are valuable enough to save. Craig was unable to identify any trees that were really worth saving behind the four structures that David's proposing. They weren't trees that were valuable in any way. I guess I don't know what valuable is. I mean, they're clearly a value to the neighbors if they're shading their backyards now. You know, they may not be specimen trees or 50 years old or whatever, but we have a great tendency to just clear-cut development areas. And then everything will be all right because we'll just put back what was acquired by a lot of footback. And, you know, those things don't replace trees of 20, 30, 50 year age overnight. That's my comment. Other comments, questions to the public? Hearing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a question for staff because I'm uncertain of the process. Is understanding as desirable not to cut the public off when they have when they show up and they have questions? Is questions about the trees in particular or the drainage? How much of what we just heard was within the scope of what we're reviewing for our role here tonight? As part of the site plan application, which in the form-based code is not a DRB process. Those would be things that would be part of the form-based code review. That's an administrative process. And the public will have any... The public involvement in the form-based code review is through the public meeting that the applicant holds. There's no public hearing for the administrative review. Thank you. Any other questions? For the original four buildings that you've already built, some of the comments I heard from that gentleman back there in regards to drainage and groundwater. I know that the previous... the other neighbors behind that development raised a lot of those same concerns. Have you heard anything about negative or positive effect of drainage and groundwater for those neighbors? I have not, personally. Yeah, there was a lot of exchanges through the process. And we made in touch with a couple of them, some of the vocal ones. And I even, at the end of the project, divided them over. And it was friendly. I heard if it was negative, you would have heard. Yeah, and I would tell you... All right. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda, Skepton application SB 1823 of Dorset Meadows Associates to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and develop with one single family dwelling with the purpose of a 164-unit residential plan unit development. The plan unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes, 18 units in three-unit multi-family dwellings, 42 units in two family dwellings, and one existing single family home at 1505 Dorset Street. Who is here for the afternoon? I'm Paul O'Leary with O'Leary Marks Civil Associates. Peter Kahn, a member of Dorset Meadows. Technical advisor. While we're waiting, we have some conflicts of interest and some excuses. Thank you. Yes, so my law firm, MSK Attorneys, has been contacted by potentially interested parties in this application. For that reason, I don't believe that I should sit on even the preliminary sketch plan review of it, so I am not sure if this project sits in my backyard, so I'm refusing myself, but I am saying it. Thanks very much, Sean. Thanks, Brian. And Michael, if you could please identify yourself also. Hello. I'm Mike Bushard. I'm with T.J. Boyle Associates Landscape Architect. Thank you very much. Let's see. No more conflicts of interest, right? Okay. Please go ahead and describe the project. I'll make a few comments. Originally, we started looking at some of the different layouts on this parcel and met a couple times with staff and went back and forth and discussed some of the requirements of the southeast quadrant district. We made some fairly good progress, but at the end, we decided that the project was probably better off if we hired Mike from T.J. Boyle to really take a close look at what the requirements are, the environmental aspects, some of the pedestrian aspects of the problem of the property are. So Mike spent quite a bit of time and is the primary author of the plan that you see in front of you. So I'll let Mike describe his plan and describe how it came into being. Great. Thank you. Again, Michael Bushard, I'm the principal landscape architect of T.J. Boyle Associates. And as Paul said, I was brought in to help look at the sketch plan and really it was based on encouragement to really refine the plan based on the zoning and the location in which the project is located. So it's in the southeast quadrant, southeast quadrant map. Southeast quadrant is primarily made up of six sub districts and the point of the sub districts is to regulate the development into locations where the city wants to see the development and to keep a large portion of the southeast quadrant as open space which is all the green that you see. Also, so going through the southeast quadrant strategy, strategy 128, create a village center in green for the SEQ for the southeast quadrant along Dorset and the old crossroad. So that's the location right here. It's where the existing cider mill store is and the other goal is to strategy 130 is to maintain the present residential density of 1.2 dwelling units for a gross acre of land as the basic limitation on the ultimate build out of the SEQ. So assuming they still want to the town plan says they want to see that full density build out but concentrated into the areas designated for the development and that comes under strategy 131 is to continue to allow limited neighborhood areas with the buildable density between four and eight units per acre using development rights transferred from areas in the SEQ designated for conservation or protection. So that is largely what based our design trying to increase the densities in a way that respects the existing neighborhood as well as the plan neighborhood for the character of the area. So zooming in a little bit more southeast quadrant. Here's our site just to orient you Dorset streets running right up here. This is 89 up in this area. So we actually are within three different zoning districts or sub districts within the southeast quadrant we're within the natural protection resource protection zone the green area we're within the neighborhood residential zone which is the orangy color and we're within the village residential which is the tannish brown color. There's a assigned density of 1.2 units as I noted for all those areas so within the entire parcel that gives us an allowable or assigned density of 86.3 units however it's restricted only into these two areas the max density of the neighborhood residential is four units so again in the orange area per acre and the max allowable density in the village residential is eight units per acre and that gives a total density my calculations came out 268 I think in the staff notes and in our application said 267 so right around the high 260s that's where the maximum allowable density to build on this project is that gives a overall density of just a little bit under four units per acre when you take out the natural resource protection zone. So just to give a little bit of context of the area this is our site this is middle farm road north is to the up part of the screen dorset street so we've got pinnacle veil drive the four sisters we've got south point it's a little bit dated but here south village phase two is in this area which is largely built out phase three is begun to be built out I believe cider mill different streets neighbors associated with national golf course butler farms so general development in the area around the project this is one of the areas one of the natural resource zones that is the intention one of the intended areas to be preserved there's also a large natural resource protection zone that's oriented towards the south east portion of the south quadrant again just from the town plan this is the future land use this is the area of our site so you can see it creeps out into the resource protection zone all the way over to the intended village core for the southeast quadrant so existing conditions of the site here's the existing site this is about where the boundary between the neighborhood residential and the natural resource protection zone is there's a natural ridge in this area it's about 400 foot elevation the developed area of the property including the portion that goes all the way over Dorset street slopes down into a wetland and stream area it gets down to about 350 feet so there's about a 50 foot drop through the overall site the site the area for development is largely open there are some existing trees and vegetation and portions of the proposed development the area that is mostly vegetated on the site would remain because it's within the resource protection zone looking at the site taking into consideration one of the things that really occurred to me when walking around the site is there's some really pretty spectacular views to Camel's Hunt there's to a lesser degree there's some views over to Mount Mansfield but when we get into the design which we'll bring up now that's one of the items that was used to help create a focus for the development so when we were out on the site we noticed that from this vantage point here you really have some spectacular views to Camel's Hunt and we thought about a way the view is now rotated from what we have and see so here this is Dorset street north is to the top of the screen Nolan farm roads along the top of the screen and Nolan farm road has reoriented 90 degrees north is to the right Dorset street here so again one of the main sort of organizing elements for the project is this main boulevard from this green space the intention would be that that boulevard is a little bit wider we're proposing as a 60 foot right away it's a little bit higher concentration that's internal into the project and that would be oriented towards Camel's Hunt with the lower trees and the green space that would be used for everybody in the neighborhood secondly the neighborhood really or the design is really based on interconnection of green spaces throughout pedestrian circulation as well as bicycle circulation this plan and I'm going to do another plan that shows a little bit easier sort of describes that shows all the different types of sidewalks pathways major green space nodes to the right we have a second map that talks about adversity of residential types including multifamily units that are scattered throughout the development which includes a mix of duplexes as well as what we're referring to as townhouses and the townhouses are in this area along Nolan farm road they're actually a combination of four and five unit structures just to be clear but again this is the entire parcel every area that is a lot is shown just as standard white as well as the surrounding project but this starts to illustrate the extent of green space that is preserved and kept open not totally inviting voluntarily but this is the mechanism that's been set up through the southeast quadrant so again the resource protection zone this is the wetlands that run through the site then we have a series of internal green spaces that interconnect and then lead to two connection points over to the natural resource protection zone which we would envision as being a passive recreational space for the project so again we're largely based on the central axis the connection of green spaces but then for the individual lots we looked at mixing up the housing types but we wanted to be respectful to the surrounding neighborhood so this blue line dictates where we sort of saw there's an internal program that we have for the lots and we have an external program lots exterior of the blue line in the resource protection zone with an exception to these duplexes that really maintains the existing 20 foot setback between lots so it's a 10 foot setback in between the units maximizing the 10 foot 20 foot setback from the road with a maximum for the SEQ regulations of 25 foot from the roadway and 30 foot in rear setback specifically towards Nolan farm road we wanted to respect the existing character and the scale and size of the homes along that road so those are the larger lots within the neighborhood lots on the exterior of the project range from approximately a quarter acre size generally up to about a half acre with a few that are a little bit larger than that up to three quarters of an acre on the interior of the lot we to help meet some of the goals of these quadrant we're looking at reducing side yard setbacks up to five feet reducing front yard setbacks I believe to 15 feet actually take a closer look at that so we wouldn't have porches any closer than 10 feet to the sidewalk so there's a few variations and we learned some lessons from South Village snow removal it's nice to have that space these are pretty narrow lots the lots on the interior of the project go down to about an eighth of an acre and we've been looking at how to make a small lot really feel a little bit larger and by some of the airways that we are exploring are really recessing the garages further back so even though the units might be as close as 10 feet to each other these are more shown as 15 feet with recessing that garage quite a bit further back here getting more of a 25 foot feel along the streetscape again most of the lots are back into common green space in the project so it provides additional buffer for the rear yards of the project so that is the general design intent for the single family and some duplexes in the neighborhood residential area in the village residential area we looked at different ways to increase the density even further so again along farm road we have a series of town homes four or five and six unit buildings these would be re-loaded they'd all have individual lawns right now we're showing them with optional detached garages and that hasn't been fully flushed out and whether that would be an option based on the purchaser's preference or how that would be arranged again there's a series of duplexes in this area as well important to note right now we're showing a single wetland crossing to interconnect the roads within I know that there's some staff comments and I think Paul is going to get a little bit more into that there is an isolated portion down off of Dorset Street which is somewhat isolated from the rest of the neighborhood from the wetland complex that road would provide additional access to the budding neighbor to the south there is one area in the village residential area that we're just citing as future development access limitations we're not proposing any houses there at this time but the intent would be once there's more development in that area and the adjacent properties that there would probably be some development thought of on that area so the last thing I just really want to go over quickly this is just a really brief overview of the project talk about the different street types we're showing so we have three basic street types this being the what we envision is the major street through the development that would be providing future connection to the south 60 foot right away 10 foot drive lanes 8 foot parking on one side we're showing it with two sidewalks because it's a little bit more of a major roadway we're proposing a 5 foot concrete sidewalk on the one side and a 10 foot bike path on the south side of the project and eventually connect into the properties of the south the major ring road I'll call it through the neighborhood as well as these two other bisecting roads 50 foot right away 9 foot drive lanes each way where we're showing parking an 8 foot parking lane and all the intersections we're showing it with bump outs all these intersections so they go down to 9 foot drive lanes between curbs and portions where there are no houses or residential units and where there are stream crossings it's an 18 foot curb to curb roadway and then the last road again is that sort of central access road we're showing that at 60 foot right away the houses are close together in this area there's small houses there's very little driveway so we're feeling that it's really important to provide enough parking along that roadway so we're showing 8 foot parking lanes on either side of the road along 9 foot drive lanes and sidewalks on both sides of that street it's a higher density we really wanted to create an avenue feel and have a focus with that street so this is just an illustration of each of those different road types again here's the 60 foot with I can't tell which side from this distance I think this is the 10 foot bike lane on this side parking lane 10 foot drive lanes the smaller sort of organizing avenue again with smaller trees we envision it more as oriental trees along the street itself there would be bigger larger shade trees on that back just so you maintain that view escape right down the street towards camels hump and again the smaller residential streets on the bottom with 9 foot drive lanes and one side with 8 foot parking and a single sidewalk so that's the quick overview I think Paul's got some additional if you want to go back to your site plan does that one work for you so I just wanted to comment about the wetland crossings I was a strong preference to just cross the work once staff has indicated they'd like to see a connection through the Dorsey street essentially down through here so today there exists a driveway easement that goes across the back of this property and it crosses the wetland here there's a culvert pipe to the existing house that's up in the back unfortunately it's just a driveway easement it doesn't give us any rights to create a city right of way or anything there so basically we currently we don't have any way to get out to Dorsey street but we are willing to talk with the state and see if they have some flexibility in potentially getting a second crossing across the wetland we wouldn't be able to get to Dorsey street at this time but we can get it to our property line and as Mike noted we're showing an extension of the road to the property to south as you continue to go south there's a couple other developments that potentially would have connections so that's still in the mix we'll pursue that we'll get back with staff and go over what our alternatives are for connections obviously we're greater than 50 units so we need the two connections the two means of ingress and egress of the property very good thank you let's walk through first before we step through staff comments any comments questions from the board Matt Paul you're back on that comment you can't get when you described it you couldn't get from to the little L shaped backwards L shaped or this parcel so basically we can't get to here I mean the assumption was at some point in time this might extend across this parcel and potentially maybe this road would extend down the back of this parcel and that would all tie together but at this point in time we don't own those parcels and you can't get straight because there's too much wetland there right I have a couple of questions one is I've been a little confused the description we got with our agenda is for 164 units but even in our description it doesn't add up to 164 it adds up to 199 could you help me out do you have a copy of the agenda look at item 6 it says 164 units 113 single family homes 18 units oh I see 18 times 3 yeah it's 18 plus 32 plus 113 plus the existing house gives you 164 and then Mike corrected me just now that it's not 18 units in 3 unit multi family dwellings it's 18 units in 4 and 5, 5 and 6 it's in multi family dwellings 4 and 5 4 and 5 yes sorry that leads me to my next question in the town homes I think those are the 4 and 5 unit are these going to be sold as separate lots with party walls we haven't got that well what are the possibilities that you're considering I mean it could just be condit out my view is that the party walls under the current zoning regulations and I've said this repeatedly is unlawful you can take that for what it's worth I don't have agreement I've tried to get a change at the planning commission there's been no action I've heard no rational argument that is contrary to that view if you can come up with a condominium plan that would solve that problem otherwise I'm going to vote against the project just so you know with that kind of structure we actually don't generally build those kind of structures but what we would be leaning towards the kind of model for those well you haven't shown as individual lots these are the ones right on Nolan farm that we're talking about the 4 and 5 so they're actually lines but it's just well if they're not going to be individual lots I would ask you to erase the lines so the lines actually aren't lot lines lines are showing little use areas, fence areas we're actually not showing any lots right now in that whole area so similar to the similar to the duplexes right now we haven't shown any lot in this whole area the lines behind those units are just showing we envision each does the plan say that one space does the plan say these are not lot lines it uses a different line type so I understand that it can be confusing they don't extend to the right way in the front however Mark says it's apparent from the legend that your point is apparent from the legend that's my question more Frank Jennifer let's step through the staff notes please so item one staff considered as a roadway concept it's generally sound though some adjustments may be warranted to parking to reduce the amount of payment staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant limiting parking to adjacent to homes and consider periodic bump out for street trees and to reduce perceived drive width certainly we don't want to build any more we have to we're certainly amenable to discussing those items with staff as we move forward item number two staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a traffic study addressing these concerns as part of the master plan application we certainly will comply with that request item number three staff recommends the board request the applicant to construct a road using the existing wetland crossing at the existing driveway location as part of this development asking us to do is to construct a road as far as our property line through here and as I mentioned previously we will begin that conversation with the Army Corps and the state wetland division the question yes if you were to do have that discussion with the Army Corps and figure out logistically and you know administratively and through the Army Corps getting that crossing and putting a road in would you then address the future development at this stage if you go through that exercise or is that future development only when you get a connection to Dorset through future access and property acquisition or development between the parcel and Dorset I think we would certainly look if we built a road to here we would certainly look at whether we could develop this I somewhat doubt it with your current regulations because I think the length of that road would be too long in order to allow any development there but that's something that we discuss with staff so if the road extends to the property line the 200 foot restriction doesn't apply in that case we probably would look at doing some development in this portion of the property item number four staff generally supports the open space concept for the development and recommends the board review the configuration of the open spaces and parks with the applicant and discuss how the open spaces will be designed to encourage residents to access them and how they will be protected from becoming part of yards of adjacent homes staff recommends the board provide direction on what if any additional information they would like to see submitted as part of the master plan so we're certainly open for whatever comments you might have obviously Mike spent a little bit of time talking about how those open spaces are interconnected so do we have a preference on split rail processing I want to go a little deeper into not just the delineation but the actual configuration of the open space how do you meet do you guys currently meet I'm taking I kind of want to take that open space natural resource protection parcel off because you can't develop that to begin with but the spaces that you've delineated within your develop area you know how does that meet the open space requirement that parks are X for a development of this size so my understanding before I came onto the project is that there was a larger park area shown on the project and that we were encouraged to not have a larger area but to break it into smaller pieces and also to utilize the natural resource protection area am I misspeaking here just what so based on that premise we said well that's great there's a big existing mode portion of the project over here we'd like to see that maybe shrink in size but maintain the openness of that site maybe have some annual mowing on a border area and that's what you can sort of see identified here and having a major field open space informal play other types of community gatherings happen in that area so really we've got a bunch of open spaces that sort of come up from this main north south road this major north south road that really feed people up to it through both the internal open spaces as well as the external open space this is one area within the neighborhood that would be an open open that would be a accessible open space straight off the street used down towards Campbell's home that's a that pocket park you can't really tell from the topography but that's up on a hill so it might say before but he's looking at the boulevard at Campbell's home but that's sort of the high ground the point I'm getting at is that some of the discussion we've had on previous projects and some of the things we've had happen especially when you have the little interconnected green spaces on the interior of a block is and that was one of staff's comments how do you address that so that it doesn't feel like residents, neighbors or people that live bordering that space feel like they're intruding on someone's backyard because you're showing it as a little sliver but once the houses are in it's going to feel a lot bigger but it's going to feel very in reality it's actually a pretty small space in a corridor between someone's backyards so I guess my question is what is the plan for this to not feel like it's an extension of someone's backyard so when someone walks through it in the evening walk or kids ride their bike between the neighbor's houses that you're not you know feeling like you're on someone else's property right so in other sites we've used a combination of split rail fencing and plantings and that's really worked out that looks really nice and split rails are easy to maintain and then the plantings get nicer every year as opposed to the fencing so we turn the trade off so we would certainly be willing to think about something like that for delineation between backyards the other thing that I would offer is I mean we're having this discussion at sketch plan clearly we have a lot of neighbors here that are concerned about I'm sure density whereas I'm not going to say I'm not concerned about density this is southeast quadrant development area you know you look at your surrounded by neighborhoods so this is sort of like you know ultimately the end goal for what the long-term plan of the southeast quadrant zoning was for was to put the development in designated areas while protecting the outside areas so this is sort of the plan for this type of area so the idea is in my mind is we try to massage it as best we can and you know not to say the quick quote pro or the process is you come at us with X and we massage it down to the point where everyone's a little bit happier but long story short I think that you know I would love to see some of these green spaces on the interior get opened up a little bit so that maybe you might have to lose a few lots but it feels more like an entrance into a green space rather than a sliver in between you know lots because it's pretty tight and dense here and you know not to say that you know the whole thing needs to get spread out because then you end up with cookie cutter subdivisions and I like I'm being honest with you I like this layout I like the diversity of the housing types I actually like the street layout it's not your traditional you know subdivision where it's just you know Mike's done a good job with the layout of the streets it's got a nice organic feel to it and I like some of the ideas I'm hearing points to camel's hump the boulevard design the perimeter of you know larger single family homes at the interior of more like cottage style carriage home feel it actually has a really good feel I think it just needs to be so that what we have here has a better access and feel to the ultimate end goal of the project so like you know I think maybe we need to you know I'd like you to look at and it's just obviously my opinion but you know where you have the green space gets pinched at the public space you know road somehow opening that up so it doesn't feel like you're going you know especially if someone ends up putting you know a fence at the back yard of their property you're not going between two fences to get into an area that opens up but it doesn't open up a huge amount so that's one comment I have about looking at your green space plan and concept talking about pinch points they say like in here yeah they're you know any pinch point between that one I'm not as concerned about because it's really more of a connector it's more like you know where you've got the end of the triangle like you know there and on the other side you know those you know somehow trying to find a way of opening those up and honestly if you have to in my opinion if you have to lose a lot to open up that space you know I think you end up with a much more successful project in terms of the green space connectivity I have a question not having marks feel for translating what he sees on the page into what he sees could you just give me some sense of the dimensions of those two interior green spaces the one on the left and the one on the right so many feet by so many feet yards by yards the total area you understand the question so I would guess that we're looking at this whole area is probably somewhere in the realms of slightly under half acre all together all together meaning including what basically this triangle right here I think I believe this lots a hundred foot deep right through there so that's probably another 120 feet across that way that might be about 160 feet maybe from that corner all the way up to that street same thing on the other side yeah it's slightly different in the layout but similar dimensions I would say that this probably has a little bit more space on the interior of it you know these were meant as sort of alternative areas not really for programmed uses more passive recreation place where you know having a little bit of an open yard space that with these lots being so small like you know if the kids want to run back out there have a game of tag I'm actually living in a situation similar to this these types of spaces are spectacular for especially kids like 14 and younger running around in the summer playing tag throwing water balloons those type of activities and I agree with you I'm just saying that it feels welcoming it doesn't feel closed off to people that aren't bordering on it so if you're walking the park you know you feel like you can continue on other comments questions on this staff comment if not let's go on the next one staff recommends number five staff recommends the board remind the applicant to review the residential design requirements and recommendations of section 908C and 909C prior to future stages of the view process we're well aware of those requirements number six staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant their intended mix of housing types throughout the development we kind of touch upon that as we've gone through it was that sufficient so sorry I guess I wasn't totally clear and I apologize for this so housing types in the southeast quadrant are defined both as number of units but also style so are we looking at all I don't know I can probably name three home styles but like capes and colonials and whatever that was sort of what we were trying to get at with that comment so we haven't gotten completely to the point of looking at the architectural style but the intention would be that we would mix up ridgeline orientation some would have gable ends facing the road some would have the ridgelines parallel to the road possibly like some type of a bungalow layout but I have some ideas in my head unfortunately ultimately I don't get to be at the building architect so there probably be some one stories and story and a half as well as traditional two stories and then exterior lots those would look a lot different architecturally than the exterior the larger lots larger houses on the exterior lots so it would be pretty mixed up it would not look uniform throughout the neighborhood one of the ideas for the townhouses is to have the townhouses have overall each of the structures be very uniform and almost present themselves as one architecturally composite building that has separate entrances that would be you know have enough identity for each of the units but at the same time would mesh into some of the larger house styles of the area that especially as you go down Nolan farm road that works well with the condominium concept yeah that's probably where we'd end up pushing after your account yeah I personally I don't have that as a concern of mine you know as opposed to some of the other projects we've seen of this density level where very homogenous I see a nice mix in here and obviously it's sketch plan so I haven't seen the architecture but I fully expect to see a nice diverse housing type not one type for your cottages one type here large you know you've probably seen what we've approved and what we like over the years and what we kind of you know you can imagine what we want to see you know it's the exact same house with different shutter colors but I like the way it's mixed I like the different types of how you know you know unit types in there and the way it's spread out good on to the next comment final comment number seven stop recommends the board require the applicant submit their proposed phasing plan as part of the master plan application and we will gladly do that and then the last comment is that we considered continuing this hearing to allow further discussion once you've met with technical review committee so technical review committee is mid week next week I think 24th so it's up to the board if you feel like after you hear public comments and after you have a chance to digest if you want to continue or not but the applicant will have more information from technical review by the next hearing if you're interested if we're interested right so the question will then become how much would that change our guidance to you hearing comments from the technical review committee we don't expect that the technical review comments will change the application by very much obviously the fire chief is going to be concerned about access and public works will discuss the different road widths and potentially some of the water and sewer issues which we've kind of looked at already and then certainly storm water will weigh in on what they would prefer to see you know and certainly as the as we go through the engineering and the there's going to be some changes that always happen will take into account some of your comments about the open space but but I don't believe there's any reason to wait for the technical comments if the board feels so they have enough information to move us forward okay and that'll will take into account the comments from the public understood all right I'm good ready to open up to public reserve the right to re open discussions exactly but yeah I'd like to hear from the public on this all right please identify yourself my name is focus on items may not be aware of the the first point is I'm limited that that will obviously change the density there because we'll put that many homes with one access correct the second point is there's two units that have two homes that have private wells these two one is Charlie Shay's property here in our office in the meeting as well as myself friend okay on Dorset street in the old classroom Dorset Heights we have a common well so you'll have to take into consideration that many homes integrated pest management things like that accidentally including our wells and what are you going to do about that having to focus up to city water if our flow is compromised because of your development third thing is you mentioned the current wetland crossing to the condos duplexes on Nolan farm road that is 18 feet curb to curb is that what you meant or do you mean side to side are you proposing doing curbs we usually curb it because far at the curb on Nolan farm road when west there's no curb there there's a portion right here that the previous developer asked not to curb that so you can go and visit that because for wildlife wetlands things like that so that's something you want to talk to what plan on doing any construction on Nolan farm road no I understand but this there's no curb here so why are you proposing a curb here that's what I'm saying I don't need an answer I'm just freezing it as a question thank you also you may not be aware but right up here at the top of golf course road there's a pocket part and there is a view protection quarter so you're probably aware of that from T.J. Boyle because you guys were part of that original study many years ago but have you considered that in the height of all the units yes actually the staff notes addressed that it didn't appear as though that any of our proposed units would be effective secondly the next point is planning commission put together these residential they didn't have an unlimited budget to just to study every nook and cranny of the southeast quadrant being a large district and so wildlife again other people are going to talk about this but just since I live there across the street from you I saw two deer yesterday there was a flock of turkeys there so whatever you do in talking to the neighbors you'll need to come up with a plan this is the higher level species which they talked about you can read the record of that when the wildlife biologist studied this we hope to continue to have things other than squirrels and chipmunks we like that deer bobcat I saw a coyote the other day on park road things like that so you'll want to talk to wildlife biologists and see the way you can best mitigate this to allow this large animal species to continue to use that property even the next point is that this variant is prone to flooding and so I'm sure you've talked to staff not about 100 year flood planes but thousands of flood planes Art Shields has lived here a long time John Wilkins will turn to myself that it gives a lot of funding so you'll have to certainly have a plan to make sure that when the water raises above what you have is the streams or wetlands and it gets into the neighborhood property who is liable for that how is that going to be mitigated how is that going to be taken care of the other thing that you need to be aware of is that the city is under and the city is under very long strict things for TDMLs and I'm sure the staff has talked to about that in terms of how by cutting across the wetlands are you going to be mitigating that by adding additional homes which since homeowners are not required to they can put as much pesticides on the property as they want how are you going to mitigate that so we're adding that as well as pesticides into you know downstream into Lake Champlain so I'm sure you guys thought about this but it would be nice that the public is going to want to hear about that that's all and I'll leave my comments for everybody else I wanted to introduce some points at the rest of the public thank you thank you very much next I think someone right there okay yes please identify yourself I'm very concerned because actually there is some I'm very concerned because actually there is some I'm very concerned because actually there is some so right here these are woods this is going to be all cut out this is a wildlife corridor right here I have video that supports that evidence because I have turkeys here going from this side to this side to their woods where they live they sleep and they feed and not only that you know we have deer all the time around here this is their habitat and this development is destroying their habitat and I really feel strongly and I have my dear neighbor Ruiz right here that she's going to talk a little bit about the boboleaks where their habitat has been already destroyed because they already hate all these you know all the land this is a mess right now and this is where animals live or animals from South Burlington I'm a new resident in South Burlington since September but I feel strongly about the wildlife because this is what we see every day we see they live and they sleep in the streets right here and our trees thank God nobody's going to build here they live there they sleep there and also hogs we have hogs in these woods so what they want to destroy is a continuation of this habitat right here and this is serious and this supports what this gentleman very nicely explained and I will give now the turn to Ruiz to talk about the boboleaks I'm Pam and I live on the corner of Nolan and Shade Ride and I have a bad cold and I really didn't want to come and share my germs but I really had to come and share my opinion because I feel very strongly this just shows more irresponsible growth in the town of South Burlington I don't know there's South Village O'Brien Farm I mean thousands of homes that are being built on the clock today on the Zillow there are 440 homes for sale in Chittenden County and 112 of those are in South Burlington I don't even know that we need this I have lived in South Burlington for 20 years and I have completely seen the whole field of South Burlington change currently Nolan Farm is a fairly quiet street there's a lot of people that walk their dogs or jog or bike and it's a very peaceful area this is not at all in keeping with anything in that area we don't need it I'm completely opposed to it and that's just part of it the wildlife I have lived in that house 12 years and I have counted over 84 different types of birds and I think I have pictures of all of them they actually just had a magazine in South Burlington and they put some of my bird phones in there that was me there are 84 different types of birds right there maybe more and there are deer, we see deer every night and it just doesn't feel like we need it at all and they just keep building and building and building and they don't stop building and South Burlington doesn't feel like South Burlington anymore and I'm completely opposed to this okay I forgot one thing I don't know the total number of residents but let's just say there's going to be about 400 more cars and right now coming out of Nolan Farm onto Dorset Street is already a wait and they don't think that there's going to be any impact on the traffic I don't know where they're getting their information 400 cars is a lot of cars and pollution and safety for children they go very fast in that road and accidents are going to happen okay so let's address two things first of all there will be a traffic study there has not been a traffic study yet so there have been no claims that there will be no impact of traffic that I know of and as far as wildlife goes as Mark eloquently said to start off the comments this is completely permitted this is what is supposed to happen in South Burlington that we are and it's a permanent, I'm saying it's planned this is the planned character of this area can I comment on that? just a second please so this is part of the overall strategic plan for South Burlington that happens once every five years and you're welcome to come to those meetings you're welcome to come to the planning commission to change things around but this is just like Cider Mills, just like South Village and all the other developments these are completely in accord with the plan that has been established at a municipal level for South Burlington alright so your next please I'm Steve Partill from the Shea House as well and moved here about ten months ago and so I read the report the comprehensive plan for the town and to me after reading that it seems like this is in contradiction of the plan in the plan it talks about water and wildlife resources in the southeast quadrant this should be preserved this is one of the gems of the southeast quadrant if you look at in terms of the wildlife what I'm reading is discordance with what I'm hearing from people about the vision of the city so Mr. Bisher very first slide second third fourth slide outlined the ribbons yeah there you go there we are, yeah so the brown area is to be developed into what kind of village residential so eight units break and then the brown area to the right of that the upper right hand corner of that is more heavily dense so the brown is eight the orange is four the green is the natural resource protection and the green is red I know that's really high that's village commercial I've seen units break so it seems like more sense to keep the density in the village center rather than bring it away from town I've been on the board now for 13 years so most people don't really see me because I travel and I call in but when you can speak the southeast zoning regulations were actually and you're new to the area we had moratoriums on development because of density and development the southeast quadrant zoning regulations were a moratorium that was an agreed upon moratorium between the city, the residents and the developers and it was a plan that took the entire southeast quadrant and said as Mike sort of gave you a brief synopsis the base density for the entire area is 1.2 units per acre they wanted to take and look at the big picture of this entire area not little microcosms which for neighbors this parcel isn't a microcosm but from city planning standpoint this is a microcosm they wanted to take the big picture of the overall entire area and say we want to maintain 1.2 units per acre and we're going to take and select the green areas and protect them they as you can increase your density over 1.2 and we want to encourage transferring development rights within those green areas into the other areas to encourage density in there so that you didn't end up with an entire southeast quadrant of just cookie cutter residential subdivisions throughout you wanted to get tighter denser developments in select areas and that was a planned upon thing that was implemented 25 years ago as part of the broad city plan. City planning isn't year to year neighborhood to neighborhood it's a big picture thing and that's a plan for this area so that you're going to get areas of land that have been open space for years and decades but have been planned to be denser development for years and decades. TDRs are coming from the green areas that was already green no it's not that area is not green that area is planned for 4 units per acre and up to 8 units per acre the green areas are meant to take those development rights and send them into those areas and that's been a plan that's been doing projects now for under my purview quite a long time where you know the people that live in the green areas can sell those development rights to take all development off those areas so they're preserved in perpetuity and they're put into the denser areas and that's what we get and that's the unfortunate reality when we get neighbors who come in because they're seeing a green space in decades but it's always been planned and it's our job as a board to review these projects under the regulations and the regulations state that you know the developer that Lander has the right to develop it up to 4 units per acre and up to 8 units per acre and that's been a discussion we've had over the years on many a project and it's unfortunately an education process because you know people see this beautiful green open space and they just see more density but that has been the plan for these locations for decades. The comprehensive plan also specifies to the target population for Burlington is set for like 18,000 or something and when it exceeds that they will revisit this or I forgot the wording is but we're above that now is there any thing underway? That's city council and planning commission not DRB I'm just being honest that's our job to get the broad picture of the document right we have a set of regulations the land development regulations we can't write the law and to follow up Marla has some specific numbers on them just to sort of go a little bit further into the conservation so the base density or as Mike talked about you know the maximum density is 267 they're proposing 164 with the 64 they need to purchase development rights for 78 units over their base which results in the protection of 65 acres we'll combine the development rights for 65 acres of green space they're shown on that plan as part of this if we stay at the current density please yep please identify yourselves no one behind it Jason so right I'm glad you're here I drew something with you so the owner of this property back here we don't know what his name is the reason he sold this property is because he wanted to build another house just one house and he was denied because it was only close to the wetland you have so much experience and you've helped me a lot in my own property and planning do you feel like this property is in accordance with why we zoned wetland and wild spaces one little house versus over 100 and plus almost 200 units and he was denied and moved to shelter in anger our children go to school and die it was actually the distance instead we're going to build all those homes over wetland that runs through my neighbor's property of the pond, the icy herons and turtles we're going to deny one man a dot and yet allowed here and totally changed the landscape and fabric of the south girl in the community in the southeast quadrant I don't understand that but you were in zoning and of course you followed the letter of law because that's how you are and you did a great job but does this feel right? it's not for me as a staff member to decide but you're not, it's a feel right that's not for me to say it's up to the court to make the decision does it feel right for one person who owns 40 acres here to be denied in addition onto a home because of a septic system I just put in a $35,000 septic system I own 35 acres almost right here how is that right to my neighbor that he was forced to leave town for you to allow a company to put in 200 homes it was no project it was just a guy wanting to build an additional house we never saw that you know we can't okay but as far as the regulations and you're part of the zoning so you have to follow the regulations how does that covering this wetland here and encroaching on this wetland here equate it's in addition to a home do you have to talk to your court of engineers on what their decision was we plan on talking to the court of engineers on this concern I can promise that because it's baffling it's ingenuous for you guys it's very easy for you to say and I respect everything you do because we voted for you and I have voiced my concerns in development in the past and you ease my concerns and I didn't come to the next news because you filled my concerns and you listened to me and took care of it and I have not had any problems with water but this is really shocking to me now this whole property here so this is being I think that's this is developed that's lens property right here this whole thing is me this used to be Barbara and Gordon and now that's they just moved in a little bit ago so the problem I haze this okay after the bottlings are gone he haze it here some years it's great hey some years it's better he gets it for free he owns the equipment it's very expensive equipment hundreds of thousands of dollars to make those 8,000 I get to look at them it's beautiful awesome great but more importantly he takes them down Dorsey street second far left hand side at the barstow so that's the same like in here right he complained to me he's running out of hay and his kids aren't necessarily going in the farm and he's all subsidized so if he starts running out of hay he has to buy hay he's not making a lot of money he's a small farmer and he's going to lose months and months to feed for his cattle months they can't be replaced he used to get swith over here he can't get any more he can't get any more there's a new farm down here off the Dorsey street he can't get any more so he has to now buy hay out of his pocket which also brings in things like wild parsnip which is happening all over South Brompton a separate shoe which I would love and can't wait to talk to South Brompton they're not doing enough to combat wild parsnip as far as wild life I mean I'm right here I just had to drain this right here because my driveway just just floods all over and so I had ready to fish put in swells and my little culvert I got a family of woodchucks living in there now they talk about deer I mean that's not deer, it's woodchucks it's foxes, it's hawks, it's bobbins all of it I have quails and winter birds and snow and Canada geese just nesting here and this is the pond so we have snapping turtles and box turtles there's sunnies in here the peepers back here and the wetlands are just incredible to listen to but more importantly they're part of the whole ecosystem in this entire area which this just explodes and I understand that all we're talking about is like zoning all we're talking about is nuts and bolts and the dollars involved and how it affects what the planning commission said and none of the other things that happen with the real property because it's not just 70 acres it puts a hole the golf course is what, 250 something like that South Village so what you're talking about is this whole area here banks, smack in the mill you're going to drop 200 miles killing it all cutting it all off the animals can't go this way anymore they can't go through here so they're already in my house just from South Village alone if I could tell you I have pictures and I'll try to find them and I'll send them to you a flock of 50 turkey 50 flock of 10 and 15 deer in my field they go to our homes because you guys are destroying the land and they go to our homes because that's the only land that will be left someone that bought land and it's not freaking selling to anybody no developers for sure right and I heard something mentioned today that's really kind of disturbing the fabric of South Burlington shutter colors really we're talking about shutter colors you're going to change shutter colors to make the houses look different you understand that was the opposite comment I made that was the opposite comment I said don't come to us with different shutter colors you know what we're looking for but you understand that is what we have before us for regulations we are a development reward we're not the planning commission but how do you get here escaping all of these other things in 1992 I read it I've also talked to the Aldoban Society I've talked to Lake Champlain District Lake Champlain Basin I've talked to naturalists who are concerned about this and they're they're I was hoping to get one here but it's a concern and it's it's understandable that we need development and I'm not against development we need development in Vermont we need people we need homes and we have a property in the Med River Valley houses are for sale there 10 years 12 years to cancel a house so I understand everyone's moving to the Chick-Man County Lake Champlain area there's jobs we're we're we're we're we need development and I completely agree with it that's why I didn't really after I was my concerns about water work were relieved here that's it thank you very much we're on my way but this changes the fabric of this community for because I'm familiar with this waterway here because I live there where's the salt from the driveways going to go? like we one guy from here and we're going to put 150 homes with the salt in driveways how how is that environmentally friendly how is that less how is that more impact than one dude there you go going forward if we can please keep to like 2 minutes maybe that would be really helpful because we've got 7 more items after the M&T well that's a good point so if we're going to have a lot more comments then we should probably continue this meeting so that we can have a meeting where just comments are given so I'll take a couple of more 2 minute comments and then we're going to continue the meeting so everybody can have more time to talk okay standing up there please identify yourself I'm Mark Meyer from Old Frost Road and I've lived here for a long time even since I was right after I came around and I chose to move in the question is whether or not when those original studies were done in 92 the South Burlington were very different than it does now and I'm wondering under whose purview that it is to take a step back because I can't believe any of the existing wildlife quarters are still the same as they were in 92 the waterfall can't possibly be the same the issue in terms of traffic so the regulations and the way the things were set up in 92 could possibly bear any relationship to what it looks like now and I feel like that's what we're coming up against frankly and under whose purview then is it to then read when you look at a development and say it is time for us to reassess we don't look at anything like what we used to look like thank you for your comment because you got right to the point and the problem with the comments at least that I've been hearing so far you are in the wrong form for the complaints that you have the correct form is the planning commission we have no power to change the regulations the planning commission is the body that recommends changes to the regulations they recommend it to the city council which then adopts them we are powerless to do what is quote right whether we agree that it's right or not this can be cathartic for you to come here at length even but it is futile because we don't have jurisdiction to address the concerns you're raising I don't need to be unkind or hard hearted about it but that is the fact I would appreciate if there was some place that we note that because some of us might have difficulty in identifying the right contact people it sounds like a lot of us might help you guys too to answer your comments rather than having another meeting where we just have catharsis rather for you guys to help facilitate a meeting with the planning committee because this feels like it's kind of stepped over a boundary I've watched a lot of things go up and this is like one of the first times I've come to your point of South Burlington looks very different than it did in 92 that southeast quadrant zoning study that was done with the agreement of all parties in town the developers, the residents who live in southeast quadrant and the city officials did look at it and did studies that showed the density and the development in these open spaces saying that over time it's going to take a while for these mechanisms to work out but it then showed that there was no development in those green areas but they were based on prediction models which now we can go back and see the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan re-looks at the city's plans and goals and that's done by the planning commission and if they see things have changed they would then look at the idea and the concept is that they would then look at the land development regulations and see what needs to change or is it still working that's exactly the point can I just add to that so the southeast quadrant zoning has evolved since not back in 1992 I think the last major rewrite was in 2009 is that correct don't recall but it's recent so these so going to the planning commission looks at the regulations they look at the comprehensive plan every single year every five years there's a new plan adopted every five years there's a new plan adopted but it takes five years to get that next plan they're looking at those different elements he doesn't tell us how you guys and the other committees work and you guys tell us that's what we've been saying but we did say what exactly my name is Dr. Alvin like why are we here tonight what can you allow them to do or are we just wasting our time being here what they just presented their drawing put up that simple drawing that's the right question what the drawing all the houses please they want to build this what do you guys do to let them build this what can we do to stop them from building I think I described that process if you all say they can build it so what can you do to be honest with you honestly I would just speak for Bill but I can speak for my years on the board we wouldn't deny them because we have to uphold the regulations that are before no not from 1992 the ones that are currently before us that are updated every year so whatever the regulations are is what we have to go by if we deny a project if we deny a project we would have environmental court and they would get their I can't say that that's for sure but we have to represent the city and its interests so all we do here tonight is let them talk to you about what they're presenting and nothing can really be done to we have to go to different avenue they follow the regulations that the planning commission made they give to us June 27th, 2016 is the current regulations we have to understand something this is a project that took place I don't know a week ago even though most of us just found out about it two weeks ago this has been something planned for years planned by them or a different developer that's your plan but developers have been looking at this property for a long time and when we look at things from 1992 you talk in 26 years when do you change I had a prepared speech standing here and listening to this and granted my wife and I came here as doctors we were asked to come to the state of Vermont I worked for the VA down in White River Junction I drive an hour and a half every other day my wife works for UVM I understand they're going to develop I'm all for development but you've got to ask yourself what are you developing in Vermont and what do you do from 1992 in 2018 these gentlemen ask into me 164 this young lady or you said cookie cutter cookie cutter homes these are going to be cookie cutter homes you really need to see what they're building on spear street you need to see what they're building on door set they're cookie cutter condominiums that no one's going to buy or be able to resell because the land was built or the planning commission said you could do this they came to a meeting with you folks and they get to build condominiums that are never going to do anything we can deny cookie cutter homes well, if you want to look at our neighborhood and the people who are here and more of the people that are here we're not all against development we want to see prosperity in Vermont we want to see jobs come to Vermont we don't want to see 164 homes that are going to pollute traffic do all the things everybody's concerned of but tell me you're going to build 40 or 60 energy efficient all the power homes that take no energy from Vermont that give back to Vermont that give back to the environment that does something for their steam that's where you have to ask yourself not what are we going to do for the next 26 years what are we going to do for the next 76 years because and the planning commission and these guys right now they're building houses and I'm taking 4 minutes because my wife couldn't make it right now they're building houses they're building houses that aren't going to last the house I bought where's the zoom in one property because everybody in this neighborhood knows the house I bought he certainly does I paid him a ton of money to build on it where's the picture one because I'm across the street from your dream and that house is big it's on wetlands I'm not allowed to build on the wetlands that's my house the last one please don't put your highway facing my driveway that's where the curb cuts are point being I don't know what they're thinking when you look at this picture and how they're looking at it but they've already passed that point the planning commission has allowed but these houses because I know it from a fact that two builders that tried to build that house these houses won't last to another 26 years nobody's building the way they're supposed to and that's where if you guys get to say what type of houses and I know you didn't bring up the shutter thing but I don't care about shutters I care about steel roofs I care about houses that you want to build that are affordable but they better stand in Vermont for 50 to 100 years and the only way to do that is to build 40 very good houses put a pocket you want to worry about the kids playing hide and go seek a beautiful pocket you can't go through the wetlands I don't know how this is happening when I couldn't do anything on this side of my house point being I don't know what you could do for building in Vermont but if you're concerned about the future you need to drive these streets see what they're building and understand my father was a construction engineer they don't build houses the way it used to there is an amazing area in the state of Vermont in the entire northeast of Russia or the Ukraine that knows how to lay brick and that's a fact point being you got to ask them what kind of houses they're building and if you're not the committee to ask what kind of houses they're building then we're at the wrong meeting if all you guys are saying is you're just listening to their forum then we have to turn around and say 164 houses from a plan that came from 1992 when there were already gazillion houses I love this place but what do you want to turn Vermont into I used to read my kids, I end on this one I didn't read my kids good books I read them adult books and I read them one called Who Moved My Cheese People know that book? It's a business book it's about change and it's about not hearing change when you have a lot of people here we're all scared of change it's basically human nature these guys are the ones doing the changing but you know what, when do we get to ask them and develop something for Vermont because we all love our cheese in Vermont you saw that shit down there there's going to be no more cheese in the future you're going to give all the land away you're going to go cook your kind of homes people are going to turn down their state not that anything's wrong with Jersey and I don't come from Jersey but drive through Jersey see what happens when you do what you're doing to the state you have a beautiful city not going to get into the traffic if nobody's going to get home when the school buses leave not going to get into anything it's too many houses, it's too much it's too much what you want to do I know you want to get banged for your buck but those houses won't last the 26 years of the future planning commission that's all I got to say thank you very much we are going to continue we're going to continue this meeting and we'll have more time for more comments we're talking about continuation for the next agenda we see David Shank again for his preliminary final which will be quick and easy we've got continuation for the nasty drive application August 7th yeah we're just talking scheduling but yes I can speak up and then we've got so the August 7th has some room August 21st does not have room August 7th um ok August 7th yep let's continue on August 7th I'll move that we continue sketch plan application SD 1823 of Dorset Metals associated LLC August 7th are we basically just shelving everything right now to another public forum on this project are we asking the applicants I've heard nothing that requires the applicants to look at anything well I asked them all to look at some of the open societies oh yes right yeah that's let them come back and let the public speak yes we're not going to make any changes between let's have the public forum then we'll give you clear guidance one way or another alright good good it's been moved in section to continue on August 2nd August 7th opposed thank you very much next on the agenda site plan application SP 18-28 of 30 community drive LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 275,000 square foot commercial industrial building consisting of 184,000 square feet of general office 18,700 square feet of warehouse 10,000 square feet of indoor recreation 2,000 square feet of retail food 15,500 square feet of research and testing and 400 square feet of shorter rest on accessories the amendment consists of replacing a portion of the general office and warehouse uses with 25,000 square feet of radio and television studio for a resulting use breakdown of 163,000 square feet of general office 14,000 square feet of warehouse 10,000 square feet of indoor recreation 2,000 square feet of retail food 59,000 square feet of research and testing 400 square feet of shorter restaurant 25,000 square feet of radio and television use the amendment also concludes adding a parking lot 16 satellite dishes and a microwave antenna at 30 community drive who is here for the applicant so what we typically do is we typically use the application materials that you submitted to us we just add some supplemental pictures okay if there's stuff that is related to the items that were on the staff comments maybe we'll put them up when when we get to that point is that okay and if you have a flash drive you can just hand them to me too alrighty so who is here for the applicant my name is Steven Sevell I'm vice president of REARC and Technology Park I'm Abby Dairy I'm here from Trudell Consulting Engineers I'm Justin Antonetti here from WPTZ and the C5 excuse me Mr. Chairman could somebody go out in the lobby and maybe shepherd people inform the folks in the lobby Jen's just closing the door and John Illich also with Technology Park I'd like to disclose that I'm a former employee of WPTZ I don't think that presents a conflict of interest but if the applicant or anyone in the public felt that it did I would recuse myself I know both these guys from REARC and PTZ used to be my tenant I don't know if they realize that but that was ways back so a quick overview we were lucky enough to work with NBC5 and Hearst to secure them as a future tenant at Technology Park they will be in 30 community drive which is 275,000 square feet we have about a dozen tenants there currently Ben and Jerry's and SimQuest being the most notable NBC5 will occupy just over 25,000 square feet on the interior currently it's open warehouse space we're going to convert that to a mixture of office studio as well as garage so they'll be broadcasting from that facility they're going to relocate from Colchester and Platsburg to come to South Burlington the exterior work as you can see and that's why we're here is a secured parking facility area for I believe 38 vehicles and then a secure fenced area for 16 satellite dishes those satellite dishes there's three smaller ones and the larger ones are about 4.5 meters in diameter approximately that's the basic overview I don't know if you want to go through the comments now one by one oh yeah I'm good with that go through the comments so number one the stormwater comments Abby we've been working with Dave Wheeler the assistant superintendent and addressing most of the comments that are here in blue we've already addressed on our plans and there's just one little thing with the outlet structure that we are currently addressing so yes we will comply with their comments okay so from a technical standpoint do we need to have this resolved before we before we conclude this close this hearing yes the remaining comment pertains to the design of the gravel well and and may result in Dave's recommendation is that it may result in substantial changes to the gravel well and so I don't think we can approve the plan as submitted okay so we will be continuing then just to get a follow up there the only remaining comment that he had had to do with the outlet structure that we will be changing to meet his request he had requested that the we're inside of the outlet structure have an outlet instead of it being level with the permanent pool elevation so so did you see a second response did you have a chance to see a second response that was a second comment and that was a type basically bypassing the we're right and because we yes if we put in the response if we put the orifice in the we're versus just having the we're that eliminates that issue that he had with the perforated pipe bypassing the structure I think I understand what you mean and so if what Abby describes is correct then I guess it's minor change but since we don't yet know what the answer is I have a condition requiring the change it sounds like it's can we be specific enough about the change can the condition be that we comply with the recommendations or but if it's something like we will adjust the orifice in the we're to yeah can you help me formulate that the I in orifice controlling the channel protection volume will be added to the we're inside the outlet structure to address the comments of the assistant stormwater superintendent specific yep okay thanks thank you number two staff does not consider the additional thirty eight spaces necessary especially given the resulting wetland buffer impacts that recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether the vehicle parking could be located in a newly secured area off the existing parking area the reason being and and Justin can add to this the reason being we located where it was we would rather not do this but it's a secure parking area and that's the main employee entrance they operate all day and they're going to have staff coming in the middle of the night and they're fairly well known in the community and it was a requirement of their program to have a secure area where they can walk safely into their entrance from their parking area there's also many news vans with equipment that they need to move for security and to move the equipment from the vans into the facility there'll be three garage doors there so it's a proximity thing so that's the reason behind it I think it's well said I think that from a daily operations standpoint working 24 hours a day three shifts a day we've got crews coming and going and they're loading and unloading equipment and so that's the closest to our space inside the building and then from a security and safety standpoint having our employees be able to park in a secured lock and walk into an entrance that's surrounded by a gate is crucial to us and none of the existing parking space does that yeah this is the only space that's immediately adjacent to the interior space that Hearst will have it's it is the least resistant to the other tenants it'll offer the least disturbance to other tenants we had proposed a couple of other options where we have a secure parking area around the existing parking spaces and that just wasn't going to work for the Hearst program and also there's three larger news vans that park in the interior they would actually so let's say we didn't do the parking we'd have to actually pave a large portion probably at least half of the space but to allow the larger vans to come in and back into the garage doors at the rear of the building on the north side I asked but I understand what you're saying your concerns are for placing these spaces where you want to place them is staff incorrect about not really needing in gross so to speak 38 additional spaces do you dispute that you need in other words well frankly is could they get rid of 38 spaces somewhere else well I guess in the future there's a lot of warehouse space that we're converting to office and and there's a future quad that we would like to build whether that's 5, 10 years who knows but to the north so I think of the thousand I think currently 900 and something are required I think those will be needed in the future as the tenants change from more warehouse to more office as we convert my laptop just I know I was trying to find it before I could plug it in but I thought I read in there somewhere that the parking count where you sort of equalize the building had 60 employees for WPTC and two spots per employee that was the parking required 120 spaces that's what the land development regulations have for radio and television studio so that wasn't a requirement two spots per employee I double checked it today because that seemed like a lot maybe I had misread it that seems like two spaces per bedroom or something kind of but you know the idea may be to have one space for the vehicle for the employee and then another vehicle that they would then use come back and forth with even so you're dealing with three shifts and so they wouldn't all be there so every employee has a company vehicle those spots are a program requirement from NBC5 and they need additional ones so I think the requirement total was call it 60 or 70 and those are allocated in the e-slot so those aren't all of the spaces for NBC5 it's just a portion of it that need to be secure and that need to house their vans what is the security arrangement what makes it secure well there's a gate perimeter fencing so there'll be a gate they drive in and then the gate will close behind once they're in the facility chain link around correct it'll be how will the access be done will be a swipe card so from the east side that'll be an electronic gate they'll drive up you kind of see the square this this is existing these are a large generator this screening 12 high fencing there so it'll just be coming off that with an electronic gate and then adding this fence right here the connected to the building so they drive in it opens it's totally secure then they drive out with the swipe card really important thing to note is these are very high profile people who are on TV all the time so having that secure access from their car especially very late at night if they're running the evening shift it was critical for us to get them here that we met that requirement and they're coming to south brilington from elsewhere so please keep that in mind that that was critical of their program to have that man I just thought they're sadly in this climate these days I can't argue with security for these reporters this is vermont but I still I wasn't questioning the security I just wonder of course I think the larger question remains is why do you need that many spaces that's my question I'm hearing now that the landlord is saying it's a requirement of the tenant perhaps the tenant could expand a little bit on why you need that many spaces yeah so when we are fully staffed we actually have 98 employees and then there is a regular amount of guests that visit a television station so while not all of our employees will be based in this facility the majority of them will be but we will have all hands on deck meetings we also foresee doing special events out of this facility including debates and those types of events obviously a lot of people are visiting the station that aren't normally there so a lot of special program we do elsewhere now will all be done out of this facility so on those days will actually require some additional parking beyond what we have on a daily amount so I'm guessing that the internal secure parking isn't required for all employees correct, exactly plus the bands and the the talent that's only about a third of their actual requirement for parking very good it's also on the side from my perspective I own the buildings across the way I forgot to mention that but this is the side of the building that is not in use it's not particularly pretty this is an improvement to what I think yeah and then the other two buildings are in front of it 124 and further to the north well and we've seen master plans for buildings between this building and the building yeah the quad is up you'll have storm water I think that's dealt with elsewhere in here so comment number two sort of talks about this transition from structure to structure safe pedestrian movement and that's sort of what we're on now there is sort of a wetland component of it there are impacts to 3 class 3 wetland buffers proposed as part of this we'll definitely get to that but if but for the parking there would not be wetland buffer impacts so just to put that out there for the board's consideration okay thank you very much I'm sorry so I can understand this specific these specific 38 spaces are causing the wetland buffer impact or could it be alleviated by back to my original question could the wetland buffer impact be alleviated if some of those spaces were removed somewhere else could it be equalized so to speak the location of the parking and the storm water and berm to support the parking is in the wetland buffer so if those spaces were moved then the wetland buffer wouldn't be impacted if other spaces were removed as a trade-off the wetland buffer would still be impacted that was my question okay comment number 3 please while staff is not concerned about the height of the building staffs recommend the board confirm the size and location of the antenna for evaluating compliance with the standard so it does mention if you look at the paragraph directly above that it said a 3.8 meter and 4.5 meter antenna there's a little bit of confusion there the dishes on the ground are 3.8 and 4.5 meters the dish on the roof is actually a microwave antenna and it's a small diameter 6 foot diameter antenna microwave dish that needs line of sight to mount man's field so they can transmit their final product from the studio before they submit to man's field so it's going to be only a 6 foot diameter mounted in the center of the roof which I think the location is on your handout and the total height is about 10 feet and we have a 17 foot 3 inch tall generator on the roof already so it will not be the tallest structure on the roof by far and you need a view corridor to answer more questions on the antenna I think you're okay right okay just as a point of curiosity you're going to have 16 16 new dishes here there's a separate permitting process for those I take it somewhere or not I don't believe they'll know just say plain the only antennas that are microwaver on the roof yes correct yes what frequencies are used by the ones on the ground so those are receiving right and the one on the roof is sending look at me sounded like I know what I'm talking about that makes for about emissions of radio waves that are receiving antennas correct it was actually a great location because we didn't have to build an additional structure the roof of 30 community drives was a direct shot which was great and then the ones on the ground have to have a southwest orientation to receive we got our keep trees no comment number four staff considers the satellite dishes will be highly visible from several locations and recommends the board require additional screening so that we do you want to can we plug in to show some supporting okay well I can sorry if you go back to the site plan I can describe the the renderings that you have Marla do you have the landscape plan by any chance you could project so I believe the concerns were from the east and north obviously we're putting additional landscaping here let me start with the east so currently there's this is going to be an eight foot high fence around everything the fence is really there for security they need those satellite dishes so no one goes in the additional benefit is obviously screening on the east side we have these existing generators that are there and the fences are 12 foot high when you're standing here when those satellite dishes are there with the burn here and we have photos you cannot even see this area here from that view so I think that's really not a concern because of what's existing and the viewpoint from over here on the north side you can see the top photo rendering that's what it's going to look like with our proposed landscaping from this view here that's what we currently have to me I think that looks pretty nice so as far as additional screening I don't know what else we can do or what even the requirement of having the satellite dishes screen would be I know it's a permitted use for a TV station so I think we've gone above and beyond what we need to do and I think Technology Park you'd agree we keep it in great shape there's great landscaping we were concerned about the views and obviously there's future buildings that are going to be built as well to the north potentially so from aesthetics we're very concerned about it and I think we did what we needed to do to make it aesthetic and pleasing any concerns that the future development plans to the north are going to block your receiving no because the south west is this way so the future development would be up here so it has no effect on it but we did have to shift them out away from the building to get the line of sight or else we would have tried to keep them closer which would have kind of protected them or cut them from view of the marble we had to shift in there because of the line of sight so do you feel the rendering that you see is adequate of what we have I will say that it's not as landscaped as I'm used to seeing in Technology Park your buildings are right are extremely well landscaped the front walkway that goes up Kimball Avenue extremely well landscaped and this is a few cedars I guess I mean listen I'm looking at this and saying that looks like there's more than this has but it does not appear as landscaped as I'm used to seeing you guys do so I guess perhaps maybe another rendering I don't know I'm less impressed with this than I expected to be so I'm providing you along the fence that will grow up even taller than the fence that's there so you'll at least still have the security but you'll have better screening too another argument you can make is most commercial or even residential tracking solar panels none of which are and they're very similar in height and size to these dishes are screened at all so you can make the argument that we're actually doing significantly more than most surrounding commercial or residential solar tracking in Colchester their current facility none of them are screened you can see them on that hill for all to see and you go across the street there's a satellite dish you can see there's on it right across the street at Comcast so you want to compare us to Colchester now I'm just saying what is the requirement why is there a screening requirement around satellite dishes listen you were the one who brought up how well screened the technology park is and that's what I was commenting on it is and I think the level of landscaping that we're proposing has to do more with it being sort of the backside or the north side of the existing building already a utility industrial space the 8 foot 8 foot high fence with slats we'll screen the base it'll screen a lot of the the chunky base the only thing that'll stick out are the top of those satellite dishes the intent of the landscaping wasn't to obscure the dishes completely it was really just to break up the fence the length of fence that is going to be going around them what is this view and where are we looking where are we looking at this view from if you can do the site plan that shows Community Drive so that rendering is basically from this viewpoint here looking that way and once again the future plan is a quad that has a building going right to the north as well so that view point is from here on Community Drive so in terms of the other radio and television station Z in South Burlington WCA yeah there and Tenne are cool sorry United States so and as you know I'm going to solar just north of Sider Mill you know that solar tracker 2.2 megawatt or whatever it is those are pretty visible too so I mean you're going to have a sign saying this is WPTZ and so part of what you'd expect with WPTZ is a bunch of satellite dishes so I I'm not concerned I don't know about you guys but I'm not concerned about a bunch of satellite dishes being partially visible I kind of expect it with a TV station but I'm willing to be persuaded I think the dishes look beautiful haha thank you guys but I may be biased I have not offended by it either I have no issues with it but frankly these are good corporate players in our community this is the satellite seeing the tops of the moon doesn't bother me I guess what I would say is for this one stand alone you know revision adding the parking secure parking lot the satellite dishes it is the backside of the building the future development when you do your quad and all that I think you're going to want to screen it more but that's really up to you for your internal master plan because we also don't know the exact orientation our whole plan is in the quad to do an arboretum that's ultimately our goal when we can get another building up and while satellite dishes are normal for an industrial park when you're getting into buildings that align with each other I think the satellite dishes are going to feel out of place in that you're going to want to screen it more but that's your future plans I'm fine with it as it is right now next staff comment number five number five again has to do with the value of the landscaping and the proposed building addition being included in order to calculate the landscape bond amount by the proposed building addition I believe that's just the structure at the east entrance that we're basically leaving the footprint and we're leaving the structural stanchions and all we're doing is changing this curved kind of top piece to a horizontal with NBC's logo so the value of that is $10,000 so 3% of that is $300 you know we could increase by $300 that's not a problem so what we need to hear is that you are representing that the cost of that is $10,000 therefore we can do the calculation so as long as you're representing that I think we're okay great sounds like the plan the landscaping plan is going to be revised to add $300 worth of plants they don't need to have adequate value we just need to be able to show that if you're representing that great thank you very much it sounds by that statement there that their landscaping is over by $10,400 excuse me I have a real fundamental question not necessarily for the permit but just for curiosity are you moving or is this a supplemental facility really we are centralizing our operations so we will have the majority of the staff now report out of this facility all of our staff currently in our Colchester facility will be moved here along with some additional staff that's currently based in Platsburg the moving the studio will be in South Burlington you'll be broadcasting nightly from South Burlington it will be yes Colchester I know we're there, they're right next to a building okay number six please I'll let Abby address number six sure, so staff recommended that the board require an applicant to submit information in the form of photos to allow staff to evaluate how many existing spaces be counted and I can submit photos if that's just a yes we will agree to that condition we can submit photos and you can evaluate the bike parking spaces right, so there's requirements for the bicycle parking and what existing bicycle parking can be counted towards the new standard so until we determine that we can't determine whether you have adequate bicycle parking so in that case I did bring photos of the existing bike parking and I think the requirement that we need to meet is that they are attached to a flat surface of a certain dimension and none of the bike racks on the lot are attached to that permanently attached to a hard flat surface so in that case would we then condition the site plan approval that we install the adequate number of bike parking spaces unless we can be specific tonight about where those are and I think that 45 is too specific to take up the board's time with I don't think we can get there in discussion do we need to have all the full 45 no, 50% so I think for your application because the building is going to come back for site plan approval in the future that 50% today makes sense because you'll have to get there at some point but it's not like right so I can't indicate on the site plan I would just propose that we put the concrete pad with the 23 spaces in the form of 12 inverted u's in the location of the existing bike racks that are on the south west corner of the building in front of the Ben & Jerry's entrance and you can if you pull up the overall site plan we do show the bike, we show a picture of the bike rack so the lower left corner of the building where it says bike rack that's where we would have the 12 inverted u mounted on a concrete pad I think we only need 12 because each u is 2 spaces all the new ones in one spot the other option would be to split them up and put 6 u's in that bike rack spot and 6 u's in the bike rack the other spot where the bike rack is indicated on the east side of the building off the top of my head the second option to go split them is consistent principal entrances were reasonably practical we will update the plans to reflect the stabilization timelines and topsoil requirements and so the sign shown on the building elevation that we submitted is specific in size and shape we will remove that from those documents and submit a separate sign plan application and then number 9 we will comply with the gates will be configured to be accessible by emergency vehicles express that please do go talk to the fire chief about how to do that we have a very good relationship with him so we definitely will other comments, questions from the board, thank you very much for stepping through those comments comments, questions from the public close that we close site plan application sp 1828 of 30 community drive llc moving second we close this application all in favor say aye thank you very much thank you next on the agenda next on the agenda item number 8 preliminary and final application sd 18-24 of pines housing lb to amend a previously approved plan development consisting of a 184 congregate housing facility and a 104 unit extended stay hotel in two buildings constructing a 2300 square foot building addition for the purpose of expanding the administrative office space for the congregate care facility at 7, ask them to drive who is here for the update final plan application so please raise your right hand we promise the truth will hold truth enough with truth on the penalty of perjury I do thank you very much please describe the project so currently there are some small administrative offices in the basement kind of ground half in level at the pine senior living community which is 185 units of independent senior affordable housing so it's a low income housing tax credit project before we continue conflicts of interest part of summit okay well I've done a lot of work with summit so I don't think I have a conflict you recused yourself do you need to continue to recuse yourself probably yes I shall recuse myself again yes because we're dealing with the solar development so Matt so we are planning to make room for our current employees at work out of the basement of the pines as our management company has sort of its hub there and has for the last 10 years we just want a little more extra space for break room and a bigger conference room and so we decided rather than trying to relocate our office space to just add on to the back of the current comments that are in red starting on page 5 number one so do you want me to read it okay the required the landscaping one the required landscape value for the new building is $8,625 based on 3% of building construction cost of $276,000 the applicant is providing $9,190 in new landscaping staff recommends the board require the applicant to post a landscape bond in the amount of the $9,190 for new landscaping yes I don't know exactly what that means but just say yes just a question is there a reason why they need to put up $9,190 rather than $8,625 if what our requirement is is $8,625 is there a reason they need to put up $600 more I think they're adding some trees above and beyond their minimum requirement to make up for some trees that died or weren't planted some years ago so that number reflects the new plants also when our bond requirement be based on what we're approving so if they're putting in more than what the requirement is that's what's the approved plan my point is if all we require is $8,600 and something dies and they put in more why should they have to replace that thing that died I'm just bringing it up it just seems to me that bonding is just another painful process in South Burlington if they should only really need to bond for $8,600 then why push it this is just a general question it's not aimed specifically at this so this is a little bit different from the last application where we just heard that they only had to do $300 with the landscaping they're going above and beyond just because they want to in this situation $9,160 or less the number represents replacement landscaping for landscaping it was on a previously approved plan as well so ordinarily would it be $86,25 if there wasn't replacement okay very good comment number two yes the board should determine whether to grant a 35 300 square foot temporary 150 square foot permanent impact upon the class 3 wetland buffer on the property for the addition it's all class 3 this is not a change from what was discussed at sketch at all comments from the board I have a point of education for myself for first of all in this particular case what is the impact upon the buffer is eliminated that much buffers being eliminated is that what impact means in this case the 750 feet of permanent impact is the buffer being eliminated 3500 square feet of temporary is going to be put back into a natural state I guess some of it is mode I think you're just referring to the construction yeah but you're not actually impacting the actual class 3 wetlands just the buffer it's only 750 square feet so the consensus of the board is to grant the temporary yes number three staff recommends the board include the acting fire chief's comment as a condition of approval anyone from the public would like to speak regarding this agenda item we heard we're happy with everything we heard okay any other comments from the board before I entertain a motion to close will we close the preliminary and final plan application SD 18 for 24 of Pines housing LP second all in favor say aye those opposed thank you very much alright Corey it's your turn you made it it's not going on it can't be and I have eggs tomorrow two trees was going alright okay we'll take a drink of water until Sue gets back next on the agenda is the continued site plan application SP 1822 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by construction of a 20 by 23 foot addition to an existing 1500 square foot stand a restaurant in 1696 with Wilson Road in Gottfried right there we'll wait until our folks get back sorry conflicts of interest conflicts of interest I enjoyed French toast at the diner it was very very good I appreciate it they do French toast yeah good French toast well I'm trying to remember why this had to be continued trees shading will we solve that riddle we have two trees they don't exactly shade the parking spots but there's two trees so yep the applicant with us and with one of our maintenance guys from DPW to get some suggestions which I thought was a brilliant move and we had the arborist review it and everybody's in agreement that this is the best available way to meet the shade tree requirement the trees are recommended by the city arborist so they'll probably do the best in the areas they're in one other point is that on the top of the page that tree that's proposed there the discussion while I'm sorry I mean I'm sorry I jumped it we should really wait laggard perfect timing so the applicant's gotten two trees on the plan like we requested their city staff including the DPW the site the tree to the north of the plan leaves a funny paved strip between the sidewalk and the tree DPW agrees that the applicant should be allowed to remove that which gives the tree a little bit more breathing room it's not going to cost any extra to remove an extra photo pavement when you've already got the equipment out there and the DPW has agreed to waive the road opening fee to allow them for benefit of all it just doesn't show it on the plan because it's off-property right is that like a permanent thing because my landlord had suggested that maybe making sure we kept it on the property in the future having a problem with South Burlington having an encroachment onto their property that was his concern about doing that it's an encroachment of mulch it's not really anything that we're going to if we need it back at some point we'll just take it back the tree is going to be on your property right right so the tree would be on your property it would just be a little bit more root space and that's fine I don't care I was going to leave it just so we can clarify where the property line everything was everybody be happy but whatever you guys want okay comments, questions from the board you found a solution yeah exactly I'm just blocking the sign from the road we're trying to move it up so it still has adequate systems but not root systems but not getting too close to that drain there but still being able to see the sign because I'd hate to see with all the stuff going on on the road that kind of sticks out and draws the attention with the type of tree that was selected it's like a 30 foot high, 15 foot wide so we'll be doing a lot of trimming but I'm just trying to get it as far away from the sidewalk as possible safely and then we're going to fill it in with perennials and stuff too so it's not just going to be an open spot all the open areas are going to be perennials and stuff a lot of the pictures I showed you over french toes yeah which I have to reveal constitutes ex parte communication so we didn't talk about the plantings and so on but they're very nice pictures so that's why we went down to the two juniper bushes and we left the whole raised bed open because we're going to put all kinds of colors and random perennials and green moss and stuff like that in there and make it look real nice coming from the board coming from the public hearing done I move that we close continued site plant application SP 1822 of Cora Godford we're moving second to close this application all in favor say aye thank you very much go for it appreciate it next on the agenda number 10 preliminary and final application of SD 18-19 of pit scouting properties LLC to construct a two story 54,868 square foot medical office building with 275 parking spaces on 15.07 acres at 194 Tilly Drive we're here for the applicant good evening congratulations so if you will raise your right hand please and do you promise to tell the truth we'll tell you nothing about the truth under penalty of poetry thank you very much please describe the project so Bob can you say your name for the camera yeah it's Bob Bouchard pit scouting properties conflicts of interest my former firm does business with pit scouting direct conflict that's it thank you very much Bob go ahead we were before you're not too long go with sketch now preliminary and final really have not been a lot of changes to the plan 35,000 square feet two stories medical office building 275 parking spaces proposed 15.07 acres prepare to go through staff report okay would you like me to start item number one staff recommends the board whether to require the applicant to improve internal pedestrian safety by the inclusion of pedestrian routes through the parking lot Marla received some sketches some late sketches I apologize but we were trying to respond to the staff reports obviously we received this on Friday but I think we did a pretty good job and the main pedestrian route I'm again I'm guessing based on this language that I think that staff is referring to is from the bulk of the parking lot to the the southeast and that is the pedestrian internal pedestrian route through we I guess we're thinking is the best location it takes you through the bulk of the parking and to the sidewalk at least the front entrance there's a standard regarding pedestrian circulation staff doesn't feel super strongly that this is an absolute must more that the board take a look at it so maybe we can flip to the overall site plan and sort of think about it on an overall basis and whether we should have the applicant to make this change or not specifically the change would be what can someone point it out so it's yeah again you know these comments were kind of thrown at us the last minute what is the standard so the standard is the desirable transition from structure to site from structure to structure and to provide for adequate planting safe pedestrian movement in adequate parking areas what you've proposed Bob is a way to get across an island from a standard parking area right are there better ideas did staff have did you think of walking trails through the parking area no nothing crazy just looking at it it's a lot of parking as the board discussed during sketch it's a big parking area and sort of having as a driver which you all know I don't do very often it's nice to know where to expect pedestrians rather than having them come at you from everywhere like you're in front of her so that was sort of the thinking there so having a designated route and sort of funneling people to that one crossing anywhere might help a lot I think that proposed location does seem to line up with the sidewalk you lost a couple parking spaces in doing that we did adequate for it's medical office it's adequate we'll be okay we're going to have to request a waiver well I mean that's going for the pedestrian movement we haven't even addressed the issue of the staff coming and parking them in the front of the building correct correct we'll address that now since we're discussing the overall happy to so right now they have exactly before the change shown in red they have exactly the minimum number of parking spaces so there's plenty of waiver available but typically I know all of our discussions have always been even the minimum requirement isn't enough for what you guys need so we're always battling that always a struggle no question Mark right so we can put more pavement in but we also recognize operating the building we don't want spilling out onto the access drive I don't think that's going to be an issue I don't think losing two or potentially five spaces is going to be a problem okay but perhaps we can talk about that next item which is item number two staff recommends the board require the applicant to relocate the parking spaces located to the front of the building or to replace them with accessible parking spaces comply with these criteria or remove them and request a small waiver to provide slightly fewer than required minimum number of parking spaces again Friday I received this this plan really hasn't changed from sketch this application has been in for a month and a half and we realize that we've got some parking spaces in the front yard now I'm not quite sure Marla and I did not have an opportunity to speak on this item specifically I'm not quite sure how the park yard was established I'm guessing probably a point was established at the cul-de-sac and maybe a protractor was used to create a radius am I right Marla yeah I took the line that you had as your setback and I just drew it in an electronic copy and I moved it so those three spaces right in the front that she's referring to are part of our electric vehicle parking spaces that's where the electrical vehicle charging stations are I don't wish to swap those out for handicap spaces that was one of the options I think that's I don't think that's a great idea we'd like to keep handicap spaces as close to the front entrance as possible especially for medical office space those are used a lot so we don't we don't wish to do that so I would I would like to keep those spaces as is if the board feels otherwise we will eliminate those three spaces and I will shift I need nine electrical vehicle charging station spots and I will simply shift them further to the south and eliminate those three spaces if that the board instructs us to do I mean we're allowed handicap accessible spaces in the front yard but there's nothing in the code that provides for vehicle charging okay so it sounds like our hands are kind of tied on that did you have any suggestions for what we might be applicable I mean what we need to do is we need to come up with a scenario in which the board approves something that's allowed by the standards I don't think we begrudge you the three spaces can we allow the handicap spaces to be electric vehicle can we add three electric vehicle three handicap spaces more than normal and have them place them as electric vehicle spaces they're hybrid hybrid spaces I don't know spaces wouldn't comply with Americans with Disabilities Act I'd hate to restrict the use to only allowing but electrical vehicle charging stations for people that are handicapped what if someone was a handicap sicker and a Tesla wants to park and they're parking in the handicap spot but they can't plug in to charge the good point Mark Tesla's can't do anything but then it should have evolved I mean the point is that can he add three handicapped spaces and keep those spaces I'm just asking that that's a possibility yes you could have three more handicapped spaces but it would have to be those three spaces that are in the front yard and there are long ways away from the engines nobody's going to use them no one wants to use them just assume eliminate them and request request a five space waiver just move those three to the other side that's what we'll do exactly Marlowe this is a great idea though to add electric vehicle spaces as one of the we've got the whole issue yeah I think just out of curiosity I mean what is unique about electric I mean why is that a great idea because they're coming at us fast and these are going to be spaces that are often held vacant for an electric vehicle so here's a spot where it's if you have to have an extra couple of spaces because you're choosing to be a good neighbor and have electric vehicle charging this is a good excuse for it you know you can disagree Frank but that's my take I disagree it's not unusual comment number three please three staff recommends the board require the app can provide detail on dumpster screening prior to closing the hearing Marlowe's got another sketch from me how is that not part of your standard package of details that was an omission that detail should have been on the detail sheet chain link fence with black screen lighting in it that's what we're going to have plus we'll get to the landscape plan here in a moment plus there's as well except for the front where the gate is we're good on that for staff recommends the board require the applicant to include curbing on the islands staff considers this to be a condition of approval and I'm simply going to note here saying okay but could you please share Marla specifically because we're happy to put curbing I think maybe there was a couple spots we did not and I was wondering if you could identify those for me so the standard and I think I confused it by using the word islands the standard is all interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection treatment area for management and storm water runoff the west and south areas do not appear to have curbing unless I'm reading the plan around so the perimeter of the west and south not the islands yep there so that unless needed for storm water runoff well I can right where you've got the icon right no right there yes exactly mark we can curb that have a tree in there and then where the pedestrian path is that connects the buildings we'll make sure that is curbed you're asking me to put a curb that full length of the parking lot that's why I was unclear with the note I didn't understand what you're asking for what's it bagging up against I mean if there's not a curb there what's there are you not using that to dissipate storm water sure storm water snow removal the grading is pitched towards the center of the yep it's pitched a curb would not impede storm water they are proposing snow storage in that area so the general the general purpose of this standard is to protect landscaping I mean this is under I believe this is under the landscape section so if the board doesn't feel like it's needed to protect landscaping that's fine I know on a recent application we had the applicant put in some landscape boulders so that it wasn't a curb it was just a way to keep cars from driving over the lip there's some creative options available or we could just say we don't feel like the landscaping there needs to be protected do you want to flip open the landscape well before you do I think you can point out obviously that there's a substantial amount of curbing on the site and in some areas where we can eliminate it we choose to try and do that so you can have some natural but I mean if it's the board's desire that we curb literally 95% of this site I don't see where you put snow storage except for where you have identified and you don't want to be pushing it through curb so I don't have a problem can I ask Marla do we have the flexibility though to aid them that shall be protected by curbing and usually shell is context where is the authority to relax that statement shall be to protect landscaping I guess the question would be the intent is it so that you don't get spill over parking into grassed areas to protect landscaping because I can't imagine you're going to you know run into areas where people are overlapping their parking space and starting to encroach into the grassed area sorry say that again I don't envision by not having a curb people are going to be pulling BL on their parking into the grass I guess the question would be the intent of the regulation is it to curb a parking so that people don't drive out and start expanding the parking you know lot into grass landscaping drive over the roots of the tree and come back to soil so it's just you can imagine an island if there was no protection people could just drive over the roots and come back to soil and kill the tree obviously we have a substantial investment in landscaping raised right the last thing we want to do is jeopardize these trees because then we're out there replacing them the question is the adjacent building with the adjacent does not have curbing on it and the authority to to waive this comes from the unless clause unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for the natural stormwater runoff so it sounds like if this is part of a stormwater plan? it's not as Marla mentioned it's pitching away but this is where there's snow storage Mark's point about it being the intent to be protecting the landscaping I don't know how you discern intent I mean we're sitting here trying to interpret what the planning commission meant when it adopted this typically when you're interpreting laws and you're looking at intent you have to go back and kind of find the debates and find statements of purpose and I think they must have intended this so that's a bad precedent that's kind of whiskey so I don't mean this sarcastically at all I mean this is a genuine question just the fact that it's in the landscaping section carry weight in that I read it the same way Brian does I mean it might but again the planning commission chose to make this language mandatory it could have said mind or may they could have left other escape clauses they did and it's got the exception written in explicitly fortunately this project doesn't meet the terms of the exception one question I have is has the regulations changed from the previous project that we approved which did not have curbing on it I don't know we have to research it we have to research it they're always changing I don't know we're happy to do whatever the board would like us to do in the end but you can appreciate that having to curbing around every bit of landscaping you put on a site seems to be extreme it's our job to uphold the regulations I'm more concerned but the fact that you're basically creating a park a building park so you have a parking lot directly on the other side that does not have curbs and you're going to put it as part of the same common island and you have curbs on one side not that it's a concern per se but it's more of like it doesn't make sense to me but if we don't have the authority to wave it I don't think we do we do either trust me we had many a meeting where we discussed should and shall to the point where we had legal opinion and to give us direction and shall is not something we can wave unless there is a specific reason that gives us the authority to can you pitch the driveway the other way regrade the whole site so it goes in there but it's cheaper than curbing I think you have to curb it not a problem we can we can do that all the sarcastic that storm water is going to the same place anyway I'm sorry Marlon there's a ditch there and the storm water you're going into catch basin to there or to the ditch into the same place so anyway it's not like a sarcastic comment but it actually would work okay item five staff recommends the board accept the applicants that's okay applicants propose spacing as it meets the goal of this criteria to provide shade and reduce glare by supporting healthier trees Marlon knows that we've spoken with the city arborist Craig Lambert with regards to swapping out some species of trees we've implemented some accolade alms that he wanted to see so late this afternoon I sent a revised another revised plan to Marlon operating those the accolade alms that Craig wanted to see so that's not a problem item six however is another item and I'm not sure that the board can help me with this or not staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide the required minimum landscape value in trees and shrubs keep that comment in mind trees and shrubs staff recommends the board accept the site pavers and landscape walls as contributing towards the minimum landscape value the undeveloped portion of the site is relatively well developed though staff considers additional trees to screen the parking area from the interstate as described in section 13.06-7 may present an opportunity to make up the required landscape value so as noted above we have an excess of $80,000 worth of landscaping budget items good portion of that if we can go to the landscaping plan Marlon that would be great is the open space parks that we wanted to create we've got a nice seating area right north of the front entrance right there no that's a transformer sorry you might be able to sit on it but right down from that right there you got it right, thank you so that's a some nice benches nicely landscaped pavers, trees, perennials a nice rock wall ornamental grasses and what I'm being told is that the perennials and ornamental grasses do not count towards my landscaping budget I've spoken with Craig Lambert he has prepared a letter for me saying and I've sent this on to Marla that he's revisited the landscaping plan and thinks the use of the perennials and ornamental grasses would provide a nice accent to the landscape plan since it is such a small portion of the overall landscape expenditure I think it should be included as part of your landscape budget so if it was not accepted that we can include about $4,000 of perennials and ornamental grasses those will be removed and I'm not going to go over $80,000 that's a big budget as it is so that really is a detriment to this lovely seeding area and we'll just add $4,000 with the trees but again if you look at the landscape plan there's a lot of trees that we planted out there I'm a big fan of ornamental grasses and perennials so what's the rationale for not including them I think the rationale is that in the wintertime those grasses and those perennial flowers are not visible they don't do anything whereas shrubs and trees are there in the wintertime and provide some landscaping so that's the reason plus to my knowledge the board has not ever approved perennials and grasses to count towards the landscaping requirement most of the shrubs can be put in so under landscaping requirements paragraph A so it says landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and perennials if these perennials are in bloom or they weren't leafed out or functioning as a ground cover during the winter would that allow us to include them I don't think so we never have approved that I mean one could argue that lawn is ground cover and no one has ever asked have we ever approved a lawn the cost of putting in a lawn to count towards their minimum landscaping requirement soil of anything but an item like this was approved for a recent project we had Barlow Brook apartments we had an extensive amount of perennials and ornamental grasses there and Craig Lambert also felt that those should be counted towards the landscape budget and the DRB approved it I did the look at the landscape plan Brian I'm sorry to me if there's any way they can be considered ground cover I'd be in favor of that and I would agree with that which is I don't really know what a seed is or the ground in the winter though I could I mean I would argue ornamental grasses often are left up over winter to get that nice sort of brush look or you cut them down in the fall one of the two I would also argue that often times ornamental grasses are more annuals than perennials in Vermont from the amount I have to replace every year anybody seeing the Barlow Brook project yeah no I I think it would be a nice accent to this location and it would be a shame that you're not going to add $4,000 more of trees elsewhere you'll just get rid of them here and put the 4,000 trees somewhere else there are certain perennials though that do function as ground cover could they be substituted for what's in the landscape budget yes I would get rid of the grasses though I would I'll go whichever way the board does I don't feel that strongly about it but I think whatever mix they've planned I have a slight bias because as Bob knows I'm a big fan of something they did down the street I would trust their plan as a mix if we can allow it at all I wouldn't try to dictate perennials versus grass as I just let them do it but how much does the board value that precedent versus that's all it's a big deal for the board to change precedent like this so except it sounds like we've already established precedent but did we establish it erroneously in going against regulations and just kind of so it looks pretty I think the only downside is the more often you do this the more requests you're going to get in the future and you're going to keep pointing out all these different projects where you prove all these perennials I guess the other question is is the site adequate landscaped already without these and therefore because we've had issues where we've said you're just trying to find a place to throw the extra landscaping budget I try to give an accurate value of the project I always do we have to do it through all of our state permits anyways so I try and give an accurate value and this is where we come out with the landscape budget it's a big number as Marla knows we were actually fighting for a while that trees were too close together so I don't see the problem of having to do it over and over again as a problem I mean if it works and the value is there it's not like he's saying we want to do it to knock off a few bucks they're just spending the money and ground cover has value beyond just the aesthetics it protects soil from eroding it stops weeds from infiltrating a lot of the species I've seen stay green during the winter maybe the planning commission should consider an amendment and maybe they would put a percentage maximum percentage of 10% of some number in perennials and grasses the idea that not allowing ornamental grasses and perennials is part of the landscaping budget for an overall project if you don't allow them they're not going to go in and that's removing the diversity of the landscaping plan that we see here if you sort of say we're going to draw a line in the sand and say nope, can't do it we're going to lose that we're just going to get a few more trees and shrubs someone's going to come in and want to do 100% perennials and grasses that's why you should would it be fair to say summarizing this criteria for the decision that in this case because the site on an overall basis is well landscaped with a mix of woody vegetation and perennials and grasses just because that way we're careful to avoid saying they can do it and we're not setting up precedent for future projects I think we should throw it out to the planning commission that they should change the regulations to allow us to look at it to have a percentage mix you're right, we don't want to see an entire site that has no trees and shrubs or anything because they've done all perennials and ornamented grasses good, I like that moving on to number 7 7, staff recommends the board require the applicant to resolve the issues identified above prior to closing the hearing the above is pursuant to an email we received from David Wheeler with the city stormwater division I guess I'd like to start out by asking a question and I'm not sure that the board knows the answer to this I'm not even sure that staff knows the answer and that is are the city's stormwater regulations more stringent than the state's stormwater regulations? significant difference in that the state regulations require 12 or 24 hour detention of the one year storm while the city's requirements require peak flow attenuation of the one year storm I don't know what that means it's just the standard is different for the one year storm otherwise the standard is the same well I don't know if the board has had an opportunity to read the items that were identified here by Mr. Wheeler but item number one states that he understands that we need state stormwater permits which we do operational stormwater permit construction general permit from the state of Vermont as the board probably realizes those are extensive they're big permits and they require a lot of time and a lot of effort from my office and our engineers so when the city's stormwater department turns around and asks me for literally the same information that I am preparing for the state I get a little aggravated but nevertheless I think our engineer made a yeoman's effort to prepare the documents in excess of 120 pages worth of documents and support were then sent to David Wheeler answering the questions that he had here I have not heard back from David the information was just sent to him so I'm just stating the fact we're complying with all of his questions everyone we've responded to with this package so I guess in the end I don't have a problem I shouldn't say I do have a problem but I'm responding anyways there's no reason we can't approve this with a criteria that Pizzi Galli will go and get their state stormwater permit can't close without resolution I don't see why that's the case it doesn't seem I'm no expert on this questions would revise the plan that the plan is probably going to look the same it seems like providing information to confirm can we ask Bob that question what was the result of answering these questions is it basically like we need all these things and we don't need to change anything on the plan I think David's biggest concern was are you trying to do infiltration we can't do infiltration because of the high water table conditions so we're utilizing the ponds and that's all the information that we've given him so nothing's changing I'd like to go back to John's suggestion which makes a lot of sense it seems to me that the only reason for the existence of the city regulation is that the city has decided that it's going to regulate if impervious exceeds half an acre as opposed to the state standard of one acre otherwise it's substantially the same standards therefore it would seem to me that we could conclude that satisfying the state we could deem this provision satisfied by satisfaction of the state standard by getting the state permit so compliance with the state standards because that one standard is different does not necessarily represent compliance with the city standards in all cases what is the significance what is the difference during the one I'm struggling because I want to make sure I explain this in a way that members of the board are going to understand it I spent a lot like nine years of my life studying this stuff you've got a one year storm you've got a one year storm and you either want to make sure it comes out slowly which is the state standard or that the peak rate is no higher than existing conditions so you either want to detain it for basically keeping the flow consistent in the stream or you want to detain it so that you don't have a big flush that erodes the stream well but if you unless I misunderstand if you meet the former standard haven't you episode facto met the latter standard I have designed sites that have met one but not the other yeah but which in other words if it meets the state standard which is going slow doesn't it automatically meet the peak flow standard no it had a low peak flow you can you can sort of massage the state standard to allow a very short duration and a long average which would not meet the city standards so but would that okay then let's but what the applicant is saying is that they do meet both in this case and it's not a problem okay so but from our standpoint we could say the applicant shall demonstrate that he meets the peak flow standards of the city regulations and shall produce a state permit and under those circumstances the requirement will be satisfied no I guess I would be concerned about that if in order to do that they had to change the plan because the board approves the plan but in this case it sounds like they don't need to change the plan I'm talking about this case and then I agree with you I work for you that's fine okay number eight staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the bicycle parking to meet short and long term requirements including spacing and security requirements of section 13.14 the model could go to the additional detail attachment there so we were short on our number of bike racks there they are interior so for a new building there's a long term storage requirement as well typically applicants choose to meet it on an interior space but you don't have to okay so where are you going to meet your long term requirements requirements outside is unacceptable so there's different standards for interior and exterior on the revised things you have four and two so you have your six short term parking spaces or you have six you have 12 short term parking spaces there's also six long term parking spaces required so where are those met could you go back to the plan model no no back to the detail you simply want us to identify one of those areas of bike racks as long term so okay no the requirement describing the staff comments is 11 short term spaces and six long term spaces what I see on that plan is 12 short term spaces so what's the total you're looking for Marla 11 short term plus six long term 17 so the requirements for the long term are slightly different than the requirements for the short term there are three options I think at least in the regulations I can read them for non residential buildings this is for long term storage secure storage in bicycle locker bicycle storage room or enclosure that protects entire bicycle including components and accessories against theft and weather where indicated in table 1311 closed locker shall be lockable with following dimensions secure office space may account for up to 50% of the required indoor parking areas and lockers and shower and changing facilities dependent on the number of bicycles required to be stored as indicated in table 1310 so that's kind of the description of long term storage for non residential buildings we need six long term storage that right Marla yes an 11 short term it's all internal to the building just needs to provide the information that's what I had asked so it is an internal thing the requirement is that you have internal secured parking it could be like a shed other people have done like a shed or lockers or something but yes most people choose to do it internal wouldn't do that not for this building nobody wants to see a shed out here nobody wants to see lean to or anything on the side of this you know $7 million building we will put six long term secured parking spaces for bikes inside the building and what you have now on this plan that meets the short term requirements that's good there so you just want a commitment from me because I can't really show it on a site plan we will have six long term internal secured parking spaces so commit excuse me Marla what's a long term bicycle space as opposed to a short term so may I just read the description of the long term bicycle space what the criteria are read it again I don't think that it's defined as the duration is defined as how the bicycles are stored I didn't write it overnight I don't think they define what long term is it's defined by how the bicycles are stored exactly secure storage in a room or enclosure it protects the bicycles including components and accessories against theft and weather so you could park at the long term lot at the airport for an hour and it's still a long term lot you could put your bike in the long term bicycle storage for an hour and it's still a long term bicycle storage space I understand what you're saying number nine Bill is that acceptable thank you number nine does the board adopt this criteria as a condition of approval that is with regards to the Marla I'm hoping you can identify for me on the site plan of which light pole you are specifically referencing I wasn't able to find the material for the poles anywhere on the plan well I'm happy to commit that it will reflect a powder coat finish with an aluminum pole if that's acceptable that's not a problem do you want to commit to that as a condition yes sure we'll have to do that that's what they are great and then you've got your staff recommended the board require the applicant to relocate this pole from compliance with the criteria and that's the one I guess I was hoping you could show me which pole you're referring to because if it's the one I think it is that's about 15 feet off the driveway I'm not really sure it's in danger of being hit but that one's fine if it goes out to the road all the way so we can pan up a little bit yep so oh too far does it show I think you have to go to sheet one of the application package there's one on the curve oh too far let me just zoom in on my screen here so that's the standard is about the outside of a curve that's you're right there's not a curve right there that's on the other side of the sidewalk 13 feet off the road but what I can do is I can put that on a higher concrete base show them the detail that I sent to you so the applicant had two light pole types one that was on two foot base around these leaves and landscape areas I guess light pole base you know if the board doesn't feel like it's if the board feels like the standard isn't that thing that it's not you know location where vehicles may make sharp turns then we don't have to have them change anything there's a shell and there's a show there there's shall not be where vehicles make sharp turns so there's no discussion of that but should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes so there is judgment that we can exercise in that regard well and in the definition of sharp yeah this is not a sharp turn this is barely a turn where's this? right here it's right there it's I don't know 15 degree turn or something like I said we can put it up on the image to the right that I showed you there instead of being flush we'll just have it stick up two feet that's it for me, you guys good? everybody okay? okay number 11? that's it there is no number 11 two foot base that's it comments questions from the board? hearing none, comments questions from the public yes please I just wanted to ask a question about the property and I think this is a galley home and what is the building that is going to be built and what is the building going to be built for? we'll have this building if you can ask the rest of the questions I'd like you to respond to the building the building would be owned by Petsigalli properties and currently the building is proposed to be occupied by the University of Vermont Medical Center and we're not sure of the uses yet we do not have the users have not been identified sorry you don't have any construction footprint or anything like that because you don't know what's going to be built for you is that correct? that's correct so you don't know what's going to be built do you know when the construction is going to start? ideally next spring spring of 2019 and when is it predicted to be finished? probably spring of 2020 so a year later yeah and so is UDMC going to be leasing this property or excuse me this is not building or have they purchased it? as I mentioned Petsigalli properties is the property owner Petsigalli properties will own the building okay so then UMMC will be leasing it then is that correct? I think I should be addressing the board sorry please identify yourself I'm sorry through the camera Diane Zeller I'm a resident in South Burlington great thank you very much and so if you're going to be starting a building in less than a year why don't you know what's going in there so in order to construct what to construct inside a building is that the purview of this board? do we have a we don't have the authority to require that of the applicant we approve a use and he's proposing a medical office use we don't review or require an applicant to say who's going to be you know leasing it occupying it he's building a building and he's identified as medical use we review an application against the requirements of a medical office use you know who would want to find that information out from them? not typically public but we will be filing just FYI we will be filing for the fit up permits for what permits I'm sorry the space up to fit the space up fit up that requires another building permit from the city okay so any more comments from the public on this item? hearing none is there a motion to close? that we close preliminary final plan application SD1819 if it's a galley property we'll see second in favor say aye thank you very much thank you very much last item on the agenda second third last continuous guest application SD18-16 of RL valley incorporated to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of expanded service station with four additional fueling stations for a total of 12 and associated 9,000 4-foot retail sales building 793 and 907 Shelburne Road who is here for the applicant? can I interrupt for a second? sorry I didn't think of this earlier but since the minutes take like one minute do we want to do the minutes so Brian can just leave? oh yes thank you I mean I know it's my first meeting I've been here with I would never have asked for that but since you offered Brian a good beer and come back there may be a law about open containers no we're the law here we're the law on these parts okay so we all have chance to review the minutes of June 19th, 2018 anyone have any corrections? I move that we approve the minutes of June 19th, 2018 moving second we'll keep the message June 18th, 2018 all in favor say aye thank you enjoy thank you well thank you again Marla board members for your consideration do we close any items that we're going to deliberate on afters? we don't have any drafts no other excuses to keep you're trying real hard it's hard alright so this is a continuation of June 5th, 2018 with the sketch plan application so we have continued to allow the applicant to address some of the concerns discussed in the staff comments so I'm John Anderson and I guess I've been elected as the primary spokesperson with me is Skip Balli who is are you the president and CEO? CEO, yes and Chris Gallapo who is the project engineer I will try given especially given the hour I will try to not repeat where we got to at the last meeting we were here about a month ago I think we stated as a goal at that time and I will restate that goal but the purpose we appreciate hearing us for sketch plan the purpose is that there are many issues that can be resolved or not without addressing traffic the if we if the management of RL Valley it would like to be have some level of comfort that we can address all of the issues except traffic before the RL Valley makes the sizeable investment that's going to be necessary to address the traffic issue and so we are trying to use this process for that purpose and so I think we got many of the issues we you know Skip's brother Tim was here the last time Skip's here now they'll either get a level of comfort or not as most of the issues at the last meeting the so I will simply focus on the open issues I think the what we think are the open issues if other people have open issues great but we think that one of the open issues was the amount of pervious or open space that will be needed we have gone back and submitted to you a plan at the last meeting we discussed gee we think that the technical requirement is that we have a certain amount of pervious surface or impervious surface pervious surface 30% we think we can achieve that with pervious pavers but I think the board said no we also we believe that there is a requirement for open space so we went back and we have submitted a plan that has 30% open space that plan I should point out does not include some of the open space that shown would not be technically described as being pervious because it underneath some of that space is a gas tank but to the extent that so if you require us to have 30% open space here's how we would do it if you require us to have 30% pervious surface we would do it in another way and that would be that we would have what showing is sort of gray on there would be would be pervious pavers if you require us to do both then we would then we would address both issues but in any event we think we can address we have another issue that was raised was how do you deal with the issue of parking between the building and the street and you also wanted to see what a building would look like and I think you wanted us to show you a good looking building we have this is an architect design one of a kind building we think it would be a good looking building in addition we believe that we have brought out the front of the building so that parking that would otherwise be between the building and the street is within the building a building in south burlington is defined as a structure that has a roof and columns for support and so we believe that the large that we have out front is a building and the parking spaces are behind the front of that building we have arrow valley spends a lot of time figuring out how to put a site together it is not easy in some cases I'm familiar with cases where we've looked at these 50 different designs for a site before we were able to settle on a design that worked arrow valley has has looked at this they've tried to figure out how to address the many competing concerns to build a to build this site and we think the building is where it needs to be we don't think that there's another way to locate the building so that without creating other problems that I cited in the cover letter that we provided to you we've also provided the we've provided a number of elevations for the proposed building you want to see what the building would look like we provided the elevations and in addition there is some discussion about whether we would what we need to do to comply with the PUD requirements so far we are trying to preserve the option of having a PUD application when the time comes but and so we are we believe that we satisfy the conditions for PUD approval that are stated in the ordinance there is some question though as to whether we must also satisfy the purpose section of the ordinance even though the purpose section is not stated as one of the tests that you apply in determining whether we get PUD approval and the that purpose section outlines a number of you know is it creative use of the land we think it's creative and we think it satisfies the purpose section as well but regardless of whether it satisfies the purpose section we don't think we need to satisfy the purpose section we believe that we can satisfy the specific criteria that we have to satisfy in order for PUD to be approved so that is our summary of where we are oh yeah we also we originally we showed a building we contemplated a building that would have two floors and the bottom floor would be built to be useful we still need to build the structure the structure is in effect serving as a retaining wall almost there is about a story of difference between the back of the site and the front of the site but we have no we're not suggesting that we would that it would be anything but an unfinished cellar at this point and we frankly we don't have enough space on the site to provide parking if we were to finish the cellar so we can stay within the coverage ratio so we recognize that reality and just said we'll give up on the plan for the possibility of having something on the lower level everything? okay so that's our summary you know I didn't want to repeat what we said before I hope I was brief and concise and not confusing because Frank's looking at me well I'm looking at you because I don't agree with your definition of a building I think it's just not correct second sentence of the definition of building in the regulation says the connection of two buildings by means of an open porch, breezeway, passageway, carport or other such open structure with or without a roof shall not be deemed to make them one building, building shall be a building etc to me if you read the entire definition the clear intent is that an open structure is not a building you've got a carport it's not part of the building well the definition of building the first sentence is a structure having a roof supported by columns or walls a structure of persons, animals or equipment, goods or materials of any kind right which is why I read the second sentence I've been taught that you read the whole thing the only way to reconcile the first sentence with the second sentence is to infer that a building is enclosed well I would disagree with you I think the second sentence says that if you have a bridgeway in between you still have two buildings it says a breezeway or a carport in other words a thing with a roof and supports is not a building you know how is the carport between two buildings any different than the carport in front of the building what you have is a carport I think in the particular instance of something that stretches between two buildings this says that does not make it one building I think the ability has to be enclosed when you read the definition in its entirety we may disagree and if we I will also say that there is a second way to approve the design and that is that you can approve the design by allowing us by recognizing that we have a utility easement a huge utility easement that applies to that particular site and only that particular site it's the Champlain Water District easement and second of all the huge difference in height between the back of the site and the front of the site we believe that those two there are two ways to approve the building the way we've proposed it one is the way we stated that we think that's a building the other is to recognize that we have that this site is a funny site and with the a special site with the easement, the water easement and also the huge difference in height therefore to waive the requirement which is a discretionary matter so CVS is our point to you know we have that thing that we allowed to be considered a building on the side you know which is basically a kind of canopy you know I wish private margins were clearly not what I thought they were in the pharmaceutical business I thought they would have kept that green space there in an immaculate shape but it ain't there yeah it's a little bit of a disgrace on television I said that good so there is a precedent for some kind of open structure being used as a building because we allowed that to be the structure behind which parking occurred so this is not exactly that you know it is just kind of a stick out over the front of the building but so I think there is legitimate disagreement on that so I'm happy to allow that I just want to add there is a definition of building coverage which would support I think Frank's position that the covered porch does not consider building building coverage requires it to have exterior walls so building coverage is the ratio of the horizontal area measured from the exterior surface of the exterior walls of the ground floor of all principal and accessory buildings so this one porch does not have an exterior wall if it would not count towards building coverage so if it's not building coverage is it a building so again to the CVS experiment you know so we allowed that to go so Camel's nose is a little bit inside the tent so there will be a disagreement on this well there is a difference between columns and brick and it is not parked underneath it is intended to act as a building to be in front of the parking this is the parking is still clearly visible from the front you know I think you can see past the my daughter and I laugh about this all the time with the CVS thing because you can clearly see the parking through it but the concept is there the structure was built it does dissipate the view through it and that was the intent this does not do any of that and how you get around it listen I don't agree with this rule I don't agree with the LDRs related to this but this is the LDRs and it's a shall not of may you can't park in the front of the buildings if I could also just comment the building coverage has that specific definition if you go down to building footprint that's the area of land physically occupied by a building on the ground including any deck, porch or other apartment structure attached to the building surely attached to the land in order to be a footprint excuse me? surely attached to the land in order to be a footprint including any deck, porch or other apartment structure attached to the building that can't just be that can't just be a projecting roof to be a footprint but look I don't want to get into an argument with you because ultimately you're at the judge right so there's another way to approve this if you I think it works under either one all we want to do is make it work under one either one if it doesn't then there's a possibility that there will be no project now we had six concerns, six categories of concerns in the June 5th DRB item overall site coverage I think you've addressed that nonconformity is one that I think we need to cover traffic we want to put aside until we get through this relationship to comprehensive plan parking and applicability of PUD designation and you have dealt with that and we're open to discussing that nonconformity is the one and parking is the one we were just talking about so nonconformity is the one that I think is still a problem I think that that's the one where you should walk through the logic again because we have a disagreement over whether it's an expansion of an existing use which is going from 8 to 12 stations or whether it is a conversion of a use from the motel to a convenience store retail set so we had a philosophical difference and I don't know how technical it is but there's that difference in nonconformity and I think that's one that we have it resolved I understand that the nonconformity issue arises with respect to the gas station property and we believe that on that today the entirety of that property is used as a gas station or whatever the service station gas station not the motel the grocery store that we're going to put in is a conforming use it's the lot it's the lot where the gas station is the gas station is not a nonconforming use we believe that the entirety of that lot is used for a gas station so the entirety of the lot is nonconforming we are proposing to continue to use the entirety of the lot as a nonconforming use there is a question though as to whether or not we can have a structure that serves a nonconforming use on the property and we pointed out that we are reducing the amount of structure that is nonconforming and but in addition as I recall there was an allowance and I apologize I don't have the specifics but I think it was a dollar figure that we could invest in the additional how much we could add to the nonconforming structure and I think it was in the range of $100,000 and we came to the conclusion $125,000 we came to the conclusion that what we're adding as well within that amount of money so there are two nonconforming uses one is the area of land we're not changing that in any way, shape or form the other is can we move structures around we think we've got $125,000 limit on that and we're well within that that's part of the issue if you want to talk about the definition so we can I can talk about it or you can talk about it the other part of the issue is the nonconforming use as opposed to the nonconforming structure I just don't want to let that one is nonconforming use one is nonconforming structure we think the entirety of the use is nonconforming today and it will be nonconforming when we're under our proposal there was a discussion as to whether the amount of car repairs the type of car repairs that are being done is so sensitive that this is not a gas station service station but a car repair place I had interviewed Skip Hochmer in preparation for the last hearing I reported what he said you don't have to rely on what I reported he's here tonight I think if you're welcome to ask him but he simply confirmed we met before the meeting he confirmed that the any all of the car repairs that are done on site are minor car repairs of a type that are fall into the service station use not major repairs that fall into the car repair use and I hope I've got the definitions the names right I may not have them exactly right but I think I got them and then the other portion of it was there's a prohibition in the standards on the building or the use on expanding a non-conforming building or use so if they're proposing to expand a non-conforming use that is expressly prohibited our position that was discussed at the last hearing is expanding from 8 pumps to 12 pumps was an expansion sorry not pumps fueling stations right from 8 fueling positions to 12 fueling positions was an expansion of a non-conforming use what we pointed out was that every indicia of of how you measure whether something is being whether the use is being expanded or not go to square footage and the area of land or building that are being considered they do not go to the amount of traffic that might be generated and if you start looking at traffic that might be generated then you're as to whether that's a change of use then you get into all kinds of gradations as to there are different traffic numbers that are generated according to the ITE depending on what kind of office you have or what kind of store you have so if you get into issues about whether you're changing the use based on traffic generation then you will I've never seen traffic generation use to define whether or not you're changing the use I've seen it used to define how you address traffic generation but I've never seen it used to define whether you're changing the use you might have a store a commercial store depending on what you use the commercial store for you may have different traffic numbers but I've never seen people say well because you have different traffic numbers for one kind of store one that sells sneakers one that sells groceries therefore that's a difference in use and I don't think that's in your ordinance there is no indicia of traffic generation if you look at the things that are used to measure changes of use in your ordinance they do not go to amounts of traffic generation so sticking strictly with square footage so the argument that I heard last time was that even though we're expanding the square footage by expanding the number of fueling stations from 8 to 12 that because the convenience store is not part of that that we were actually and we were demolishing the building that is the so we're actually decreasing the square footage devoted to the nonconforming use that I think was the argument we are decreasing the amount of structure the square footage of the structure that is being devoted to the nonconforming use yes right so a few moments ago I thought I heard you say and I perhaps out of context or something I thought you were saying that the whole thing is being looked at as a service station convenience store plus fueling stations it's just a service station so that would argue against and so maybe I misheard that maybe it's out of context and maybe having maybe I heard in a different context I'm trying to conflate the two and it doesn't work but anyway that would argue that this is in fact an expansion of a nonconforming use because the square footage I apologize if I wasn't clear I this is I'm reaching back a month so I may not have the terms exactly right but there's a service station use the service station use includes the possibility of selling convenience items a small amount of convenience items on the site Mr. Hockmer has sold a small amount of convenience items on the site but we think that the amount he has sold is so small that it is a service station use in addition he has done car repairs on the site but again a service station use allows you to do minor car repairs if you know changing the battery doing doing inspections those various things we think that what he's been doing also qualifies as a service station use so we believe that the entirety of that law has been used as a service station use and we would propose to keep using that as a service not the motel and now the motel the motel is going to be a grocery store use convenience store a grocery store a retail store includes convenience store but we don't have we're not selling convenience items on the gas station law but you are selling fuel and you're going to take cash at times right there is a we're going to take cash yes there's also an office use where to do the service station we need the convenience store building and the convenience store building is there's also an allowed service in this area which is an office use and so the convenience store building will serve as as an office if you if you think about it we have you're trying to stretch stretch stretch stretch I get that but you're up against a wall here in so many ways I'm trying to interpret the ordinance as it's written the best possible light for you I get that I'm having a hard time getting there you want us to kind of ignore the obvious if this is a retail store let's suppose a hypothetical that we had a retail store that was a nonconforming use and it was a thousand square feet and it was a nonconforming use hypothetically and you wanted to add 200 square feet that would be an expansion of a nonconforming use here what you're doing accepting your argument about you know hypothetically or for the sake of the argument about the nature of the building what you're doing here is selling gasoline out of what four pumps and now you want to sell gasoline out of eight pumps that's the primary function of this site you're expanding the use under any common sense understanding of what it means what language means we're not we're changing the I don't care about the building I'm trying to focus on really what's going on we're changing the product mix okay the product mix has today has gasoline sales and it has car repair minor car repairs when we the product mix occupies 100% of the site when we go forward if we go forward then the product mix will be more gasoline sales and it will be less car repair but that those those two things still qualify as a service station use we're simply changing the product mix it's an expanded service station use yeah I mean you're expanding your non-conforming use the area of the non-conforming use you're going from eight fueling stations to 12 without saying you're not expanding your non-conforming use because I'm not expanding the area he's demolishing a smaller building and building a much larger building so you're expanding your fueling stations expanding your I'm demolishing a building and building a canopy right adding to the canopy an area that is smaller than the building right but you're also constructing a 4500 square foot facility in support of that non-conforming use I'm constructing a conforming use on another you're selling gas out of that conforming use I'm taking money for the sale of gas out of that conforming use you can't exist without the other I mean that's why I asked whether you're taking cash at the fueling station I think if you weren't taking cash at the fueling station there might be an argument for this there are two separate projects but there's so folks I'm running out of gas here I apologize for being old but that's what it is 11 o'clock let's continue this September 4th so basically this is you're running into resistance and so we're going to have to talk through this a lot to figure this out very hard for us to accept at 11 o'clock I've been on public boards it's a hell of a time to try to do business I apologize not at all we think it's a good project can we just kind of provide a little summary of where we are okay so it sounds to me like the board is down on the porch thing meeting the standard not okay with not okay with the porch thing meeting the standard not okay with the utility easement precluding the parking in the rear so we're still not there I'm building we're definitely not there on non-conformity obviously traffic is an issue we all agreed to table you know it sounds like the general sense of the board is this project doesn't have a leg to stand on with respect I think that what the chairman is saying is that 11 o'clock at night is a bad time to make a decision I think you're trying to summarize that to make a decision and my experience is that it's worthwhile coming back and talking about these things we can do that I don't want to waste your time in the applicant's time can I throw out because I'm in agreement with Frank and I'm not sure what else is weighed in on the notion of the canopy being enough of a leeway for the parking in front of a building because it does nothing to screen the building it's just purely used as a loophole to park in front of the building the building at CVS was meant to screen the parking does it successfully do it or not that's for someone else to determine it's clear that the canopy over the cars is not doing it one lick of screening the cars are still directly in front so I'm going to say I personally vote completely against that I'd like to hear more from you in regards to that utility easement that prevents you from moving the building forward and parking more in the back whether it truly is an impediment because we have discussed that in the past we have given some waivers for having the parking lot in the front of the building because you can't move the building anywhere else and you can't put the building under the easement so I'd like to hear more from you in regards to that that truly does prevent you from moving the building forward and putting that parking that's in the front of the building now behind the building that's where I'm standing I'm not sold on the you've heard my non-conforming use expansion listen that's a design issue but it seems to me the fundamental question here is the use question because as Mr. Wilkin points out, some percentage of the gas sales are going to involve people walking to the store and paying cash for other things too but perhaps for the gas but I mean you guys have also there's not a lot of information out there publicly about what the facility operates as right now and I grant that this is a stretch but you do have a Yelp page that says from your business you know Gulf Road Shelvern Road, Gulf and Tailhook and provides towing and recovery throughout the state of Vermont and anywhere you might want to be towed we have an 8,000 square foot facility conveniently located in Hinesburg 8 miles from 189 or yeah 189 and a second location in south Burlington steps from I-189 we're also fully operational repair facility in state-of-the-art equipment to do necessary diagnostics on most engines and transmissions we are certified blah blah blah blah so it sounds like it's more than just sort of minor engine repairs operating and taking place there and so like that's a change of views from selling gas and doing actual repair work to selling gas expanding that and now you just have a convenience store which is nothing to do with repair facilities so I'm not sold on that part either I don't think you want to belabor tonight but some of what you read and I don't represent Mr. Hawker but some of what you read may be a little bit of copyright it's a yelp site but it says from the business about what they do at that site and one other thing that you have to face is that the Maple Leaf Motel has long term tenants in it we've got a letter from one that says they've been living there for a long period of time if that's the case then you have a removal of housing that is affordable and you've got to face that too so it's just another thing that you've got to we've got to talk about next time okay so we're continuing to is it September 7th does anybody have that in front of them? I just looked at it and I think it's the 4th I move that we continue sketch plan application SD 1816 of RO Valley Incorporated is September 4th second we continue to September 4th all in favor say aye opposed thank you take care we already approved the minutes so that is the end of the meeting at 11.09 p.m. you really went out on a doozy can we get a 7.15 one or 7.08 I think that's a record for this year that February one was pretty brutal too if anyone would like I have several of these little bars if anyone is starving I was so no I've got to get up at 4 and drive to New York so I'm going to avoid anything that's been giving me more energy right now oh man that's my own I have to say I had to look up the expression the candle's nose is under the tent