 Check on that. Is that full caffeine? It is. Good, how are you? Good. I don't know. Well, I need my cord tonight. I think we're going to be that short. This is the same thing. Oh, cool. Thank you. So is a chip-trip generation increase an administrative approval? No, it's just for the 30 Kimball. For 20 Kimball? What did I say? I own 30 Kimball. Formations are amazing. Are we expecting Frank or Mark? Very cool. I'm always excited. So Mark's going to enjoy this. Michael Lawrence. Should we wait for Mark or just go? Mark has arrived. Mark, can you hear us? Can you switch it to something? I'm going to try calling down those. Hello, Mark? Try that one. Change the microphone to the microphone array. Oh no, it is the conference one. The other one was right. Check that one. You can hear him. Mark, can you hear us? We can hear you. Great. We have a slow connection. Turn off the webcam. Thank you very much. Welcome to the Development Review Board for Tuesday, December 5th, 2017. It's 705. First item of business is directions on emergency evacuation procedures. If there is an emergency, we'll all meet in the south parking lot, which is right behind where we're sitting. I always need that direction because I have a hard time with north and south, but south is that one. Additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Do you want to change the order since the people representing the first one are here? Is anybody here? Dave, are you doing the airport? We're good. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Announcements. Do we have any announcements? Okay. Item number five, continued sketch time application SD 17-27 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a 16,596 square foot lot developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 9,500 square feet, lock number one, and 10,096 square feet, lock number two, and to join lot number two with the 72,773 square foot lot located at 5 Maryland Street, the subject property has an address of 12 Lidue Terrace. We'll see you over the applicant. For the record, I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates appearing on behalf of Burlington International Airport. This application seeks to subdivide an existing property and to absorb that undeveloped portion of the property into an adjacent undeveloped parcel, immediately adjacent. This is an application that has been before the board in the past about a year ago. The reason the mylar was not filed and the fact that there was some appraisal issues and that ultimately agreement between FAA and all the parties on regards to property valuation ultimately did not allow for timely filing of the mylar. However, those issues are now behind us, I understand. So we appear back before you for an introduction of this particular proposed subdivision slash boundary line adjustment to reflect the goals of the current property owner who again had approached the airport and with regard to this parcel, this is their entire parcel, the one I'm circling right now, and they are looking at subdividing off this particular parcel and selling it to the airport who owns all the parcels all around it. So ultimately this will become a more whole block of lands owned by the airport. The staff report which has the cover sheet of the staff report actually utilizes the best available ortho photography that depicts the lack of homes in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and you can see this is the airport. On the east side parking facility, this is the parcel at issue and they're looking at subdividing that back portion and allowing that all ultimately to be absorbed into this lot, but when you look at the whole you can see that all of this undeveloped area is currently owned by the airport and that would basically make that a more contiguous or more normal shape. So it's nothing more exciting than that I'm afraid. Questions from the board. What's happening with the retained parcel and who owns the retained parcel? So the current property owners are waiting in gale homes and they will continue to occupy the property. Are they co-applicants for this application? Yes. And they live there? Yes. They're holding out. But yet willing to sell off this piece? The back portion. That's correct. I don't know. Are there comments, questions from the board? There are none. Comments, questions from the public? This guest plan looks great. We'll see you when you come back for preliminary and final. We did want to discuss, sorry, I'm not on the board or in the public. We did want to ask the applicant why they're choosing to subdivide this property by the airport because you represent the airport as the applicant rather than the owners. The owners basically actively use the portion of the property closest to the street that the back portion was not actively used. The airport was purchasing lands within the decibel impact range for residential properties and this particular portion of the property fell in that area. My understanding is that you represented an opportunity for an exchange of funds to basically allow the airport to own more contiguous lands and for these particular property owners to own a parcel that complies with the rules and actually was more in character with the old neighborhood in regards to lot sizes. This happened to be a very narrow lot. When you look at this, when you see the original layout of the subdivision lands, these are all single family lots and this is going to be the retained portion. That back, that flag, I won't call it a flag lot, but that back portion will all become part of the holdings of the airport. Is the retained portion, I can't see from here, are there other houses along that street? On the west side, yes. But not to the east? Not to the east. My understanding they've all been removed. The airport has no plans to do anything with that property? That I don't know. It's not suitable for residential use but other commercial uses are acceptable, I understand. I think it's zoned residential, isn't it? I think it's zoned residential. Residential four. Yeah, so right now, you couldn't do anything with it but residential. Well, but all you're here to do is subdivide it, right? That is correct. What it plans to do is just a matter of curiosity. I don't know what they are honestly. Our comments, questions from board, public, or staff. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is site plan application SP 17-76 of Rye Associates to construct a 4970 square foot single story building for general office use at 41 Rye Circle. Who is here for the APCA? I'm here Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates and Brad Dusevich from Rye Associates. And this is site plan application swear in. Do you please raise your right hand? Do you promise all the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. And so, conflicts of, okay, thank you very much. Take care. Is that too dramatic? I'd just like to know what I don't need anymore. Please describe the project. Oh, I'm sorry. Lot 3 is actually a project that has appeared before the board before. That's a recurring theme tonight. In that particular case the applicant was not able to pull a permit within six months of the original approval primarily because the tenant backed out and therefore we're back again with new tenants. A slightly modified design as far as the building footprint. Slightly larger than before. Staff did good job identifying the characteristics of the project. And out of all that to orient you north is to the left on this particular plan. This is actually 116 Hinesburg Road. This is the Rye Meadows project at which point there's a loop road that comes around. It's a little bit longer like this and this is ultimately a future east west connector that will go further west at some point in the future. But as far as this particular project there were as part of the mixed use project a number of commercial lots that had been proposed and ultimately as far as their use approved along the section between Rye Circle and Route 116. The concept at the time was to have these particular buildings communicate with Rye Circle and not Route 116. So we have both an internal walkway system, recreation path on the opposite side of the road. Two existing buildings. This is the Stone House. Thank you. Lot 1 and then on Lot 3 this particular building is nearing completion. And then this is Lot 2 and this is the subject of the application before the board tonight. Where we're basically looking at for all intents and purposes in filling as part of the master plan development of this particular area. We have parking lots that basically service each one of these lots and in this particular case Lot 2 again has its communication component facing the street. And I guess I could spend more time but I'll leave it at that for questions to fill in more appropriate points of interest of the board. What exactly faces the rear, the functional rear of these buildings faces 116? That is correct. Pete, you're coming by on 116. What are you looking at? There's renderings in the application. Is there any landscaping along the road between the backs of the buildings in the road? Yes, so here's the landscaping plan right here. So there's 116. I'm sorry, I'll be rude. And this is the right circle side. And I guess one of the desires of the development review board in previous guidance given to the applicant was that they wanted the communication, the entryways facing right circles. So the backside is not going to have a dedicated doorway or walkway out to the street. It will have a traditional backside of the building. I will have to admit I drive by this particular place a lot. Our offices across the street. And the buildings are done tastefully. They're done by Greg Rabbidow and I have nothing stuck out at me as being adverse. That's obviously very personal reference but that being the background to answer your question, yes, there will be some proposed foundation landscaping on the backside of the building to again break up the mass of what otherwise would be the back end of the building. And there is an east elevation. Go ahead, Matt. We approved this like 18 months ago, right? And then you've made a larger footprint and changed some doors around? Yeah, the elevation changed slightly and without having a comparison of each plan in front of you, I don't know if I can actually explain what changed. We did move some doorways and some windows around. The use changed. I mean it's still general office but we had a buyer we thought for this building and they kind of fell off so we had to remarket it but our permit expired in that time. So we have another buyer in hand we just needed to kind of redo our permit here. Can I follow through with Frank's question? Is there a way to bring up sheet A202? It's one of the elevations. In this particular case what it's going to show is actually the rear side of the building. That's the front side. So you can see the front porch and these particular window systems, the side entry out to the parking lot. Can we go to the back sheet? Or the prior sheet actually? There we go. Yeah, that one. Perfect. So this shows the window treatments as well as the rear. This is the rear side. Yeah, the Heinsberg road side. As well as you can see the treatment in regards to the stone veneer along the base of the building. So again, the additional back of the building does provide some semblance of at least character as you look at it from 116. So again, from a personal standpoint, didn't seem to bother me in regards to what we've seen in the past. I think it's pretty well done. Two gables facing that direction also. Yeah, the lower one is probably, what is that two feet? Yeah, steps down a bit to give it some depth. Again, between I'm sorry. I was done. Between the road and the building what's there? Is it grass, gravel, hard top? Grass swale. And what's the grass swale? What's the distance from edge of the traveled way to the building? From the edge of the route 16 traveled way to a little less than 70 feet. Seven feet? Seven zero. And it's all grass in between? Yes. Yeah. And a swale. Grass swale. We have stormwater management swales on the backside. A couple of them. One that deals with runoff from route 116. Another one that deals with runoff from these particular projects. There's shrubs of trees too. Yeah, I mean I don't think, I don't find it, you know, I'm looking at the elevation, it looks okay. What's the siding? It sort of looks like wood or vinyl or something? It's a vinyl clapboard siding. And then we have a stone. It's almost like a thin stone for the detail below. Yeah. Yeah, it's, in a setting like this, you don't want all the buildings to look totally alike. You want to have some diversity. If you remember the Stone House building, it's got a big cupola. The one just the north of this one. That's kind of their central piece. The building south of this one that we're building now, they use a lot of these timber frames to show the ends of the building off a little bit. This one, the emphasis is the, those shed dormers on the ends there. The gables and the stone all around the building. It looks like, one second Mark, it looks like the plantings you've got include the hydrangea, birch, and the magnolia there towards the south. So it looks like it's a well planted facade toward that side. Go ahead Mark, sorry. You know, I live just in the neighborhood, you know, and the two buildings that are already built are actually very nice, you know, and this one I think will add the same sort of, I guess, you know, character architecture, but not be the same, which I think is very nice. They each have their own distinct sort of characteristic, but they fit nicely in sort of a, I guess, office type of development. And this building itself is a little bit further back from the street than one or three or, you know, the two, not one in a lot, three. So, you know, I think that this is a nice built, you know, office building and a little bit nicely. And I have no issues with the design of the building or the site blend as we've talked about it so far. Matt, is it just me or is that sounds a little distorted to people? Yeah, it was slightly distorted, yes. I understand this is a shared parking scheme in the lots, and I understand that an entranceway takes up a lot of real estate within a building, but are you going to have signage that points folks to the entrances and to go to the southern parking lot that would be more convenient for the entranceways, or was there anything? We will, and typically how we do this is, you know, we'll put a placeholder where we think signage should be on the building. But signage is, as you know, a separate permit with a city, so we have to treat it separately. But yes, we've talked to the owners about appropriately having signage here to direct people. It's fairly obvious that the north lot is going to be used mainly by employees. So, but yes, I think there's a way here to make it work with signage. If there aren't any other questions from the board, we can start stepping through the staff comments. Sure, if I could clarify, actually why don't we just go through them? So, the first one about necessary permits for water and wastewater. Nothing too complex, just provide them prior to your zoning permit. Would you like me to read them, or you can go through them, Marla? Anyways, on item one, the original Ryan Meadows project was permitted on the water supply and wastewater disposal end as a master plan development, which had commercial components as far as design flows. So, that's something that we will be able to, or we have to do as part of ultimately our Act 250 permit also is demonstrate compliance with water and sewer. So, no issue there, moving forward under that particular item one. Do you want to just walk our way through each one? So, item two, staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether they have provided adequate enclosure space for trash recycling and compost. So, I'm going to lean on you a little bit there, Brad, as far as... Sure. So, the Stonehouse building to the north has trash located as part of their building. It's a closet within the entryway that works for them. You'll see on the south side... That's my job. Yeah, do you have a... Is there a map, Brad? Yes. That right there is our secured with fencing around it. This is the same concept that we're doing with the building to the south. So, the building to the south is going to have their own equivalent of that that we're building right now. So, it'll be the same thing. So, the question in our minds to discuss with you guys was just to make sure that you have adequate space, because it's easier to make sure you have adequate space now than to have to come back later when mandatory composting comes into play. Well, I can only speak to my own personal experience with that. My current office building is about 20,000 square feet, and we have a trash enclosure this same size. When I look at an office that's 5,700 square feet or so, a lot less employees and traffic, I think will be more than covered with that. These represent four-yard dumpsters or something? Yeah, I mean that shows about a four-yard, the rolling kind. Plenty of space. But, I mean, I'll be honest, we didn't plan for the mandatory composting. It's a good point, but I do think we'll have plenty of room. I think we've had this discussion before where what we end up finding out is that some of the particular waste get reduced in size and that we can actually substitute out a four-yard one for two smaller type containers. Yeah, kind of almost like the residential roll ones would be adequate here I think for their use. This particular size structure anyhow. It appears this is regular office space, right? Yeah. And that's a big difference too. I mean if you had medical or if you had some kind of food. It's an accounting firm that's going, I mean they've told us a big part of their design is data storage, electronic data storage, so they're going all electronic as much as they can, so theoretically they should produce more waste. We'll see. Or produce less waste, yeah. One tenor for the bill. So the next comment about lights, how many lights there are, on which light poles, which height. I have received supplemental plans. Those are in the revised things. Oh, it was the one you were in. So there was just some question about which light poles were where and that's been clarified this time. So if the board wanted to review that in detail, we can go over it if not we can just say that we're satisfied. Well good, thank you. Comment for... I actually have a question because it didn't look, I couldn't look if it's in there. You know, when you're doing new parking lots now, how high are the light standards? What's the height on these things? Limit 30 feet. You going that high really? No, most of them are 20. Some of them are 13, yeah. The regulations allow up to 30 feet for parking lot lights. But in fact these are lower. Yes, that's my understanding. Typically we're in the 20 to 14 feet range depending on how much area we want to light, the intensity, what we're looking for for even distribution. So 30 feet is parking lot, trying to be as efficient as possible and that's not the character of what we're looking for here. Are you saying there's 13 feet more? The light poles there proposing are between 12 and 18 for this property. 12 and what? 18. So the next staff comment may get to what you're thinking about a little bit. In the prior review, the board noted that there was no spillage of light into Rye Circle which is the direction of the residential properties. In the current lighting plan there is a little bit of spillage so I just wanted to highlight that for the board to look at. I don't think we have any specific requirements about that. It was just something the board had noted and that's why I wanted to make sure we brought it up again. There is a limit as to how much light can leave the property. There is a maximum on a per candle and then there's an average. And this is within? Well we certainly don't have an average of what the spillage is over. I'm going to confirm what the limit is. But there's very little in the front. This is my interpretation of what the intent was. If we ask the Planning Commission, the way the rules were written is they wanted to make sure that when there was a lighting plan put into place that there wasn't spillage over onto your neighbor's property in a manner that would adversely affect the way that they enjoy their property. In this particular case the spillage is out into Rye Circle and that often has happened in the past where we're trying to light an intersection to basically provide for safe access or at least acknowledgement of where the driveway cut is. And in that particular situation you're always going, if the property line is right here for example, oops, there it is, right there, and you're trying to enter, trying to light the pavement portions, that in the past has never been an issue. But that being the background Marlowe was right that we, this was a change from the previous middle to the board and it was worthy of at least bringing before you to make sure that that was brought to your attention and if there were any issues we could go through that. I would argue that since you've added that northern strip of parking, you have, those employees have to get from the building to it and so at the very least they need some kind of light on that front sidewalk. That's what I was thinking. Did I understand you correctly that the standard is an average for the whole property? There's an average for the whole property to not exceed a certain foot candle and that is three foot candles, an average. But how about on any given side? I'm not sure. The average on the entire property cannot exceed three foot candles. Then there's a maximum amount of spillage that can go off the property, which is 0.3 foot candles with an average not to exceed 0.1 foot candles off the property. They're at 0.01 and 0.02, so they're a tenth of that. Insignificant. If the units here are the same as they should be, yes. They should be foot candles, yes. Can you verify that these are foot candles? Yes, they are. I'm sorry. We did the nod, but we didn't do the overall. Thank you. So other questions, comments on foot candles? I think it's good to have lighting on the sidewalk as John said. Yep. Okay. Item 5, staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the plans to show evergreen meaning around the utility cabinets. We did receive that earlier this week. And item 6, staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the floor plan to show two long-term secure bicycle parking spaces. So in this particular case, the long-term parking is intended, I'll paraphrase now, to provide secure space for somebody to store their bike. Rather than having it inside the building, the applicant's proposing a structure that is dedicated for those particular bicycle storage areas, a locked facility outside of the building. And there were some recommendations further from staff as far as, again, how to actually organize the bicycles within the structure. I think all of those things are appropriate in order to basically achieve the goals set forth in the regulations. And is that... So I'm seeing a proposed bike rack to the east side of the parking lot. Is that where the long-term, both long-term and short-term rocks would be? I think we have bike racks to the north. Right, so I spoke with the architect. Gosh, I want to say yesterday, these are the short-term parking spaces, and then there's an enclosure proposed here. Sorry for taking it over, Matt. If I open this one, the outdoor enclosure, this is a typical picture of it that they provided. So it would be like a shed, I think a couple bicycles. They're providing a sort of a standing rack, not necessarily a locking rack, but something so your bicycles aren't necessarily knocking into each other within that structure. And then the architect had also indicated that he was going to propose to move the short-term bike parking to the entrance side of the building. And if the applicant agrees with that, we can conditionally approval on that. How many bikes fit in there? That's the requirement. Two. Any rationale behind the number of bikes? It's based on the square footage of the building and the use. So for a 5,000 square foot building, the minimum is two for a long-term. And then the short-term is a different number, I think it's six. I have a question about, a curiosity question about the area marked snow storage. What's the surface there? That's going to be, that's a lawn area with one tree. So is there any reason in this particular circumstance it can't just generally and more or less indiscriminately dump snow into the grassy swell? I mean, it's just... If you could get it back to that particular point, there's nothing at this point that would preclude that other than... I mean, you show the snow storage as delimited, but it's not necessarily in this circumstance delimited, is it? From a legal standpoint, it's not intended to preclude you from putting it further out here. From a practical standpoint, if you ever saw somebody trying to manage snow in the winter time, they're basically doing what they can to get it to this particular edge, and it really doesn't go any further than that unless you provide them a stable surface to keep their truck tires from disappearing into the lawn. So that's why it's shown in an area that would represent probably the maximum footprint of what actually would occur in that location. Might want to move that tree. For the bike storages, I don't know. We have some conflicts on that location. Thank you very much. I think that does it for board comments on staff comments. Any more board questions? Ready to open to the public? Questions or comments from the public from this application? Hearing none, sounds like we are ready to close site plan application. I move that we close site plan application for the 2017-76. It's been moved and seconded to close this application. All in favor say aye. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Next is continued final application SD17-28 of JAM Golf LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into 11 lots ranging in size from .37 to 45.03 acres at golf course road. It's here for the applicant. Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Mike Lawrence from Michael Lawrence and Associates. And continue final application so these folks have already been logged in. Okay. But the continued is last week. Right. So they still have to be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Thank you very much. Conflicts of interest? I don't think it's a conflict but I live nearby. That's okay with us. Okay proceed. This application represents probably about 16 years of friendly discussion between the applicant and the city. In 2001 a preliminary application was submitted and ultimately denied by the planning commission at the time. That's how long ago this was. But ultimately this got tied together with the appeal of the master plan approval provided by the development review board at the time and now 2017 we're finally having gone through many steps of both the environmental court and the court have landed back before you with an application that had instructions from the court in regards to how the application was to be submitted and the things that had been approved as far as waivers by the court at the preliminary plat level. And we now appear before you as part of the final plan. So for everybody here it's looking at something brand new for the first time. Marla has done a great job of pulling up all the old plans and reconciling what the original preliminary plat application looked like and what the final plat application looks like today. Things that occurred in the time frame between 2001 and 2010 that helped shape some of the modifications of the plan was that at one point in time the proposed roadway in from golf course road into the site to orient you on the cover sheet of the staff report north is up on this particular plan. We've got Dorset Street right here. Old Cross Road and within the project a number of streets. This is actually golf course road that runs in the north south direction and the project rest is right here. You'll see that the forested portion of the property is the primary area of the proposed 10 lot subdivision. The golf course intermingles amongst all the other residential lots and condominiums within the project area. This application is located on the eastern half of the golf course property. There's also a golf course and some residential development on the west side also but here this is the area that we're interested in. You can see on this particular staff report this little tail that comes in off of the main body of what we call parcel F. Parcel F is the open space parcel that supports the golf course. Recently probably a couple months ago maybe three now we appeared before you to seek a subdivision approval for the acres off of the eastern side of parcel F that was part of the settlement agreement with the city in which they would acquire ownership of this particular 23 acre open space area. This particular 10 lot subdivision is removing some of that land from the remaining portions of parcel F and what I was getting at was this little tail the blue area down in the far southwest corner represents how this wooded area accesses the public street called golf course road that runs in the north south direction. Anyways what we were trying to build our foundation for was that the parcel on the north side was sold between 2001 and 2010 by the original developer Mr. Taft, Richard Taft and there was originally going to be a boundary line adjustment that allowed for a slightly different configuration of the roadway with that parcel having been conveyed that was no longer an opportunity so the final plot application revised the driveway to recognize that that property was no longer available to provide the originally proposed alignment and alternate alignment was included in the final plan. So that plan was submitted in 2010. Ultimately it was deemed incomplete and ultimately that decision was repealed and as part of the settlement agreement the city has agreed to let this application proceed. That being the background we all are here looking at it for the first time. I say that too because it seems like it was so long ago that I've had to do the exact same thing Marley did which is re-familiarize ourselves with all of the features. So that being the background this particular sheet shows you obviously the 50,000 foot up in the air view of the site and we can go to the other sheets to help us get a better understanding of the characteristics of where this is within Vermont National Country Club and the characteristics of the lands that are here. Mike Lawrence is here to assist us tonight in landscaping plans which represented not only the tree retention plan but also the supplemental plantings associated with the application. So this is for Frank and all the other attorneys in the office to read the stipulation from the court or the consent decree that being the background from Judge Wright we'll keep on going if we can. That was time by Meredith Wright. Is that the current operative stipulation? That is correct. That was a long time ago. Long time ago. It has been amended. Staff report does talk about there has been a number of amendments to the agreement between the parties but none that change anything that's here before us tonight. Amendments like timing of when things get completed that type of thing. Do you recognize Amanda's name? Good. So this represents one of the plat plans that identifies what you see in the far top left corner is Golf Course Road. This is the right of way that basically comes in off of the public street to a proposed cul-de-sac and then we have a private street that services the remaining three lots with a hammerhead turnaround at the end. This particular plan shows it in a very simplistic manner but if we continue on with the other sheets in the application this one's probably too busy to look at at this particular scale but this particular sheet starts to identify the mapping of all the trees on the property and the relationship of the proposed infrastructure. The lot building envelopes associated with each lot and there's infrastructure that runs in along the roadway as far as water sewer power gas that ultimately all comes in and continues down what we call we have long drive and then short drive to ultimately get to the terminus eastern terminus of this particular project. Other features in the area this is the 13th green of the Vermont federal country club. This is the 11th tee over on the oh goodness the north side we'll call it and we've got the 14th hole on the left side for you cultures out there. For the rest of us we basically are looking at this is the existing tree limits. You can see these particular as I follow through here what is more or less the forested limits. This is an area with a rise in the land and bedrock. That's why the farmer never chose to remove these trees because he didn't want to farm it or till it I should say and ultimately these have some large trees stealing some of Mike's thunder the recent windstorm actually removed some of those trees and that's one thing that Mike has been doing in the meantime is reconciling what has been lost only in the most recent windstorm but also since 2010 when the original application was submitted for the final plot approval. So that being the background we can continue to kind of thumb through these. This is the profile of the project and we can talk a little bit about staff report and the numbering system but while we continue to thumb through here a little bit further standard typical details and sections eventually we'll get to some of Mike's handy work that actually shows his depiction of the existing conditions as it relates to the vegetation on the property. Of course the landscape architect uses color so Mike being the colorful person that he is I'll let you talk a little bit about what your plans attempted to do and how to all that bring the board up to speed on what the characteristics of the site are. I'm sorry Mike could I ask one question first just up to the I'm not sure I have the orientation right at the top that corner up there. How much of that incoming road exists and how much will be built as part of this phase? So currently today there are two homes that share a driveway that comes up through here. This portion would have to be reconstructed to conform with city standards but there is a share driveway right now that basically services the home at that particular location on the north and this home on the south. Is there address golf course road those two homes? No. They have frontage on golf course road their garages face out on to the common drive. Why does the new roadway go to 20 right? Yes. So Mike says and Mike helps me out in my memory. 24 feet is the width coming in. Traveled road? Paved road. Keep in mind that we're working not on your current standards but the ones that were in place in 2001. Is that necessary? That's what the court requires that we all proceed with. Is it necessary to be 24 feet? Can it be 24? Yes. Well good question. I hadn't really thought about that. Well if you google Earth this which is really stunning, there's going to be a huge impact to those two families that are there now and I understand that they bought it probably understanding that there would be an easement there. But right now it's a driveway width which is probably 16 or 18 feet or something like that. Or a less. If it could feel less intrusive I would think it would be beneficial. That's just my take. Fire department will probably have a whole different idea on there. Good segue. John as far as pulling the fire department and they will look for a minimum standard to 20 feet. You know curb to curb. So we're talking about a four foot difference. I do appreciate your thoughts on that. And you know one of the benefits of making it narrower is that it will, the narrower it is the less people are going to feel that they can park parallel within that travel way. I would like to think that we would try to minimize the impacts on those two property owners in some way. The best way that we can. And not having the new neighbors visitors spill out into their high yards. That's an interesting idea as far as how we could mitigate that. We do want the existing houses to have a new feeling about their driveway. We do want them to feel that this is no longer a place that they can simply run across or their kids, dogs, cats can simply run across. We do want them to have a new, so curbing is going to be very important and signage and all that stuff and striping in the streets and it's going to have a whole different feel than just a driveway for safety. And it will have a sidewalk also. It's going to have a suburban feel. The question ultimately as far as the pavement area where the vehicles travel back and forth is what signals do we want to see there. Given what's going on here, I assume these lots are all contemplated single-family houses. There was no way to access this further to the north where the entrance to 12, I think it's 12, isn't it? I don't know, the golf course cuts through just above this. So we've got the 11th hole up here and this is the 13th hole here. Yeah, I know I'm talking up by the top. Oh, I'm sorry. If you doubled up golf course road a slightly past, I think it's 88 and turned right, you couldn't access back that way and well, I'm just suggesting it's, there's a pretty big impact. Yes, this is a, so from a certainly from the golf course, that was the first thing here is that they have their golf cart path, they have an house or a house you relieve yourself at right here as well as golf teams. So trying to put a roadway in here would change that significantly. Yeah, but never came up as a thought. Is this not the golf course that's building it to? Okay, so who cares? Well, other than topography, you know, when we get back to the site plan, you'll see that there's a very steep slope on this particular side. Okay. It doesn't avail itself as a natural way to assess this particular property. So this, when you look at the profile, you come up the hill and then you come back down the hill on the other side. And this has a much steeper slope. So that's probably why in plan view, it looks like it's a no brainer, but the reality of the topography would make that very challenging to do. I have a question about with because I don't, I don't quite understand the status of the order. The order is a stipulated order. Now, you're going to ask me where exactly is the 24 feet coming from? In other words, are we free to vary the 24 feet? So I think we would need to confirm this, but my interpretation or what is fact is that the court upheld the applicant's request to make the road 24 feet when the board at the time wanted the roadway to be wider. My interpretation is then therefore that we should be able to allow them to make it narrower if the board so desires if the applicant wants to make it narrower now. But that part's interpretation I'd want to check on it first. But at the time the board wanted wider and the applicant wanted narrower and now it's almost... I think the requirement back then was I think 30 feet of pavement was the minimum width requirement for new streets. So the board wanted to maintain that requirement and the applicant wanted to go down to 24 and the court said okay. I'm okay with the 24, but why don't we loop it around the top and put it where there's already a driveway effectively? I mean, I've played this course a lot of times and that is effectively a driveway coming across. It lines up with, isn't it fairway drive or something on the opposite side? Yes. It's the perfect place to put an exit. Yeah. I don't understand. I understand that it might be a trick to put it in. Go speak with the O'Brien's. I think they can show you how to do it. We're going to let Mr. Lawrence describe. Thank you. I'm not sure how much detail to go into on this either, but this was a larger size in walking a lot in the woods. Warren Spinner who you probably all know is the arborist in Burlington. He and I spent a lot of time out here putting little metal pins in trees, numbering trees and noting them and sending Dave's survey crew back and forth. And the attempt was to save as many trees as we could. So there was a lot of adjusting of the sort of the building envelopes. And so these are going to be, these houses are going to have smaller footprints than normal. And I can't remember exactly what the sizes are, but we very specifically staked out zones for building. And we based that on trying to save as many big trees as we could. We in on that plan you kind of see some red ribbons running around. Those are stone retaining walls so that we as quickly as possible get from where we have to grade down to existing grade. And Warren as we walked said well we need about this many feet for this tree. We need about this many feet for that tree. So this is sort of a custom arranged project. And as Dave alluded to the windstorm we had in late October knocked down a bunch of trees out there. And I first took a walk out and realized that there weren't as many down as the sort of the, your impression of what it looked like. And the second time I went back and much more carefully walked and there's really only three trees that were proposed to be saved that are within the lots or within the road right of way that came down. There were other trees that were down but they were in areas that were being cleared anyway. And the other trees that were down were outside the perimeter of the lots. So all in all it looked like there were a lot of things down but in the broad sense we really only lost three trees we were hoping to save. The only other thing I guess to talk about is you know we're putting in street trees tucking them in where there's going to be open spaces and we are planting lots of evergreens around the outer edges of it. There was a lot of conversation as this has gone through different venues and back and forth of screening this from the outside. Let me ask you this. As far as I can tell this whole new ten new houses basically is what we have. It's in the middle of a development consisting of other houses of people who want to live on a golf course and it's going to be sold to ten people who want to live on a golf course. I don't get the sense maybe I'm wrong topographically that much of this is going to impact the view from any general public roads or am I wrong about that? I think you're absolutely right about that. So it's a kind of specialized infill development for golfers with the money to buy these houses. As far as some specific questions I don't think there's much to quibble about about the landscape. I think they're clearly doing a yeoman's job to try to save as much as possible. I think that's great. I'm going to quibble about the driveway but the work you're doing is obviously terrific. Yeah I think it's a nice display and once you look carefully at the legend it's a nice display of what stays, what goes. The brown goes, the green stays and there's symbols for try to save and all that stuff. I think you've done a beautiful job of putting that together and I hope that staff has a good sense from this of how things will fit together. I certainly have a teeny tiny sense of how it will fit together. I've played that part three a number of times though and those houses are in trouble. We find a lot of golf balls in there. Unless there are questions about the overview I'm ready to start stepping through the questions. If I could give a little intro to staff comments. The permit history of this project is as Dave alluded to extremely complex. The application has been appealed to the environmental court and then appealed to the superior court or spring court a few times. The things which are the subject of the board's review are the things which are different from what the court stipulation approved and the things I guess that's it. It's just the things that are different. So up at the beginning of the staff comments there is a list of things that have changed between the prior approval and this approval. Those are the things which we have authority to review. The board has authority to review. The applicable standards are those listed on pages I guess three and four. I guess it's the most of the three, four, three, four, five, and six. These are not the standards you're used to seeing. These are the standards which were in place in whatever it was 2006 or forever ago. So you have to put on your long time ago hat when you review these things. Way back machine. So you're saying we have limited scope and limited powers? Yes. Well you'll just have to stop us at times I guess. So with that in mind questions about the driveway. I don't know that the driveway hasn't changed substantially. It's changed a small amount. I don't believe the board has the authority to require them to realign the driveway unless they were already proposing something dramatically different. They're proposing a minor adjustment. We feel that the court would say that's insignificant and warrant a full throwing away of the prior decision. Sorry John. I'd like a legal opinion on that. A minor adjustment? Whether or not it is. Your opinion is nice but Marla frankly you weren't involved in it way back when either. I'd like to hear from the city attorney that that's the case. Because I think it's a mistake. The location? The location. There is, you can if you looked at the picture just above this you can line up one road with the other road and have them absolutely create a T intersection it would be perfect. And there's no reason for this. Except probably money. But you know that's not my concern. This isn't the wrong place. If we have a Supreme Court decision that locates the road there. I mean that's a permit. We don't have Well I'm hearing your opinion and my opinion is different. I'd like to see it somewhere else. And if the city attorney agrees with you then I'll give up. But I think it's in the wrong place. Can I ask a question of John? Go ahead. So fairway road Oh I can't see any sort of city attorney saying we need to try to align the fairway guide. Excuse me a second. I think it's number lock two or three. It's right here. If you came through here can you say right here. The where's the current share driveway here. That's the share driveway. That's the entrance. You can see Matt's cursor. Speaking of someone who's been on the board for ever. I've been through the appeal process on this project and you know seeing all the different iterations. Those two houses where the driveway is going in between we're always planned to have a driveway in between them. So I think the location of that driveway is where it is. Okay so let's take a sense of the board. Do we want to ask for an attorney's opinion. On precisely what whether we can compel them to move the driveway. Yes well I guess the simpler answer is would you all be interested in asking for that. If the answer is no then there's no point in getting an opinion. Well the only reason it would be no is because I'm sorry John the answer is obvious. It's a major change if they want to change, if you can persuade them to change it and they want to apply to change it to amend the permit then we could have notice the hearing and do that but we can't. I would vote against having the city attorney bother with us. Okay that's two. Jennifer Matt. I don't know but I'm assuming the Supreme Court judgment holds and if that's the case then I don't think we have jurisdiction. Well that'll do it. Okay. I still think it's in the wrong place. I think you guys should be convinced of other ones. Is right here where you're thinking it should be continued. Yeah and that little loop that you see is the outhouse and backs up to the back actually it's sort of half on one lot and half on another right. So you could put the road right through there and accomplish all the same things and tie it up with the intersection. Well it doesn't stop us from asking a question. You guys interested in doing that because you know you've been playing around with this for 15 years anyway I guess. You know if you think it's a good idea would you like to apply to change it to fit John's view. If it's available it makes sense. So Mike points out that the alignment if we were to try to do a perfect alignment with Fairway Drive obviously puts it very close to this house. You can see the separation of these two homes in a relationship to what is the proposed roadway into the site and those homes as Mark indicated are set up specifically for that in mind. I'm not sure if this particular person would be real excited about having a roadway next to their home but at this point in time based on where we've been and where we are today I think the, my client would say we would like to proceed with the preliminary applied approval from the court. Okay. Staff comment number one. I've lost before. As have we all. Exactly. Staff comment number one. Staff recommends the board adopt the director of public works comments as conditions of this approval. And in this particular case what the discussion points are is primarily how water is used in the public works. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I mean we certainly have someeren 레 how water bootable water public water is distributed amongst the site. Historically there was an agreement between the applicant and the water department on how this particular project would represent a phase one extension of the water main through the remaining stopped further development areas of the project site. how the wheeler parcel would be served by water as part of a looped system and at this point in time the applicant will accept those recommendations. I had a question about is this about the potable water the quality versus quantity? It's more a reliability issue when the water departments or any designers looking at designing a water distribution system having it what we call looped which means comes in a complete loop if we find that there's a portion of the system that needs to be worked on that you can shut off some valves and the people on either side can still continue to be served without shutting off everybody so there are benefits as far as redundancy when it comes to fire flows being able to pull water from two different directions create significant improvements and hydraulic performance of the system so there are residual benefits of creating these looped components of of the system so there are loops currently within throughout the Vermont National Country Club project in fact there are water mains today that cross portions of the golf course where there's no secondary benefits no homes or commercial businesses that benefit from those lines other than the fact that completes the looping of the system so this request is a continuation of the concepts put into place in the original project back in 1996. Number three looks easy you will revise the plans to indicate the size of proposed water mains. So I will just have a slight push back there sheet 4 does show the size of the water mains but it's on the profile it's not on the plan view so this comment is correct there is information if you dig deep enough but we are happy to add the size of them and they're all eight inch lines on on the plan views. Does that make sense Marlon Ray? Yes and no so the DPW comment prior to that requested that it be two inch. They provided recommend if I can jump in Marlon they recommended that the lot the minimum size line for the private road be two inch and that for the main line on the public road be eight inch we're carrying eight inch all the way through both the public and the private road portions because ultimately that's part of the future looping that's going to go throughout the remaining portions of Vermont National Country Club so as much as we could have gotten away with a two inch line it's part of the master plan that it's part of and you have the pressure to support an eight inch. I'm sorry Marlon. You have adequate pressure to support an eight inch through there? Yes. Next comment also number three adopt the recommendations of deputy fire chief. We have no issue with that they specifically talk about the character of the radii coming in off golf course road and either modifying it to make it very large which is inconsistent with perhaps some of the things we just talked about here or just making sure that if it's a narrower radii that it's mountable which would basically be a different type of curb shape to facilitate emergency vehicles large vehicles to go up on the curb if they had to. Number four revised landscape plans showing proposed hammerhead turnaround and driveway configurations and tree shading and legend be updated for clarity. Happy to do it. Okay. Comment number five revised plat showing the entirety of parcel F and reflecting the July 19th, 2017 subdivision. So we're happy to do that. In fact, we have done it. So we'll provide that plan in the near future. Hopefully. Very good. Number six. It's a little complicated. No problem. Wavering conditions of the 2009 preliminary plot decision and judgment. It's it's written out by the court. So we're happy to we're not going to push back on that one. Exactly. Right. Number seven. Staff recommends board require the applicants with a lot of planning condition condition with asking you to propose street names. Obviously that is we do need to do that. Okay. Other comments, questions from the board. Just I I'd like since since I got shot down on everything else, I would like I'd like to see that that roadway between the two houses as small as possible. Small as reasonable. Other people. I mean, I agree with that entirely as long as it's going to be well marked, curbed and safe for the people on it. Rest of the board house, the rest of the board field and staff. I have an unanswered question in my mind. I haven't read the order in here. Here's the point. Who were the parties to the to the order that said it needs to be 24 ft? I my understanding is this wasn't a contested order. In other words, you got to a certain point in the proceedings and then there was an agreement reached. Is that correct? I guess that would be what we call the settlement agreement with a settlement agreement, and that was reflected in the court's order. Correct? All right. Yes. So there are parties to that. So let's treat that court from my perspective to keep it simple. I'm treating that stipulated order. As something that's binding, unless everybody who participated in the settlement agrees to change it. So my question is, who were the participants in the settlement? So that would have been J. A. M. Golf LLC, which you represent. That is correct. Okay. And who else and the city of South Burlington? Throughout the interested persons. There's a list of interested persons. That's that's my concern. Okay. I don't disagree with John on the substance of what he's saying. I don't want to impose on these people any more than necessary either. But all these people are interested. Unless they had dropped out. See, it's possible that the people who start out as interested parties by the time you get the court just drop out and no longer play a role to the extent they no longer play a role. They're irrelevant. But to the extent they were still in and signed off on this settlement, they are entitled to be heard. And since this is a court, since that contract has been translated into court order, we can't vary it without their consent. You follow what I'm saying? Yes. No, I think that Frank, good point. But the only question, you know, it's entirely possible that you just have hangers on, you know, you have interested parties who fade away as the thing as the thing goes on. So, Frank, I think two of the interested parties love the bottom two. I'm pretty sure are the are either side of the driveway. Sent a letter. Oh, yeah. Yeah, but how about the rest of them? I'm not sure. But my guess is if you asked the current interested parties, they probably could find the other interested parties pretty quickly. Well, I think I think that is a procedural necessity. Yep, good. We want to do that. And if it's worth doing, and I don't know whether it's worth doing, we're talking about six feet. But I think it would be more attractive that way. Or sorry, four feet. And it already calls for the private road to be 18 anyway, right? Yes. Yeah, there are two letters included in the packet from Don and Lisa Angwin as a budding property owners and also from Michael and have a provost who are listed as interested parties on the on the decision judgment, whatever it's called. So those are included in public record. And I it's a good point, I think Frank raises a good point about the needing their consent if the driveway or the width is to be reduced from 24 to 20 might be in your interest as developers to reduce it some right? So maybe it's worthwhile writing a letter or all these people say look, this is what we'd like to do. We can't do it unless you will agree because it's a court order. What do you say in better language? So as far as at least so we're all the same wavelength as far as the portion of the road. I think the applicant is interested in narrowing the road as it comes from golf course road as it proceeds past the two residential properties. I think we're a little concerned about narrowing it beyond that because of the needs for on street parking. So I think as far as scope, that would be what we would be talking about if we put the interested person's discussion aside and and just dove right in to a condition of approval. We would hope that would be just limited to that first section of roadway, but Frank's point is good. So then I suggest you draw it the way you want it. Send the drawing out to all the interested persons and then submit it. You know, if you have the approval good, if you don't have the approval is dead. I think I think for are we preliminary preliminary? No, we had final. I mean, we could approve at 20 feet subject to change subject to the ability to to do that with the with the. Interested parties and otherwise approve based on the 24. I don't. I think you better get their consent up front. Well, they can't. They wouldn't be able to build it without the consent. I'm saying we'd have to put it subject to the consent. But all right, whatever. So I hear John saying a condition of approval would be the roadway can be built at 20 feet for that first section. However, we want to describe it. Provided that consent is acquired from the interested parties, right? I suppose which point for raised job, it would be. Okay, Dave, show me that the interested parties have signed off. Otherwise you revert back to 24. I would suggest the board can if you're interested in going down this road to continue this. So that we can so that we can vet this and determine whether we can even do this at all. Yeah, I don't well, first of all, I don't I don't agree. As I think about it, I don't agree with John that we can do it that way because it's stipulated because it is what it is that which would be immaterial from a Supreme Court perspective becomes material and therefore before you bring it to us needs to be noticed as a change to the limit to to the all those interested persons. I agree with you as a pure physical matter. If they didn't already have a say under the existing order, it might be immaterial but not in these circumstances. Is that you're saying it perfectly. So I think it's good advice. Just not sure where to go. Well, do you want it? It's kind of up to you if you if you don't want to do it is not going to happen because we can't compel that we have an applicant is very interested in bringing closure. Do you want to continue and come back in two weeks with a answer? I mean, two weeks isn't a whole hill of beans. Hang on. If the decision is they want to do it. It's got to be formally. It really has to be formally noticed, right? But they can let us know in two weeks whether they want to do it or not. It sounds like Dave needs to go talk to some folks. I do. Well, the other thought the other thought and I don't know whether this is realistic or not, is the way that you build the 24 feet of road could change 20 feet of it could be asphalt. Four feet of it could be something else. I don't know. I'm just saying yeah, yeah, I have no reason to go outside my area. All the court says is 24 feet. So, you know, so just the thought is the board done with questions and comments. Have enough. Staff all done with question and comments from public. The right away is between those houses. It's existing right away. And that's a very important thing that can reduce the right away. Can reduce the road, but the right away allows you to do whatever you need to do. That's my tape. So to answer the question, the rights away is 60 feet wide that any road narrowing would not narrow the rights away. Okay, other comments from the public. We do have the two comment letters. Sounds like everybody saw them as part of their packet, but I have hard comments if anybody wants. Right. And you saw the two comment letters from the public. I did. I don't know if Mike did. They talked about landscaping and the construction of the construction details of the driveway and so on. They also spoke about concerns of trees that were taken down on 13, maybe 14 by Barrett's this past year. Were those just dead trees? Is that what it was a combination of, I don't know if you can bring up a plan to help orient you in regards to that activity. But I spoke to Dave Evans, the superintendent of the golf course, and they did take down some dead trees. They took down some growth that had occurred behind the green. And they also cut down some trees here. And the reason they did that is that one thing with golf courses, and especially greens with extremely short grass maintain grass is that you're looking for a good air movement to basically minimize various types of diseases that can take hold. And the other thing is that in the morning time, you're also looking to try to gain, add light into the area. It basically helps greens and the there were some facilitate the both the air movement and more specifically the sun access in the morning. So that's what would the background was. It was a golf course maintenance activity had nothing to do with anything here. They took down two dead trees on this side near the car path. And they took down some secondary growth that had come up since the course was originally built in 98 to basically try to improve the air movement through this area. So that was what the activity was. Staff's concern was that it might have been inconsistent with the tree retention plan. My feeling is that the tree retention plan was intended to basically deal with this mass and not the little finger out on the end here. So that being the background and the fact that all of these trees were all going to be retained as part of the tree retention plan was kind of like a no harm no foul aspect. But that's not a technical term. But again, that's what the intent was and it had nothing to do with this application in regards to intent or proceeding with construction prior to approvals. Ray, how does how does taking down a tree at the golf course chain compared to taking down my little apple tree that I took down a couple years ago and had to replace it with six? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. These trees are not trees that were required to be planted as part of the golf course. These were existing trees that were left when they built the golf course, sort of like a forest forested area. And I think the city did approve a maintenance plan for the golf course when it very first came in there was a very extensive description of all the practices they were going to use in building and maintaining the golf course over a year. So I'm assuming that there must be something in there about removing of trees when they're too high or in the way or whatever. I mean, you can't just build this course and never cut or tree or branch the whole time it's there. That's true of buildings too. Yeah. But that but the city doesn't seem to care about that. So I'm I'm I'm asking a different than a tree that was required to be planted as part of a building. Okay. And it's being removed or fallen. When we approve something that where there's pre existing trees they're approved as part of the plan too. So these are pre existing trees that were part of a plan. I'm not trying to make them put six up. I'm trying to stop making me have to put six up. So to go to race point just to burn 30 more seconds of your lives. There are times when applicants will come in and ask for credits for retention of existing trees as part of a compliance of how to satisfy the value of landscaping required based on a proposed building. What I'm hearing Ray say and I would agree that these particular trees whether be over here whether be over here weren't part of a program to basically demonstrate compliance with the regulations at the time. And I've been through with Ray before where there was an approved tree and it had grown to a beautiful size and we said it's got to come down. He says you got to put it back the value not of when it was originally installed but what it is what it is right then and there. So it has created value. It has created a certain character for the area that was always intended when it was planted there to grow and to basically mature. Stop making this point. You're not helping you John. I know that. I have a question I guess raised by this letter which I didn't see or look at before. The the the provost right. Our other concern is the court ordered tree preservation plan for the wooded area behind our home which lies between 13 and 14. Is there in fact a court order tree preservation plan is now I'm going to ask you broadly and I'm going to ask the staff if they know. It does whatever you did comply with that court order tree preservation plan. I think that tree ordered preservation plan was the plan we presented to them because it. That's not what I asked. The plan exists. Right. We got that and the question is did what you were doing in whatever trees you cut and however you went about it comply with the tree that preservation. So I have two questions. A. What's your answer and B. Do you know the only outstanding question from staff are the few trees that were cleared within the tree preservation area which I'd emailed Dave about and I don't think that we have the chance to close that loop. We were able to identify a few four to six inch trees. The tree preservation handbook excludes a few categories of trees things under two inches things that are invasive things that are dead or disease things that could damage other things if the trees that were cleared were in those categories and within the tree preservation area. It's fine that they were moved if they weren't then as we were talking about they should be they need to be replaced. Otherwise the large trees out by 11 and 13 were outside of the area and those were fine. But I'm still asking the same question. Not if obviously if it violated if there is an order and if the order was violated it's got to be remedy. My question is was the order violated. So my answer is no because the only time this becomes final is upon your final approval. So right now just as you. The final approval was granted. Pardon me. Final approval was granted. No this is the preliminary approval was granted and this is the final approval. Right. So right now there is nothing on the books legally as far as a final approval of any plan any tree retention plan or anything of that nature. But the tree maintenance plan was approved as part of the preliminary plan. Yes. We concur. And that we need to correct anything that has occurred between what was presented at preliminary and what was will be updated as part of final. Are you you're saying that the court's order is only an order for preliminary approval. Yes. It's not a final approval. It's a preliminary plat approval and it has certain components and go to Marla's point is that anything that has changed from the preliminary plat is open for you to go how come. And that's what you're doing Frank you're saying how come you did something. And the fact that we did do something raises the next issue of. Is that adverse to the intent of the tree retention plan. Wasn't my question. Well that's that's that's what I would ask. Was it adverse the question is did you actually violate. Yes or no. Did you violate the plan as it sits at the moment. Okay so in the. I don't think in the judgment. Judgment order on page two it says applicants application for final plan approval shall include in addition to the materials listed in section two four point one of the city subdivision regulations in effect on 2001. The plan submitted an exhibit such and such the tree preservation plan for Vermont National Country Club ten lot subdivision blah blah blah by Warren spinner. There you go. And the tree inventory and reports that were admitted as exhibits at fifty two and fifty three and for each lot a tree preservation handbook including definitions of all out activity on the lot and so on and so forth. Each treasure each tree preservation handbook shall explain lots must remain wooded or become more wooded and that lot owners may not clear the lofts to open up any views beyond what is allowed in that plan. And so on and so forth so and it goes into number three if the D. R. B. approves applicants application final plan approval applicants shall record in the land or records a notice of the following conditions applicant must annually provide the city with a certification from qualified arbrest as to compliance with the tree preservation plan number B or letter B prior to implementation of the field changes out to control notify city officer and see and so forth. So we're just assuming that you're you're going to do all this stuff. And you guys are all going to be happy with what they do. Happiness is going to be like expensive. So so I think this go ahead Mark. You think you think the I laugh. He was smiling. Expensive. So I think this if I'm wrong if this does not answer the question Frank or responses. David and Mike. Let's dive into this further but I think this is all going to be this is going to be like a nice little package with a bow around it. You know you're going to do what it says. So I don't want to avoid Frank's question. Mike has been on the property. More than me or anybody else here. All right. So I want to allow Mike to at least explain what his observations were in that area. I'm sorry. Look I'm not being clear with you. I think I was clear up front about my personal feeling about the landscape. Right. The only reason I'm coming back to the issue is because we're here to protect the public interest and to the extent that an adjoiner or a land owner is voicing something that is incorporated into an order. Then they are speaking for the public interest as far as I'm concerned and we have a duty to listen. It's not just somebody griping personally about their feelings which we can listen to politely. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. My feeling on that is that the applicant has no responsibility to do anything more than required by the judgment order. The applicant, the neighbor has every right to say are they abiding by the judgment order and that's what I think they're doing. But he's already telling us that they haven't I believe. And are not and are not under under because there hasn't been a final. They are not under any pressure to do so. On the contrary. It said you will submit a plan that includes you will submit a final plan that includes a tree preservation plan. What did you hear say? Pardon. What did you hear us say that that gave you the sense that we that you took down. I think you took down some trees that the existing tree preservation plan says you would not have taken down. I don't believe that's true. I believe that there's some trees blew over. And I don't I don't believe that the trees that Dave was describing are part of the tree preservation plan. My understanding the tree preservation plan are the trees that are on the lots that were all the trees that were tagged. Which are all the all the numbered trees that are on the plan and I think everything outside of that was not on the tree preservation plan. I think that and if that's true if you can say we did not we did not take down trees that were to be preserved under the tree preservation plan. Then you've answered the question. And he has to certify it annually. Somebody has to certify it annually. Yeah. And that's what you're saying right now. That's my belief. I the only thing that I would have to do is go back and make sure that those specifically are the trees that are the tree preservation plan. Those were the trees that we are most concerned about because of the construction around the units. And there wasn't any intention of touching anything. So I don't think that was part of the. Okay. Can you verify that for us to cover the base. I can. He needs to just verify the staff right. I mean the staff should be getting this annually. And and if they're getting it annually. What do you what do you mean. We're talking about now with the final application has to be part of the application to the letter talks about the tree the Barrett trees. Yeah. Those were outside of this. No wait a minute. It says. Our other concern is the court ordered tree preservation plan for the wooded area. We would like to make sure this is fully enforced. Has this been in effect. Several trees were cut down last winter spring by Barrett's tree service on quite a few areas of the golf course. So I hear that concern. I agree with you. I'll check the specific language of exactly what is the tree preservation plan. What does that what does that represent. My understanding is it represents all of the trees that had a little little tags. In other words one to 30 on lot one one to twenty two on lot two. Can you help. So there's two things. There's the tree preservation plan which is exactly what you're referring to. And then there's the tree preservation handbook which is a little bit larger in scope. The tree preservation handbook relates to construction activities. And homeowner behavior after the lots are developed. The stipulation. Of the court refers to. The tree both of those things the preservation handbook and the tree preservation plan. The question staff had. Is that remains on reason I agree that the trees that were the large trees that were cut were not subject to the tree preservation plan. There are few smaller trees that I believe were subject to the tree preservation handbook. Which are not necessarily tied once it's anything that's not that's over two inches that's not disease or dangerous or whatever. And that's the question that staff has is were those trees subject to the tree preservation. Handbook. The and what I noticed when I was out there it looked like whatever those stumps were and I think I think I found the same small one with the photos. I think those things were cut down a long time ago but we've only been at this for 20 years. So I don't know if they were cut before that you know before this was going before we started this or not. But they look like really old to me that they didn't look like they were freshly cut trees. So so sounds like this is being continued. Other comments questions public. Go ahead. Yes. What was this for? 2009. How many years ago was that? That's eight. Eight kind of three going eight years. You want just a year since that I mean yeah. So Alan's bringing up a good point in the fact that the concepts back in 2010 as far as what had been identified for retention or wasn't considered to be big enough to be worthy of documentation may have grown to be bigger than what was stipulated back in 2010 as something of non-issue. Now it's bigger. So anyways, I think those are all things that might can help try to get drill down on. Good. So do you think you can have answers to these by this Friday for staff to review them the following Friday? Or do you need more time than that? If I get interjected, I don't think that this is an issue that requires us a whole week to review it. I think that if you guys get us stuff by next Wednesday, we're probably okay. Okay. Thank you. Normal timeline is Friday, but because this isn't rocket science. So you have the chair well well trained as far as how to instruct the advocates. So week from tomorrow? Yeah, I don't want you like you've got your work. I think we have our own homework to do as far as the road with and following Frank's concepts. We will ask our attorneys on what we can and can't do also great to break. So two weeks figure that out. We continue sd 1728 to December 19th. Second moved in second. We continue this to December 19th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. All right. Thank you, Mark opposed. None opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Two weeks. Thank you. Next continued preliminary final application sd 17 dash 26 of Alan Palmer for a plan unit development to amend a previously approved plan for 39,275 square foot medical in general office building. The amendment consists of converting 10,444 square feet of general office use to nine two bedroom dwelling units and redistributing the uses in the south section of the building such that 11,400 square feet are medical offices and the remaining 17,500 square feet are general office at 20 Kimball Avenue with the applicant. Yeah, my name's Alan Palmer. I'm here to represent myself and answer any questions that the board has. Okay, and this is continued preliminary final application. So does continued mean that we need to swear them in or yes, because this is continued because it was exactly right. Yeah. So please raise your hand. You promised tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing about the truth on a penalty of perjury. Yes, I do, sir. Thank you so much conflicts, conflicts of interest, right? Exactly. Thank you very much. I'm Alan's neighbor. I own 30 Kimball and I'm happy to recuse myself if he'd like me to. Otherwise, I'd be happy to stay. Well, I think it should be open and your suggestions or thoughts are welcome. Great. Thank you. Please describe the project. This is a building that I built for digital equipment started in 1981. And as they expanded, I expanded this building that were their sales and service offices. And the standard register and all those people that worked computer people were in the building. And as the computers started taking over, it seemed like they didn't need a lot of office space. So I came to the conclusion that this section in the north side, which is almost independent of the main building, would be a good spot for residential. And the last meeting I came in here looking for 12 units. But since I talked with a structural engineer, he said the building wasn't quite made for having that extra weight on the roof. So I abandoned that idea and went back to putting the units inside the building and went to nine units because it's an amendment to act 250, which is simpler than going through a full boat. So that's where we are today. And the staff has went over these different portions of the project here. And I can see two or three that need to be answered. I'll have to change my glasses. Excuse me. Hold that bugger in there. Many years ago, I didn't have to do this. But looking through a transit, I can adjust the eyepiece so I can still do my work. I must have registered lane severe. Staff comment number one, then. I was trying to go through and see where there's any conflicts here or any questions. And you'll have to bring it up to me. So the first staff comment for the board's attention was staff recommends the board approve a portion of the hardscape value to the required landscape value. The applicants required provide $5,293.95 in landscaping value. The applicant is proposing $1,844 in plantings and the applicant is requesting that the cost of the hardscape elements of the recreation area and the sculptures in the front of the property be applied to the required landscaping value. So included in the packet is a breakdown of the hardscape element cost. And if we could bring up on the screen, Matt, I'd like to see, I'd like to show the pictures, the little statues, the hardscape. Yeah, there you go. Those are wind sculptures, linemen, whittaker, and those are double helix, almost like the DNA. And my wife and I were over in Maine at the Kenny Bunkport, and she noticed though, so it's in contact with the studio in Utah, and they did this rendering for us. And one thing that they did was keep them away from the building in case the wind blows too hard, they won't whack against the building. And I know Marla's concern was they were going to be shiny and spin when people are at the corner at Kimball Avenue and Kennedy Drive, and they're made of copper, so they don't have a glare. Are they flexible, in fact? No, they're metal. But are they flexible and that they have some movement in the wind? They kept them away 10 inches away from the building, so there is probably some movement of the wind. But mostly it should be just spinning around. And it's basically just a pole, it's not like it's attached at the top, it's just a pole, and these things will go around and go around. Yeah, yeah. And this is on the back side? This is the front, on Kimball Avenue where you drive up. And there was a tree in the front of this thing and it was some tree that we were required to put in back in 1981, and the tree got out of hand. And they kept them waste here against the stucco of the building. And the stucco failed. Yeah. And we had an awful time fixing that building, but I think this here, that's why I'm asking for it. There's $11,000 with the sculpture there and opposed to the tree, which is whatever this landscaping cost. That's why I'm asking for a waiver on that. How does the board feel about that? Sure. Yeah. It's a little bit of art. I think so. Art is good. Art is good. Yeah. Mark? Yep. Yep. Very good. Okay, we're all in favor. He shrunk. Yes, he has shrunk. Yes. Okay. Comment number two. Include the stabilization timelines. Stabilization timelines in top soil requirements of section 1604A. Do you know? That baffled me. I don't know what they're talking about. Okay. There are requirements of how long you can have the earth exposed without being stabilized. So basically putting down mulch or grass or the stones. Oh, as you disturb the earth, you want to make sure it's stabilized. Right, an erosion control plan. Generally on larger projects, we require an actual erosion control plan, but because your area of disturbance is 2,600 square feet, staff didn't feel it was necessary to require an actual plan, we felt that just listing those specific requirements would be adequate. Is that the section where we're putting out the asphalt and putting in the picnic area and the raised beds and the nice area for the public? Yep. So there's a maximum time of that earth being exposed so that it could wash into your adjacent. Yeah, definitely. I used to draw those retention drawings way back when they used hay bales before they came up with the silt fences, and I understand what you're talking about. So that sounds doable, and understandable. Are there two elements of that? Stabilization timelines and topsoil requirements. There's two elements of it. So do we need words in that or do you need something else? So it's just regurgitating the things that are listed in the standards, and we can include those as a condition and when you get... I'll be happy to do those, yes. You'll just read what it says and do what it says. Yeah, be happy to do that. Timeline in four inches of topsoil. Thank you, Marla. Four inches of topsoil? Where you have topsoil proposed, which I don't know that you have any. No, it's all stones. I guess we won't do that one. I've been looking for stones for landscaping stones. Those are getting expensive. Okay, so that is the end of staff comments. So any other questions, comments from the board? No, sir. Mark, you okay? Yeah, I'm okay. Okay. Questions, comments from the public? They don't make noise. Wow. We don't? Oh, no. The kinetic wind sculptures. We're down to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I make wine. We're down to the wine convention in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and Lyman, Whitaker had put in 30 of them down by the train station. And we were very impressed with it. And so that's the reason why we did it. So even as they corrode, it's the same with the front of the building. It's kind of the rust. It's cotton steel. So it rusts to a certain point. It's got to oxidize it, but good patina. And these things here, they complement each other. And even the turning parts, as they corrode, they won't make any noise. Otherwise, you'll have a neighbor that's going to talk to you. That's not going to come with some WD glory. It starts going with oil cans. Out there with oil cans, right? No. No. I see no reason to continue this. I think we can close it. I move that we close Final Plot Application SD 1726. Second. I've been moving a second here. If you close this application, I'll have to ever say aye. Aye. Aye. And all opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm glad everybody showed up this evening. Yeah, exactly. Sorry about that last one. Yeah. No big deal, but I was six as well. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Yeah. And then we have minutes from October 3rd. We have minutes from October 17th. And we have minutes from November 7th. And a minute also from a minute. November 22nd. 21st. Like I said, 21st. I'm assuming everyone had a chance to read them. I know everyone had a chance to read them. I'm assuming everyone had a chance to read them. Yeah. Use that chance to read them. I'll entertain the motions. We'll approve the minutes. I didn't see any corrections or other modifications. I move that we approve the minutes from October 3rd, October 17th, November 7th, and November 21st. Second. It's been moving. Second. We approve these minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. And then Mary Jo Capoccio is requesting a six month extension to the requirement for subdivision, et cetera. So the board must decide with the understanding that the one year extension has not been exceeded, but the number of extensions allowed would be exceeded. So any board discussion on this? We can grant a one year extension or a six month extension. You can grant a one year extension. The applicant asked for an extension but asked for a six month extension. Right. So the board could have granted a longer extension, but under the rules you can only grant one of them and you've already have granted one, but you've only granted half of the time period. So we're not really sure what you can do or can't do really. We have granted a six month extension. Yes, you have granted a six month one. We can give her another six. No. We can extend our one extension. We can extend it. We modify our original decision. She doesn't get over a year. She gets an additional six months to the six months she... If we can do that... Just modify her decision. I think that's... Exactly. Exactly. Frank, does that sound okay? Okay. Frank says, okay. If we can't, she just starts over again. Is that what happens? That's not going to happen. We can't do that. So we're going to simply modify our original decision from six months to 12 months. You need a motion? No. You're going to give another extension. We're going to modify what you... All right. Sure we can. That's passed. That's gone. That's expired. So we're just breaking our own rules by giving another extension? The regulations and the LDR rules. In that case, I... Give you only a one extension. In that case, I propose that we give her a year's extension. No way. We're going to break the rules anyway. That would be a year and a half. You're in a lot of years. I'm just breaking all the rules. Can we just amend the extension we've previously granted and change it from six months to a year so we give her the allowable amount and don't approve more than one extension? I don't know. I have no idea if you can do that. I mean, whatever we need to do because it's, you know, she should have asked for a year when she asked for the original one. And if you're saying the regulations say we can't approve more than one extension, you know, I'm trying to find a way out of this so that she doesn't lose her approval. I think Mark's reasoning is sound. But I'm not a lawyer. Just play one on TV. I'm really sorry. I didn't ask if anyone was here for the applicant. I thought we were past the minutes and so on. So I apologize for not asking. Okay. So my builder and engineer actually took care of all that. And basically the extension I needed the extension. I didn't know I could get a year and needed more time. And so I requested for the physician more time than Mr. Weller explained what we just talked about. But I do have some extenuating circumstances because my husband's been really ill all this time. That's what I need the extension for. And now he's in the hospital. And my builder who I'm doing this project with is in the process of divorce. And actually her husband is actually trying to have claims to my property. And we have this divorce and lawsuit pending and so getting a loan is getting difficult because we have if we're going to owe any money to our husband. And so I don't really want to lose we put a lot of money into all this with the TDRs and all the engineer stuff and the permits and all already so I don't want to lose that because now we have more financial things with my husband being sick and the attorney fees and legal fees that my daughter has and I have to because of her divorce and that. So I really would love for you to come as an additional 6 months. Would you like to us to amend the authorization to the original authorization to extend it to a year while retaining the extension of the additional 6 months? Would you like to amend for that purpose? That's where we are right? I'm asking the have. I just would like to have more time I don't know how you're going to do the opportunity. I really appreciate it. I think that was a yes. Just a yes. Yes. Well I would move that we do that. Move that we amend ST1630 to not amend the approving or amending your extension that you gave her 6 months ago I don't know if we get the exact date or what was your motion frank to amend to amend the original approval to a year while retaining the previously granted 6 months extension beyond the original approval. Second. No. No. No. No. With the board's attention being that the total period of time the 18 months no. 18 months? We can't do it. We can only do one year. Total time of the year? 12 months. So you got it sir? What do we do? We are amending our extension from the original 6 months to 12 months. Okay. So with the total time extended is 12 months. Okay. So that's the motion? So moved. And second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. And that is the end of the south point development. No. More other business. Sorry. Thank you. Nice try. Nice try. Two things. Both related scheduling. Curing schedule for 2018. January 2nd attendance is everyone able to attend the hearing on January 2nd? Yes. What is the day of the week? John, can I get a nod or something? I don't want to. I can do my usual. Okay. That's a Tuesday of course. First Tuesday. Okay. Depending on whether you continue anyone next time we may or may not have any agenda items for January 2nd. Excellent. Thank you. We'll still get together just because. We'll let you know if there's a meeting or not. But everyone nodded their head yes. So I'm holding you to that. That's just a bonus. July 3rd is a first Tuesday. Would the board prefer to have their annual break on July 3rd? Or keep the annual break as typical what is it the first meeting in August? So you could either have a hearing when the fireworks are going off in Burlington. Or you could take that day off and have a hearing the first Tuesday in August. Speaking purely for myself I'm going to take that day off. You're going to take it off. You have five Tuesdays in July. The 31st is a Tuesday. That doesn't we don't get to move it. It's true. Then it makes it real close to the August ones. That makes sense to me. Take off the third. Or we could always move the August one. We could always move the August break to the second Tuesday. To the second meeting on the 31st. Second and fifth Tuesday in August? I could do this. I just What would you usually do the August break on the second one or the first? The first Tuesday is usually the break. Yeah. I'm gone the third Tuesday in August, but that's not a schedule. You're gone August 22nd. 21st. Yes, I'm away for that's my vacation. I'm going to fall in. Just like Mark. I'm running down calling from California. So the board would prefer to have July 3rd off or would the board prefer to have August whatever it is. 7th off. July 3rd. I'm taking July 3rd off. That's close to you. July 3rd off. That's it for hearing schedule's final other business item. The annual joint meeting of the DRB and the planning commission. All planning commission members and DRB attend this meeting. January 30th is a fifth Tuesday. Is everyone amenable to that date? Fun. I have to look at my schedule. Yes, but unreasonably protracts the joint meeting that was supposed to discuss my issue. We'll send on an agenda for the DRB planning mission joint meeting. That is not the topic of this joint meeting. It will be even more protracted before we have that topic. We'll have to bring that up with Paul. Stalled yet again. I do not know the answer to that question. Stalled yet again was not a question. Let's see what they got. We got a nod from me. Okay. Thank you. Any more? Ooh. Any more business? That's my whole other business. Okay. Thank you, Bill. Thank you. We are out. Thank you, Sue. All done. Good night. I noticed somewhere that I was somehow at some point designated clerk. Were you not here that night? I've been here all the time. I don't remember signing up for that, but if there's ever a chance that I would be running a meeting, I will make sure I'm sick that night. Just saying. So be warned. I saw it somewhere. I can't remember, but it was before the meeting that we go to. What does clerk do, just sign stuff? Yes. If the chair and vice chair number two are gone. I personally don't communicate with anyone. I was one, sir. Well, I didn't realize that essentially the decision is a preliminary proof. Once you're past the preliminary proof.