 This is the Development Review Board meeting for September 6, 2022. We will go over the items in the agenda in the order that they appear. Scott, there are no changes to the agenda, right? There are new changes. And no additional communications. Everything's online. I got a couple of video snippets from a neighbor for a 120 depot street. Couldn't post them, so they'll be displayed. That's part of the hearing tonight. Okay, great. Thank you. The minutes for the last meeting are available if anyone has comments for AJ signs those. And with that, we'll get into our first item, which is 505. Lake street. We've got the up in here. So Jack Milbank and Michael Cox. Does anyone else speaking to this item? Jack or Michael. I think as far as we know, we're the only ones here for the same. Okay. Okay. We will swear you and then. So Jack and Michael, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain and penalty of perjury? I do. I only heard one of those. I do. Do you want to give a brief overview of the projects for the board? Yeah, I am. I'd be happy to. I'll, I'll let Jack perhaps talk a little bit more. Pardon me. About the history of the sailing center on the waterfront. And, but I just wanted to give you an overview of, of where this is and what the project entails. So if you're, pardon me, driving down college street towards the lake and. You make a right onto Lake street and drive north past the Moran plant and pass the skate park on your left is the, you know, the lake. The lake. We have recently somewhat recently constructed. Lake Champlain community sailing center. And our project proposes some waterfront improvements. Which will facilitate safety of boaters, especially those who are still learning. As well as expand outdoor. Educational opportunities. So the water, the project. Will only propose improvements. Lakeward of the existing sheet pile wall. And Scott, I was wondering if you would please be so kind as to pull up some of the existing conditions photos. Just so that everyone can kind of get a sense of place of. Where we are and. What we're looking at. So this first photo here is, is looking from, from the existing floating docks back at the sailing center. And you can see that there is a sheet pile wall there. And as I just said, our, our proposed improvements are our Lakeward of, of this wall. So we're not disturbing anything in the lawn area, but we're looking at some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the, some of the, or a boat yard beyond, beyond the wall. And you can see that the, if we scroll through some of the photos, you could see that. Really all we have is a, a rip wrap shoreline. And there isn't too much. If any vegetation there. So that gives you an idea looking down towards the Moran plant. And that's another shot looking towards the ramp. And back to the South. So the project consists of. Pretty much four aspects. The first is if we pull up that, that site plan. That you had up previously. Is on the Northern side, we have. A boat ramp, a concrete boat ramp that will facilitate. Launching multiple boats at once. And this is really going to eliminate a bottleneck that the, the existing facility experiences. So I mean, hypothetically imagine a bunch of children learning how to sail and in comes a thunderstorm. We really want to get them all out of the water as quickly as possible. So having this wider ramp than what's currently there. We're really eight in that. And then the second aspect of the project is kind of in the center of it, near the existing sheet pile wall. And it's a 39 by 39 foot. Filled center pier, which will also help in providing ADA access. For adaptive boats and also it will be a great outdoor classroom. So then instructors can point to actual parts of boats rather than just a chalkboard inside. The third aspect of the project is on the Southern side. And that's that launch well, where you see the two outlines of the race boats. And there'll be two points to lower boats into the water here. And this will allow the facility to host collegiate sailing races, as well as provide better access. And then the fourth aspect is back towards the North. It's a wave attenuator. And that's on the Northern side of the ramp. It's basically a sheet pile wall with a capping on it. And that'll prevent a lot of waves. From interfering with docking procedures and pulling the boats out of the ramp. One thing I wanted to add was this ramp is not at all intended for motor vehicle use. Simply just pulling the boats in and out of the water by hand. And the majority of it will be submerged underwater for a great part of the year. And just wanted to see if perhaps Jack Milbank had anything to add to that, that overview of the project. I think you've done a good job, Mike, explaining that. You know, the sailing center is a. It's really a. It's a nonprofit, but it's really designed to. Get people onto the water. It's not really a good idea. To get people onto the water. It's not just for sailing. There'll be canoes, kayaks. They do allow high school sailing programs to. Work out of there as well as the University of Vermont. And. One of the things that's. Kind of important in one of the first photos where you saw the aluminum ramp, we were looking at the building from West to East standing on the dock. That's currently the access point. For all launching. They can only really. Each, each boat has to be rolled up and down that. Ramp. And this really is going to provide, as Mike said, it's going to be. It's going to be a. Opportunity to make sure that. You can get big classes in and out at the same time. And then do it in a safe manner. It's important to know that. This project is all. Lakeward of. Elevation 102. The top of the sheet pile wall as you see it is. Elevation 104. And. As you all know, in 2011. We had that historic. High water mark set at 103 25. So the lake can is really can come up to about nine inches from the top of that. Of that. Existing sheet pile. And. At any rate, this is a project that we're working heavily with the United States Army Corps of engineers. And the state or not. Lakeshore encroachment program. We've got jurisdictional opinions and writing that. There's no stormwater necessary for this. There's no vegetative cutting, of course. And we also have a letter from. Kyle Madash at the. State of Vermont in the flood hazard program. That said that the impacts to the lake are de minimis. Based on our proposed project. So we've been working with a lot of regulators and. It's, it's an intense project, but it's truthfully, it's, it's all. It's lakeward of one or two. But anyway, we also put the project in front of the conservation board. And they seem to have. They had no real questions and seem to support the project. So we're all ready for any right now. We're here in front of you to answer any questions you guys might have. And get your thoughts on the. On the project is all. Yeah. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board. At this point. Yes. Are there any utilities associated with this project, There if you if Scott is to scroll through the photos, I think it might be about the third photo down. One more photo sorry. Okay that one. You can see in the center of the photo there's a piece of PVC pipe. So there is electrical connection required for the hoists, but the utilities have already already been run underground and installed to that. To that point that you could see in the center of the photograph, but no lighting is proposed with the project and no water or sewer connections. It's merely just like access. Thank you. And do I understand this correctly that this is not access for the public. Is that is, is that quote, as in, as in everything will. This isn't for people to put their boats in this isn't about access ramp. Correct. It is for for for small boats and stand up paddle boards it will provide lake access for that, but not for vehicles to back down and launch their, their power boats or larger boats. I see. And is there a time limit when people can put their boats in and take their boats out and especially if there's a time limit for taking it out. Would you then require people to come back before a certain time. Um, Jack, you might be able to better answer that question. I don't want. Yes, I think the question. This is, there will be public access but organized and managed through the Lake Champlain Community Sailing Center. They actually lease this property. And it's the city of Burlington is the owner. But they, the access is through programs that they manage. I guess I'm wondering, is there a gate put up at a certain time if someone wants at 10pm to take their kayak down to the water would they be able to do so. Well, that's a good question the access through the facility is gated. If someone had a kayak over their shoulder, and they carried it across the lawn of the Moran, or the properties south escape park and stuff. They, they, in theory could launch there. Yes. On the flip side, if, if they went out and something happened and they had to come back super late, there would be a gate and so they would be forced to exit the water in a different place. Nick, they, there is the ramp at the Coast Guard station there's the small boats like that. I mean they really you can carry them up the riprap but no they could take. They could carry this their boat around the, the fenced area. So the answer is, yeah, the ramp itself is not gated. Yeah, isn't this really for the use of the sailing center this is not a public. That's correct. Okay, so it's really people have to would need to be associated with the sailing center to be using this for access and for putting the boat in and out. Correct. Okay. Yeah. Any other questions from the board. So nice to have a project that's totally outside of our, it's not in the water. I mean, the public project where we have limited review and then it's in the water to boot. So, I will say, I bite by this all the time I'm always happy to see the sailing center there looks pretty good there. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to speak on this if so please raise your hand in zoom, using the zoom feature. Okay. I was meeting just the two applicants Caitlin. Yeah. We will close the public hearing on this item then and most likely will deliberate today. The next item on the agenda is 120 depot street. Do we have the applicants here Scott. Yeah, just give me a second. Just Steve you can talk is there anyone else with you on the applicant team. No just me. Okay. I think there are some neighbors to Caitlin. Should we swear them in now. I'm sure if you'd like to speak on this matter raise your hand. I think we can get you sworn in. So we have Bill Pearson and Sharon Bush are raising their hands. Okay, while Scott is enabling you all to speak. We'll swear you in. You swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pain and penalty perjury. I do. Steve. Yes. I would like to know if you have any thoughts on this and overview and any reactions that you have to the staff report as well. Since there are some comments in there. Sure. I started looking at this property about a year ago or a little. More and had some awareness of the challenges that were involved. Talk to actually met with Scott before I brought. The property to get his impressions. And so I started looking at it. And once I had purchased the property. Started moving forward with the design and. Getting all of the permits in place to. Put the. Design that I was looking to do. Into the works. I was looking at it. I was looking at it. I was creating unknowingly was cutting the trees. Without the proper permit since I was reading the exclusions to. Say that a lot less than three quarters. An acre with a single family home on it would be exempt from that. But. I was looking at it. Ultimately Scott, let me know that. So that's why it is part of the. Discussion this evening. The design that you see before you is more or less what I showed to Scott, yet his impressions. Certainly he did not make any commitments, but he did indicate that he thought that it was an appropriate. And that's what we proceeded with. So we. The application complete in May and. Worked through the design I worked with Ryan to. Address any issues that he could see before it came to you folks. Blading and entry roofs and many other little details. I went to the DAB. We worked through an issue with having the. First level of living space above the garage to be. Forward of the garage below. I. Ended up changing our design a bit to accommodate that. Once we got to that stage, Ryan. Felt that it was ready to come to you folks until. He revisited the. Regulations about the height. And it turns out that it had been changed in April. And it was not. Unbeknownst to he or I, so that. Created a conflict between my design. And what the new regulations. Ask for. So. Ryan. Essentially said that I had three options. One was to change the design to meet the new. Regulations apply for a variance. And then the final one was to come to you folks and see if you would. Be. Willing to look at it from. The historical perspective as far as having done the design. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per. Per the original. Regulations that we were working from and the fact that I only missed the deadline by a few weeks, a deadline that I of course was unaware of and. As Ryan was unaware of as well. So. Here we are trying to sort out. What the options are and hopefully come up with a solution that will. Make everybody happy. Yes. Before take questions from the board, Scott, Ryan, maybe could you give us your perspective on the changes and the requirements for the. Happy to. Yeah, the applicant submitted the, it was a complete application after the current height regulations were in fact so it's subject to the current height regulations. So that's going to have to apply. Unfortunately, well, that has to apply. So they didn't go through the DAB any work through certain design aspects which the DAB focuses on an article six designer standards and that the big draw there was that such the positioning of the living space in relation to the garage. And that's what we're looking for in some previous applications in front of you where the living space has to be forward of the garage and Steve has altered the plans to meet that. But for the review and you know that's that's only portion of the review but have your review occurred in preparation for the DRB and that's where the height issue came to light for me and for me that I was looking at the previous zoning ordinance and that's my mistake, obviously, but unfortunately, the current zoning ordinance does require that 50 foot distance back from the frontline where at a bus a street. There can't be any height excess of 35 feet. Almost the entire building is has a whole elevation of about 62 feet. So it's it does exceed that and I can't imagine anywhere around that. Thank you. Any questions from the board before we take public comment. I have a quick clarification on the height. So, there's two ways to measure height that are articulated. What is just along the front side of the building from the street or sidewalk and the other is the average finished grade all the way around. And that was changed. I don't remember the exact date. So we'll just say recently before this application was filed. So it used to be that within 10 feet of the street or sidewalk, you just measured the front. And beyond that you measure the average finished grade. The current standard switch that 10 feet to 50 feet. So that had the effect of changing height measurement on this property from all the way around average grade to just on the front. So that those two methodologies yield different results, but the short answer is we're just measuring along the front for this because it's within 50 feet. Well, what like set of changes was that wrapped up in. What was it trying to achieve. I just have here curiosity. So the general cleanup to some of the dimensional standards. We had a pretty, I'll say, wide open and loose standard for height. Beyond 10 feet, and it literally came down to measuring the high point and the low point and taking the average and calling that the height. There were some, there are some, I'll say there were some abuses to using that. It was just it was too wide open interpretation so that was tightened up to take the average finished grade and increments all the way around the building. Even when it is the average grade all the way around. Okay, it was just tightening up Caitlyn and have the effect of switching from 10 to 50 feet here. Um, any other questions from the board. I have a question. So this is a unique placement, because we've got frontage on two streets right people street in North Avenue. So right. No, it's just people street just people. That's just my question because I was thinking if you're looking at it from a different angle. Yeah, I got a couple questions one is for the applicant. Is the reason for setting the two floors of the house so high up is for views is that you don't get Lakeview unless you do that. That was absolutely part of the process I wanted to create a somewhat unique design if you would and I and it frankly is based off from a design that the previous owners had come up with through Smith Buckley and so I based on that I wanted to have it high enough or solar and to also obviously improve the view. You do get a view like from the terrace and top of the garage you do have a view from there don't you. There's some view there. Obviously it's very different than it would be with with the design you're seeing here. The other thing is sort of a comment. There's no real site grading plan provided with this application. It has the is all gone through the folks at water resources and we're the ones looking at it now. Yeah, yeah, no I didn't realize that that should be in there frankly the the intent is to not disturb the upper portion of the slope so that it would be just cut back in far enough for the garage and then we would replace it back to what it was originally so that it would essentially just be a natural slope down through like you're more or less seeing on there. Does this property go up to the parking lot of the condominiums above it or is it. It does it actually the east end of it borders to the folks in the condo thing they actually have been using the level portion of this property for a little kind of a place to have a bench and enjoy the lake and then it also into the corner of the parking lot of the police station. Yeah, that's one of the things that's hard to understand the site, you know, without those contours and a little bit more information on the site. Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely have all of those things I did not have an awareness that they would be helpful for you folks. So I can certainly provide those. Do you. Is this right that the gap between the garage and the houses is 25 feet is that right. It's yes something in that general neighborhood yes. So, even maybe this is a question for staff more than anything. If this design were not on stilts and it were stacked. It doesn't sound like it would hit the 35 foot limit either be closer to 40 potentially talking about just putting it all together as one structure minus the elevator shaft. Yeah, I'm trying to figure out like the rules seem to have made this lot on unbuildable for a single family home is my interpretation of that. If it if it didn't exceed the 35 foot then I would say yeah at least the height requirement. It's just a pitch on the roof, Caitlin so I mean it's hard to say without firm numbers, but stacking it with that pitch on the roof, and you can get three three levels under that 35 foot limit. Any other questions from the board Leo. Okay, just confirm the relationship to North Street to that level that that that that is that is not being considered with the height limit calculation. No it's just being measured from Depot Street it doesn't actually have any frontage on North Avenue. We'll open it up to the public. Sharon, do you want to go first. You are on mute just so you know, Sharon, are you there. Yes I am I, I thought it was unmuted but then Scott put up the little thing to unmute me. Yes I am. Thank you so much. I had two concerns. The height is is a fact I have no insight as to how to modify it without modifying the design so I'm not going to touch that. My issues really have to do with 5.5.3 stormwater and erosion control. And I always get concerned because this says that it needs to go through a process and yet it hasn't gone through the process. And if you approve it, it says that you know that there has to be an affirmative finding before a permit is allowed. I find that backwards I feel like the development review board should know that it is okay. I understand you don't want people to invest money in something. I understand the financial costs but this balancing act is troubling to me. And especially with a site like this. And I think it's made worse by the clear cutting of trees. And I did read through the application. And some of the stumps were going to remain. But, you know, I know the trees provide stability to a steep slope. And I know that once you cut a tree down, there is life to that root system. But after a while, that root system withers. And I think that brings into question the continued stability of the slope. I haven't heard anybody talk about that. And I didn't see that truly addressed with the with the fact that the finding for today with roots that are still viable, even though the trees are gone is one scenario. And I think over time, someone should at least get somebody who knows what they're talking about I'm just raising the question to know if as those roots deteriorate, if that will cause erosion further erosion and problems with that steep slope. So those are so safety is really some of the issues that really brought me tonight to want to speak to this development. And, and I have some safety concerns so thank you. Thank you Sharon. Just point of comment that the DRB does not have under our authority to review the, you know, the erosion and as part of our standard conditions but that's not our area of expertise which is why we don't consider it. Just wanted to address that point but appreciate your comments and concerns. Bill, do you want to take a moment to make your comments. You are on mute. Great. You can hear me now. Yes. Thank you. Before I start, I would like to say that my neighbor Tony Gillespie had tried to register also to speak. And he raised his hand and zoom and was unable to get your attention I guess is it possible to swear and then to swear him in now. We can do him and Sally Edith after if you want to make your comments. Thank you. Okay. My first point is about storm water. I think the board is aware that in 2020, the city built a new storm drain, which runs from North Avenue down to Depot Street. And there's a large concrete structure on the east side of Depot Street where that storm drain lets out. When we have thunderstorms is a great deal of water that comes down through there, and it runs down Depot Street. It runs in a swale on the east side of Depot Street. During thunderstorms that swale is pulled to the brim. And I see in the plans for the proposed building that there would be a driveway from Depot Street to the garage. And I'm worried that that driveway would disturb the float the city's planned blow of storm water. Thank you and can you provide your mailing address for staff. Yes, I live at 33 North Avenue. I'm in unit one in that condo building. Thank you. Scott, are you trying to. I had, I had sent a couple of videos to Scott. All right, so yeah, that's what I was just saying. I'll do a quick share screen. You see that second one or no. No, I'm seeing your windows explorer. Can you say where this is in relationship to the property. This year, that shows the frontage of the property right now. And then you're looking up Depot Street towards the source of the water. And again, you're looking at the frontage of the property. Thank you. That's what I wanted the board to see. Thank you. So it sounded like Mr. Gillespie. Scott, could you promote him. I see him and I see Sally Edith as well. Yeah, once you promote them then I'll swear them both in and we'll go on by one. Okay. So it's where to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain and penalty of perjury. I do. Did you hear me? Yes, I did. Okay. Thank you. And then Mr. Gillespie, I missed your first name. Tony. Tony. Can you hear us? We do not hear you. Anthony Gillespie. Do you hear it? That was from the line. Sorry. Is there someone else there? I don't know. My name is Virginia. I live with my husband at 33 North Avenue condo number 16. We were having a difficult time getting on. And so he went down to bill Pearson's condo. Do you want, should we promote bill again? Or should we wait for him to come back on this line? No, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But why don't you take care of Sally? And then we'll go to bill. Or I can also speak on behalf of my husband and I. Sounds good. Sally. Do you want to share your comments? Sure. My biggest concern is Depot street and the traffic that goes down Depot street. I walk there at least three times a week. And people go down. Most. The young people go down on their bikes. They don't know how to get out of the garage down there. They would not stop. And I don't know how, if you're backing out, I don't know how you could see. And if, even if you're going out front ways, I don't know how. I mean, it might take a while. I mean, there's a fair amount of traffic on Depot street. And mothers come up with strollers. And bikes go down there, like 90 miles. It's really kind of scary sometimes even walking down. But I just, and that's my biggest concern. And I wanted to voice it. I don't have pictures, but I haven't, I hadn't thought of that, but it's, it's kind of scary how fast people go down there. And, and they, they just would not stop. So, I mean, it's, it would be all on whoever is backing out or coming out with a car. And I personally am concerned about the traffic on Depot street. So. I get your mail address, Sally. Yes, it's 33 North Avenue and I'm in apartment seven. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me. Thanks. Do we have. Tony now. I don't know who you have, but I'm Jenny Gillespie Virginia Gillespie at 33 North Avenue. And I'll speak on behalf of Tony and I were in unit number 16. You look for that on, because I think we miss swearing you in. Do you swear the whole truth and nothing about the truth under pain and balance and penalty of perjury. I do. Go ahead with your comments. Okay. Thank you. I have spoken about our concern or shared with us your knowledge. Of the concern with the stability of the. Embankment. As Bill showed you the rushing water, you know, three years ago, the north side of our property was totally washed out due to the high rain. So we know that the embankment is very fragile. And we know that it's not going to work. And we know that it's not going to work with the pillars and the pilings. We just. Want to make sure that this is not going to be a domino effect. When they start doing work there and causing. Problems in front of our condo building. Down to D post street. I know that we had witnessed the. The redstone building built also on the apartments being built on a very steep embankment. We witnessed all one entire summer with them pounding in the. Pilings. So we know it's a very involved process in building something on. And we witnessed it being built on a steep embankment. So we know that it's not going to be a domino effect. We know that it's not going to be a domino effect. And my husband just got in from the other apartment. So. Do you have anything else? They might have to swear. Did you swear me in already? Downing Mr. And bills. You used where it's held the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under pain and penalty of perjury. I, I do. Add to some of the conversation already. We agree with the. The review boards. Take on the height. And to decline the. Permit on that basis to start with. It's pretty obvious that it's not in compliance with your existing. Regulations or ordinance as I heard. Earlier in the discussion. We'd also have. Add to the public safety issue. Of depot street. If it hasn't been stated that. Street is in. Pretty bad condition. For. Vehicular traffic. It is very popular. Pedestrian traffic. And I know the city is looking to coordinate efforts to. Create access with depot street. To the bike trail. So the thought is that. You're looking at trying to solve a problem. That may create even additional traffic on depot street. To. Utilize the waterfront. And the bike trail in particular. There are some other safety issues. But I have witnessed. They have to do with. Pedestrians using it. Who are not. Pedestrian friendly. They've come up and aggressively. Approach some of the residents or other users. I witnessed. Seeing a woman with two children. Be aggressively talked to and yell that. They've come up. To the. Another pedestrian coming up depot street. We've witnessed that several times. The, the issue of the traffic would concern us. In relationship. To the garages. It's hard to. Fathom. That garage. You know, helping the traffic. To the people that are in the garage. And the people that are entering the garage. Bill talked about as being. Dangerous. And going up and down. Depot street. I think would cause. Additional traffic to say. Well, if he can do it, why can't we. There's a lot of. Times we've witnessed. That's the way to get off the waterfront. That's a lot of different kinds of concerns. And it all surrounds the house. The lot itself. As you've discussed, it's very steep. And it's been cleared. And I think it's now. At risk of some erosion. We're degrading because of that. I think you may all be aware that. Our driveway was washed out. In a. We need storm. It washed out a big chunk. Not only the driveway, but our portion of that bank. I'm thinking that having this exposure. And the building of it. It needs. A lot of attention to make sure that. That kind of. Event doesn't occur again. And I think that. Is the whole process. And again, I heard one of the other. Representatives talk about that too. And we certainly concur with. The thoughts that are there as well. Thank you. I appreciate the comment. Does the board have any questions for the neighbors before I send it back to Steve to respond to some of that comments. If he chooses. Steve, do you have anything to add based on the comments that you have? I'm not sure. You are on mute. If you would like to speak. I'm taking that as a no, but you do not have additional comments. Brad, did you have something? I have another question. Sort of. Following up on some of these on the neighbors said. Looking at that. There's wing walls on either side of the garage and they are. At least as represented in the drawing. Quite high. And I think that it makes it. I think the site. I mean, I think it's. Trying to come out of that garage. They're going to be quite difficult. But it's hard to tell how accurate this is without a real site plan. To know what the grading really is over there and how high those walls need to be. How much land do they have on either side? So. As it's drawn, I do see it as a problem. You know, and I think the whole. Is an issue not having a real landscape plan for what's happening on this thing. And then the other thing I would say is when we've had other slope steep slopes like this. We've asked for the geotechnical aspect of the engineering on that to be part of the application of other times. We may want to consider that for this one. Did I respond? Yeah, Steve, would you like to respond? Absolutely. Absolutely. We've already done the soil boring and stuff. Several weeks ago, Brad, so I can. Absolutely provide all of the geotechnical and. The engineering aspect of it regarding the. Foundation, which of course is part of the equation when. Making sure that we keep a stable slope. All of that. Is something I can certainly provide along with. Additional landscaping information, the. Wing walls. Will only be as high as is required to. Maintain the. The slope that is currently existing there. So it won't be particularly high. At that point, but certainly that would be something that we can easily address from, from that. Perspective. Yeah, that makes total sense to me now that now that you say that it wasn't something that was. That was obvious to me and, and it didn't come up in our conversation. So. But I can absolutely download those or upload those to the. View point or whatever it's called it. So. Can absolutely add that. I guess the question I would have is regarding. What I still seems to be the biggest issue obviously is the. The height requirements. Is there any. You know, discretionary. Ability on the board's part to allow us to use the original. The formula to do that since that's what the design was based on right up until. Well, until after it was submitted, frankly. That's something we can consider in deliberative. Yeah, not something that we could. Yeah, not. Yeah. No, I just, I, I'm just trying to get a handle on, you know, what is reasonable or not reasonable to expect during this conversation. You know, obviously. I would have made different decisions about what. Or when to do the three cutting that was basing it on the fact that I was confident that. The design in general terms would be. Allowable based on the. Regulations before they changed in April. So I. Yeah, obviously would have made different decisions than if, if that was, I would have waited to find out, but I just assumed it was correct. So it is an issue to have to start obviously from scratch on something that already have the design in place on. So I hope that's taken into consideration as well as, you know, not being able to do the solar and sacrificing the, the view. I'm sure you probably take all of those things into consideration as you're deciding whether or not it's appropriate. Thank you, Steve. Scott, did you have a comment? The height standards were amended in October 21. Thank you. It's been mentioned a few times, but it's October 21. So with that, we will close the public hearing for this item. And we will likely deliberate as I mentioned at the end of. Whether it would be okay just to make one more quick comment. This is Steve. Sure. Okay. I'm sorry, I had the only reason I threw that out there. Scott was because that is the date the April 6, 2022 is when it shows on the thing that shows when it was approved, I guess is what I was, what I was looking at. So, and I'm not sure how I would have even if it were then how do they make some sort of notification to folks who have. Projects in process that things are changing. Well, that's happening. I mean, how would I have known that? I'm just trying to figure that out. Thank you. So now we'll. Thank you. And we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is a sketch plan review for 52 Institute road. I do want to say that, and maybe this is true of others, because this is a very large project involving a lot of people, but I am friends with one of the architects. I don't think that would impact my ability to be impartial for any decisions, but I wanted to state that upfront. No one has an issue with that. And we can move into sketch plan. Joe, you have been promoted. So I'm going to move on to the next agenda item. I just want to give us an overview and we can share our comments. Sure. Sure. I'm going to just quickly introduce several of the team members who are on the call today. And then pass it over to one of our architects is just going to run through. Run through the plans, give a brief overview, address some of the staff comments, and if you want to maybe give controls to Brian Leet. That would be great. So he could bring up his slide deck. But I don't see the name before we go further. It's got to be just wearing for sketch plan. Yeah, yeah, we've got about five or six members from the team. Do you want us to raise our hands? No, we're good for a sketch plan. Okay. I'm promoting Brian, the panelists so we can see a share screen. Okay. So just to quickly introduce who we have from the project team, I believe I can't see the names here, but I believe we have Lyle Smith, the director of facilities for the school district. We have our architects, Jesse Beck and Brian Leet from Freeman French Freeman. I think Randy Burnett is on from Colin Lindberg architects. I believe we have our civil engineer Dave Marshall. With civil civil engineering associates on the call. And then finally, I believe we have Marty Spalding, who is with PCI. And he is our construction advisor. So with that, I guess I'll just hand it over to Brian. If there's anyone else on that I missed. Maybe they could just identify themselves. But if I got everybody, I'll just go ahead and pass it over to Brian to walk us through the plans. All right. Thank you. So I'm just going to do a quick, quick run through. Our drawings, some of what was submitted and a few additional renderings we've been creating. I'll keep this brief and then we can get to the open discussion. Generally highlight on the program we're looking at a 268,000 square foot building. It's structured for both Burlington high school and the Burlington technical center. Those spaces are each given kind of their own identity on the street facing Institute Road. I'll, I'll talk through that as we look at the site plan. There is a auditorium, large gymnasium, three station gymnasium, which is slightly larger than what was in the former Burlington high school and a multi-purpose presentation space. Throughout the process, we've heard a lot from the students and staff and faculty, the desire for outdoor connection. So we've really focused on outdoor connection in the design. Just briefly some progress renderings on the building as it would look approaching Institute Road, looking to the Northwest. The site plan has been set up to emphasize a multimodal arrival on the site. So bicycle connections and parking for bicycles at the three entry points to the site arriving from the south along North Avenue from the North along North Avenue and also coming up the hill from the bike path. Separating the drop off zones so that we can have people arrive by both car and bus safely to the building in the same arrival and departure times of the day on the north and south sides of the building. A dedicated visitor entry for security and safety so that once arrival is completed in the morning, all the building entries can be locked. The visitors can go in the only unlocked building door. The visitors can see clearly who the visitors are arriving at the site at the visitor parking spaces along the front. And those visitors then can go in the only unlocked building door are vetted by staff at the administration office before they are able to enter the remainder of the building. And then parking for 358 sites. Spaces roughly were still finalizing that number. On the north property as well as the 144 existing parking spaces on the south property. So this is a look at the site plan. As I mentioned, we have bike path entry along coming from the north along North Avenue. A path up to this kind of drop off and visitor arrival road along the institute road parallel that enters the lower level of the commons from the south. Further along that road, we have an entry to the Burlington Technical Center portion of the program. The west face of the building is where the loading dock and support functions happen. And then we have a second entry to the second floor of the two level commons from the north side. All the existing buildings on site with the exception of the chip plant up towards the north end of the property are going to be removed as part of the demolition and remediation of the environmental contamination that was discovered on site. The chip plant remains as a building. There's still some discussion about the exact use of that whether or not we will be using the wood chip or some modified version of the wood chip boiler for heat backup or whether that will be cleared out and used for other purposes for the district within the existing building shell. So this is the building as you would approach it from the north side. Very quickly just walk you through for understanding. This is the lower level in the lower left is the entry to where the BTC program entry will be. That end of the building in the area that's kind of in light green and pink is BTC program spaces. The main entry enters the main level, the lower level rather the commons has access to the bottom space of the auditorium. As we move up through the building the next level from the north we have the upper entrance still connected to the high school access to the rear of the lower seating bowl in the auditorium as well as the gymnasiums. There's also to the west along this north side, another public lobby so that the what we're calling the community gym, the left most of the three gymnasium cross courts can be isolated and used from that public lobby for public functions separate from high school activities with direct in and out access. Moving up through the building, we then have a balcony for the auditorium and as you see on the east side the second of three levels for classrooms and then the top level is classrooms only. So the building is technically five levels under code because it has a lower level and then for four four levels but at any point along the length of the building there are only four vertical stories. The roof is being arranged to maximize solar potential and try to congregate the mechanical equipment as we can. There's also a roof deck potential because of our fourth level on the east end of the building. These are you know some early elevations which I believe were shared with you as we develop the massing and fenestration. So I think that's an idea of what it would look like coming into that lowest level from the south and looking up to the second level and then through glass up to the third level where the what we call the learning commons or library is located. Sustainability is being a big focus on the project. We are pursuing lead. I think there was a note in the staff report that on the last iteration the re-envision project this project is going for lead rather than the CHIPS program. We are looking at a fully electric potentially MEP system with the possible exception of maybe some heating backup and as you can see here really looking at ways that we can make the building as environmentally friendly as possible. And then where we are obviously sketch plan our goal is to continue to refine this design for a permit application by the end of September. The bond vote on November 8th will determine whether the project moves forward and with a pass on the bond vote the remediation and demolition will get underway in the start of 2023 and the site work and construction would begin next summer. And the goal for the district is to move in prior to the 2025 fall academic year. So that's the overview. I can bring up if we need to other drawings that were part of the application set. Any questions or comments from the board? Leah? Yes, there was a note about the storm water needed to go on to another property and the requirement for an easement. Have you looked at that? We have Dave, are you on? Would you like to address that? Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates here. In this particular case the existing conditions actually utilize a common storm water management facility that is bisected by the line between the school district's property and the parks property to the west. So in this particular case what you're looking at is a proposed storm water improvement on the school property that discharges into a seasonal pond. And that pond is split on the two properties and we're not proposing at this point in time any specific improvements on the park property related to the storm water system. But there are some recommendations from the school district that would be able to stabilize the outlet of that particular pond that does continue on to the parks property further to the west as well as removing some of the debris that currently is on the west side of the pond on the parks property but is obstructing the outlet itself. So regardless of whether there's a school there's still some recommended improvements on the park property. So we're working with parks on how to put those into place and we don't envision anything different with regard to how to make the existing features on the park's property more functional. It would be appropriate to have easements, cross easements working back and forth between the two parties to enable this particular area to continue to function in an appropriate manner. So we're working with the schools to make sure that we're able to engage in those discussions with parks in regards to how to mutually benefit on both ends of that spectrum. There's also a note about how you a system has been developed where the clean storm water runoff in the armed support area to the north will be intercepted and conveyed separately around the treatment facility. So we're working with the community to make sure that the size of the storm water, water quality treatment facilities is to take the clean water, i.e. those drops of water that have not been impacted by pavement surfaces or any other development. So on this particular plan that's on the screen in front of you, in the top right is primarily the clean water. So we're working with the community to make sure that all drains towards the high school. So from both a an appropriate defensive approach where we look to protect new improvements by intercepting the surface water that otherwise would run across them. We would be intercepting those clean drops of water and then rather than over building and recharging the project, we actually pipe those clean drops of water past those facilities and then reintroduce them back into where they normally go anyway. So in this particular case what was not depicted on the previous plan was some of that bypass piping that would take it past the treatment facility and then discharge it into the pond. So you'd still have peak flow mitigation as part of the storm water management pond where you would be able to use both of the school districts as well as the parks properties, but again as far as the size and the cost of having to deal with an oversized water quality treatment facility, we can avoid that particular scenario with that separate collection system. Brad, did you have? How does that work on the site? Yeah, I can take that. So we have there are several categories of buses. There are buses that the school district operates directly. Those would enter the site and arrive at one of the two drop off places based on whatever policy is set for where buses would be dropping off. There are city buses that would collect students at the school and then distribute through the city routes. And then there are the city buses that operate along North Avenue and are used by the students, all the students in the district I believe have bus passes and do use the regular operating city buses. So the city buses that are the quote unquote normal buses that operate along North Avenue will continue to stop were currently proposing to shift the bus stop that is southbound but south of the intersection to the north of the intersection so that students who are arriving from the north or departing towards the south do not have an extra crossing of Institute Road at the same time of day that you have heavy traffic for arrival and departure. That adjustment still needs to be reviewed and finalized both the transit authority and the city public works in terms of the impact on the intersection geometry. And then both drop-offs and the south and north side of the building are designed so that they can function for buses that come onto the site. And the expectation would be that parents would be directed to one and buses would be directed to the other during normal drop-off times. So I think the bus at either location would block traffic at that point. That might be a scale thing. These roadways are all 20 feet wide. So if you had a bus on the curb at any of these locations you could easily move past it. It seems a lot of activity without really a bus pullout. You know, because you've got the buses coming and if cars parking, it just sounds congested. On that note, Brian, in the north section, is that designed to be one-way traffic? Yes. Again, the roadways are all 20 feet, so it could support multiple directions, but the idea is that buses would arrive or most likely buses to the north would arrive headed westbound on that southern tier go up and around the loop and then come back out. And this portion of drop-off here is long enough for around four buses to stack up in that section. Any other comments from the board? I have a question. Isn't the discussion the technical center, they may not be part of the project? I misunderstand the issue. Joe, do you want to respond to that or do you want me to respond? Yeah, I could quickly respond and feel free to add on. The technical center will be part of the project and this, if I'm correct, Brian, the home office or administrative office will also be here on Institute Road. The school is proposing to move several tech center programs out to the airport. As part of a new development out there, what we're calling the high base bases, where they do the aviation and I think it was a pre-tech Brian and maybe automotive are planned to move out to the airport, but the other programs will remain here on Institute Road, as well as the administrative offices for the tech center. Sean, did you have a question or comment? Yeah, possibly for Brian. I was looking at the project narrative where the Department of Public Works has some questions about the approaches to the building and we expect to both pedestrians and bikes to make sure that there is clear delineation for pedestrians and in particular bikes to be separated from vehicles. I'm not sure if you're doing that with just a walk or if it's curved, or if there's a green space between or whatever, but with buses and cars all accommodated in one area, the kids on bikes are paying attention to I think a curved separation would be the last thing to have there. There's something to consider. Yeah, what we are trying to do certainly for any cyclists coming from the north, from the new north end residential neighborhoods we have a curved path that really as soon as we get past ArmsForest we want to bring them off the road and onto the property and they can cycle up and lock their bikes and enter from the north entry. Certainly anyone coming up from the bike path will have to at some point cross the roadway, but again we hope to get them quickly to bicycle and then into the building. I guess perhaps challenging is students coming up from the south from North Avenue. We do have as part of this intersection improvements, discussions with the city and the city and the city. We have a lot of turn boxes and signaling to provide some cycle safety. It's not really within the scope of what we're able to do and this project to change the nature of the North Avenue bike lanes but that would be something the city could consider. Currently also I would note that in parallel with this project the city may implement the plan which as we understand is to put bike lanes down both sides of Institute Road which would illuminate the parking spaces along the south of Institute Road. So as we've looked at parking needs for the site we're kind of recognizing those changes. With that said we don't really see Institute Road as a useful bike lane for individuals coming or going from the new building itself that would be used by people connecting between North Avenue and the bike path through the park. Thanks. Speaking of bikes there was long discussion about how many bike spaces are necessary and I don't want to override any of that but given that there's multiple spots where you have planned bike parking I fear that while they may total the required number that students may prefer to use one area or another and so also bike racks while they may technically hold a certain number of bikes the way people tend to use them they don't always hold that maximum number and so I would just encourage you to put as much bike parking in as possible to try to ward off those issues. There was also a discussion in the notes and I believe I saw on the plans also where crosswalks starting from one side of the street do not necessarily connect with the crosswalk on the other side of the street and I know that's a detail that'll probably get flushed out but I would encourage you to do that also. The final thing from me is that the greenery on the 2D plan and the 3D renderings did not match and I anticipate that's because the 3D renderings you want to take the vegetation out in order to show the building but I hope that the actual building would include the vegetation as specified on the plan. You're absolutely right about what's going on there in terms of trying to understand the building versus the plan, the landscape plan is the concept in terms of how we would approach vegetation I would also add that based on our practice and the technical review comments we are looking at a variety of biodiversity it's easy to look at this and think it's going to be a row it will not be a row of monoculture trees. Any other questions or comments from the board? Well hopefully you've gotten the feedback that you were hoping for for a sketch plan and we will see you back here. Actually can I just I just want to address one more point Brian can you talk about the visitor parking area located to the south of the building near Institute Road and the reason why we need that parking there from security reason there was a comment in the staff report that recommended doing away with those visitor parking spaces except for maybe a couple hand 88 spaces but can you talk about that? Yeah absolutely I think and then what I touched on earlier you know the idea is we have the existing parking of course south of Institute Road and the parking new two parking tiers to the north of the building those will be staff and student parking as the district policies assign. The idea is you know nobody who is a regular user of the building would use the parking along the front once you get past arrival time to the building all the doors on the exterior of the building will automatically lock and the only way into the building will be through the first floor vestibule at the front of the building which is designed to require everybody to come into the vestibule enter the administrative waiting interact with the staff person get badged in or whatever security they require and then go into the building anybody who is working in the building any adult who's in the building and unsupervised by a school district staff person has to have been fingerprinted and have a background check and so the first element of kind of administrative overview and safety is that they can see when visitors are arriving even as they're approaching the building and we kind of encourage all and visitors to arrive and come to that front door and of course that's mostly people from the community who have to either interact with the administration parents picking up sick kids parents dropping off kids and all those sorts of interactions that really just are going to require that front door that door on Institute Road to be the place that they access so for that reason we really do see having some allowance for segregated visitor parking and having it close to that door is pretty essential to how the building operates. Jason did you have a comment to add to that? I see your hand is raised. I'm new to this process I'm just wondering if you were accepting public comment as part of this or not at this point. Do we do public comment? You're on mute. I didn't have to figure it out right now. Yeah, public comment is taking during sketch plane and I was going to suggest before we close the meeting to see if anyone wants to speak. Thank you. I just raised my hand because it sounded like Caitlin or we were wrapping things up and I just didn't want to miss an opportunity. Okay, so if you would like to comment on this project please raise your hand. It looks like we have Sharon and Jason interested in speaking. Jason, you want to answer your comments? Sure, thanks. So I'm Jason trust. I'm the president of the city Bluffs homeowners association right across the street and I got the notice in the mail just wanted to thank you for that. I appreciate the heads up about this happening while I might be the president of our homeowners association. I don't represent the views of all unit owners but there has been one concern that kind of continually comes up that I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention. I'm not even sure if this falls under your purview but if someone can make a note or if we can be put on a list to be contacted at some point, I think we greatly appreciate it and that is just dust control management construction dust control unfortunately we had a previous construction project when the parking lot on the south side of institute road was reconstructed. There were at least one or two large piles of sand that were left there for quite a bit of time and the wind blows towards us on the east side of the road and had a lot of complaints from residents getting a lot of dust inside their windows and so you can imagine with the demolition of a building that has been deemed hazardous, a lot of our residents have raised concerns about construction dust blowing in our direction so I just wanted to put that out there. I appreciate your work on this. Thank you. Yeah Scott can you promote Sharon? Hi, yes thank you. So originally this site was in two zones and so it allowed for more surface parking than is currently allowed and I spoke during the planning commission and the ordinance committee of the city council's discussion about this change and my concern has to do with as my understanding from the school department is that the number of places are under the 400 maximum as they've stated but you know my children went to BHS and I've been in this community for a while and they have regional track meets etc and I just haven't ever heard I've heard that there can be parking waivers but I've never heard anything formally stated about what happens for an event like that and where do people park and is there currently a request I know this is a sketch plan review but is there the school department considering requesting a waiver to deal with some of this situation the one that I'm describing is anyone from Friedman from Friedman want to respond to these comments I can quickly address that the parking discussion and it is a little bit of an ongoing discussion but the first thing I would say is due to the zoning changes that were recently made this project will have a traffic demand management program that is or working with VHB on the traffic study already and they are going to be working on that as well they are going to be producing that in line with the zoning requirements and we have identified peak events as a category of response that is required at this time we are looking to see if it's going to be feasible to try to address those peak events without adding parking that wouldn't otherwise be used on the site but that's where we are today I can't say that we won't see something different by the time we complete our permit application at the end of the month and Joe do you have anything you would like to add to that? I don't I think you summarized it well we continue to evaluate it and I think with that we will close the meeting and move into deliberative recording stopped in progress ZP 22 443 505 Lake street I move that we approve the application adopt steps, findings and recommendations Brooks seconds any comment or discussion all those in favor unanimous I'll make a motion on CP 22 307 120 DEPO street to reject the application any discussion when a clarity I think it should be denied and let's change that reject to deny the application adopt staff findings I don't think we are adopting staff findings they have to be issued with the denial right staff the findings they have adverse conditions which support the denial I see I vote that we are you good with that change Brad are you good thank you all those in favor of denying the application unanimous recording stopped