 Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for June 6th, 2023. My name is Dawn Filiburt, and I'm the chair of the DRB and I'd like to introduce our other board members. Quinn Mann, Mark Baer, Stephanie, Wyman, thank you. I always stumble over that and John, Muscatelli. Muscatelli. I've got a bone up on these before I go to a meeting. I'm sorry. And we have staff with us Marla, Keane and Marty Gillies. Thank you for being here. Just so you know, this meeting is being recorded. There's a couple of ways to participate. Many of you are here in person. People can participate virtually, and they can also call in and participate. In any event, it's important that if you're participating, we have your contact information. So those of you who are in the auditorium, I would like you to make sure you sign up and the sign up sheet, those online. I'd like you to please send your contact information to Marla Keane at M-K-E-E-N-E at SouthBerlingtonVT.gov. Okay. Let's turn to emergency evacuation procedures. First item on the agenda in the event of an emergency. There are doors in the back two corners of the auditorium. Pardon me, you would simply exit those and turn either left or right to go outside. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? Hearing none, we'll move on to announcements. Are there any other announcements? I guess I should just mention that I do have an item under other business tonight, which is to sort of describe what maybe they should have gone under addition solutions or changes to the order of agenda items to describe the recent LDR amendments. So just get excited for that. Thank you, Marla. We'll look forward to it. I'm sure it's riveting. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are related to the agenda? So we will now turn to item five on the agenda, which is a review of a project. And for those of you who aren't familiar with our process, what we do is invite the applicant to come up front. We swear them in. And then we go through the staff report and have them respond to the staff comments that have been identified as issues that need discussion. And we as a board will ask questions until we have enough information, we believe to make a decision about the project. And then public comment period. And yes, thank you. And we have a public comment period. So item number five is continued preliminary and final plaid application SD 2305 of Gary Bourne to create a general plan unit development by resubdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.1 acres, 0.18 0.18 acres lot one, 0.14 acres lot two, and 1.6 acres lot three, constructing a 3,350 square foot financial institution on lot one, a 6,480 square foot two story mixed commercial and residential building on lot two, and a three story 27 unit multifamily building on lot three at 760 Shelburne road. Who is here for the applicant, please? First of all, are there any disclosures or conflicts of interest? Okay. Who is here for the applicant, please? Good evening. There's actually quite a few of us here. So I'll start. My name is Lucy there. Give me one minute that I have caught up on my notes. Okay. Thank you, Lucy. Okay. Lucy there, landscape architect with TCE. Okay. Gary Bourne, the owner of the project. Hi, Gary. Mark Hall, I'm with Paul Franklin Collins, attorney for the project. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Okay. We also have some folks online. Okay. Folks online, please identify yourself if you're part of the application team, applicant team. Hello. I'm here with TPG architecture. Hi. Anyone else? I believe that's everybody. Okay. So if this is continued, do we need to be sworn in? If there are people here that have not been sworn in before and there are, please do. Yes. Why don't you all raise your right hand? It's easier that way. Okay. Someone online, you need to raise your right. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay. So welcome back. We have a lot of comments to go through, but I'm wondering, so our typical, as you know, our typical processes to review items that are highlighted in red that staff have identified, but in the body of the staff report, especially this time, there are comments that aren't in red that might still be things you want to respond to. And first of all, I'd like you to identify if there's any of those you want to respond to. And secondly, I'd like you to hold off on that. Just let's ask if you have any opening comments and any comments in the non-red sections of the report. Do you want to start with anything? Well, I think first off, we'd like to say thank you for, you know, taking the time to hear this project again. We are looking forward to sharing some of the changes we've made in response to the comments we've received because we're very excited about this project and improving this corner of Shelburne Road and Swift Street. We all are. Exactly. Yeah. So we're really excited and we want to get through it. There is one piece that is not in red with the inclusionary zoning piece that that is something that wasn't highlighted as for discussion that we would like the opportunity to speak to. Should we do that now or wait? We're happy to do it in the order that it comes in the report well. All right. If I miss it, flag it for me please. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. So for my purpose and I hope the board, I would find it helpful and this relates to comment three, but since we're at the beginning, could you please walk the board through the new elevations that you're presenting? Yeah, this is for the financial institution on lot one. So we have Kelly online and she is, oh, I'll also note that I believe Marty is handing out some revised renderings that were not included in your package, but we wanted to provide for reference in the context of how that's changed for the project. So Kelly, I think that this is your cue to talk about the elevational changes. Lucy, can I just ask these are renderings that are not different than what was represented architecturally in the application? Is just the rendering itself is new? No. So this is a reflects the current plan. It reflects the revised architecture for the financial institution as well as the revised plaza space. Right. So but those things match the packet. It's just these elevations themselves. Sorry, the renderings themselves are new. Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay. Do you want to pull up Marty the elevation part of the packet? Thank you for these. These are helpful. And whenever you're ready, we get Kelly can start to discuss what the specific changes are. And once Marty's got that, there we go. Okay. So coming out of last, the last meeting with the board, we agreed up came to an agreement with the board that a portion of the building could be raised to have the appearance of a two-story per the ordinance. And so what we did was exactly that. We raised a portion of, we've actually raised the entire height of the building overall. And then we raised the main portions, which are the main entry tower to really bring focus to that main entrance. And then the tower on the side, we raised that a little more than the rest of the building as well to allow for windows in that space and give the appearance of the double height space within. I'm trying to match that with the pictures here, the illustrations. Kelly, can you describe which portion was raised just to, I think it was the portion that's in gray. Is that right? Yeah, so the portion in brown was raised a few feet and I, we have a single screen trying to zoom into the side. We did raise that a bit. And then what we really raised were the main towers, which are the gray tower and the green tower. And that's where we included windows. And then along the east elevation, we included windows up there as well to give that two-story appearance. Okay, thank you. Any questions before we start to go through the comments, Court? Well, I mean, I think just staff's comments, I'm in agreement with that, you know, it's putting windows sort of above the first floor windows. It reads more like transom windows than actually second-story windows, like windows in the two-story building. And, you know, one question I have is there's reference to the spandrel glass. Are those, is that glass spandrel or is it clear glass into the space? And what is spandrel glass, Mark? It looks like glass framing like it's got the aluminum rim, but the actual glass is opaque. Can't see through it. Okay, thank you. Yes, so that is opaque. It's going to be opaque film over the glass up on the top. Okay, so at during the night and, you know, when it's at night, when it's lit up, those are going to be dark and the first floor windows are going to be lit up. You won't allow, it won't allow any light into the built into the interior. It's, it's kind of like just putting up. I think that for it to read as a two-story building, it's got to be at the staff comments and I would agree standard height for the window. It looks like a transom window over those lower windows. They're lower down. They should be taller and they should be clear. And what is the point of having them be spandrel? Spandrel? It's, there's, it's, it just makes it, it looks like windows, but it's not. But why is it not, what, why do you not have clear glass there? Because what's behind it is likely building structural materials. Oh, I see. So it isn't actually a cathedral necessarily all of it inside. I see. If you went inside the building before the construction was done, you might very well not be able to see all of that assembly from the inside. I see. So to have it covered, it keeps us from what I'm understanding, where they're keeping it within the amount of glass that is called for in the regulations that has to be clear. So they meet that or exceed that. But this gives the look of a window on a drive-by. And your streetlight is right on the corner in front of it. And so the building face will be lit as it is today. The gas station canopy is lit from Shelburne Road. That's not going to change. I mean, the light fixture may be as they continue to upgrade Shelburne Road, we'll probably get a new fixture at some point, but it's always been lit. It will continue to be lit, but correct. There'll be nobody sitting up there with a light on at after dark in the winter months. But there might not be even if it was two stories. And if you'll note in their rendition, it was just handed out. Further request out of the executive session, the ask was to raise one section and pull a window up from the executive session, I think two meetings back. If you look at the top elevation, it's very similar to at the T-Mobile, the mixed-use building further down Shelburne Road. So I think the idea behind the ruling seemed to be to create a downtown New England type view. Although staff has pointed out to us that, given it's a six-lane highway in the busiest corner in the state, it probably won't reach that look, even with everybody else stepping up over the years to come. But the height is there. And if you take the dimension on it, there's enough room there for two full stories. So I thank you. I suggest we start to go through the comments. So let's move to comment number one, and I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to update coverage computations prior to closing the hearing. Yeah, so we haven't provided those in advance of when we got this package till now, but I am pretty confident that they won't change a lot because we did remove a parking space. I think staff notes that there was an increase in the revised plaza area by the multi-family building, but we did also remove that parking space over by Shelburne Road. So I think overall our lot coverage did not increase significantly, but we're happy to provide that. And I think kind of one point that staff is getting at is that we have proposed over the 70%. We're allowed to 80, but we also are proposing additional site amenity, which isn't allowed credit to get that overage. So we're happy to provide that and hope it would be kind of, you know, if we were to be continued, we could provide it at the next hearing or if we were to close the hearing, we would hope it could be a condition of approval that we would provide that and make sure that those numbers all worked. Okay. Questions? Okay, thank you. I'm focusing on the setback bullet. The setback lines shown on the plan are only 10 feet from the front property line, not 20. I'll just make that comment. So number two, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify the front setback and front setback coverage, both verbally and on the plans in a future revision. We're absolutely happy to do that. I have the numbers with me. I actually spoke with Marla kind of about there. I had a little confusion as to how what pieces were calculated. So after speaking with her, I've got some clarification and I can provide them verbally and we're happy to put them on future plans. So for lot two, the mixed use lot, the Shelburne Road frontage is 4%. That's because there's like a small little piece where the Shelburne Road driveway is. For lot three, which is the multi-family lot, that's got frontage on both Shelburne Road and Swift Street. The Shelburne Road frontage is 44% and the Swift Street frontage is 37.6. And that is in the 20-foot urban overlay district setback, not the 10-foot PUD waiver that we've requested. Thank you. What about lot one? Lot one doesn't have because it's driveways and parking. Lot one is the corner lot. That's the financial institution. So it doesn't actually have any driveway or parking that would have coverage. Okay. So front setback coverage is limited to 30%. Is that for non-residential uses? For non-residential uses, that's correct. And so as a PUD, I'm just pointing out what the rules are, just something for you to keep in mind. Okay. Thank you. So we're back to discussing the appearance of two stories, which number three highlights. So let's go back to that issue. And Board, other comment marks already commented, but any other comments you have, Mark, or any comments from other Board members about this not appearing like a two-story building? I would concur. Okay. Thanks. I don't get the impression looking at that that it's a two-story building, that there's a second story on there. I agree. It looks like the windows, if anything from the outside, I would assume that the windows are just providing light into the space, the first floor space. As a second floor, it would be a very odd location for windows if it was actually a second story because they'd be at your feet. What would it take to make it look like a second floor? I mean, we've talked about this a lot. So I know we're not talking about Legos, you know, but from a non-architect perspective, it's like, why is it so difficult to make this look like two stories, given that there's concern about that? Well, I think this is, Chase will need to speak specifically to this and Kelly, but I think one thing we do want to point out is that this is very much not the prototype. And so this has gone through an interior process to be approved because this very much is different than other facilities. So it is not the standard building type. And so a lot of effort has gone into trying to make it conform. So I think we'd be looking for maybe some specific direction as to what we could do to make this conform to be a two-story appearance. Okay. So what did you say about Chase? If Kelly has anything else to add as the architect? Yeah. So what Lucy said about Chase is that basically it goes through a very lengthy process within Chase themselves to get elevations approved that are different than the prototype. But another thing that has occurred with this specific project is that as of last month, Chase has decided to really take a sustainability initiative. And so the fact that we're increasing the building size and it's just a faux two-story, not an actual two-story building, there was a lot of pushback internally from Chase because of that. Just seems like the opposite of what Chase is trying to achieve as a whole moving forward. But agreed with Lucy, we do have to go through many processes to get these approved up the ladder. And then any specifics would be very helpful from the board as far as comments go because that would help us all get there to make it look like a faux two-story and to stick with Chase's prototype as much as possible. So if we want to find that balance for sure. So if I'm not mistaken, I was in Williston the other day and there's a Chase bank in Williston. I think it's where the men's warehouse was. Yes, actually I worked on that. And yeah, definitely not a prototype, but that is obviously it's not a prototype. Yeah, it's very different than this. So how did that get through? Those are called, those are different projects entirely. They're called freestanding conversions and Chase really likes reusing buildings. So they're just a different kind of project. And we're glad you're not reusing the Pizza Hut. I was just saying. Sure, please mark. I know I've given my opinion on the appearance of it. But I think one thing to keep in mind is that, you know, we're not approving a Chase bank, you know, we're approving a building on the corner of Swift and Shelburne, which zoning requirements required to be two stories. I think we're being pretty flexible in allowing you to present a building that has the appearance of two stories. And, you know, we're really stretching our latitude here by allowing, you know, even considering, and I'm not considering it, I'll be honest with you, spandrel glass that has the appearance of transoms, and it doesn't even actually have a two story build element to the building, which is a requirement in this zoning district. So, you know, I mean, from my standpoint, you know, especially the center section, which is where the vestibule is, you know, as someone who's done, you know, branding architecture, you know, a lot of it comes down to materials and details. And the massing can be modified as needed per the zoning regulations and the code in the district, you know, you could make that center section a full two story element, not two stories, but a full two story element, you know, not have the roof structure be 10 feet, it seems like, if you're doing a hung ceiling, right at the first floor ceiling level, and then everything behind the spandrel glass is structure, you could make that two stories, you could bring light into the center of the, you know, the space with that full two story element, and you would get you would meet the actual will not actually be in 10, which is a two story building, but actual appearance of a two story building. And for me, that's kind of the minimum that it would take would be to actually have it be, you know, a two story element, not just raise the height and throw some windows at a transome height, which is, you know, where you put windows above the lower level windows to get right into the area. So, that from my standpoint is the minimum guidance I'm kind of giving because, you know, I understand chase might be rigid and all that, but they're also have to recognize they're coming into zoning regulations, you know, we're not creating them to be difficult to chase, you know, and we're like, you know, we've done this in the past, we're not approving a chase building, we're approving a two story, what's supposed to be a two story building. If it's built in two years from that chase walks or something, you know, you've got this building that you probably aren't going to want to demo, but it has to still meet the zoning regulations. So that's that's my tape. That's my two cents on the issue of two story elements in the zoning district. Go ahead, Gary. To be fair to Kelly, we had passed on obviously the comments from the board when they went into executive session with Mila on this and we pushed the bank to not do the one that the board requested at that time. Raise one section, move the window up. We can all live with us. Let's move on and find another day. We pushed Kelly and the bank that we needed to do more than that. Don't bring back what they asked for. Give them two windows, give them more elevation and two components. And if you notice, even on Swift Street, they reshaped the visual on the Swift Street angle as you look at it. Well, if you had the old one in front of you, you would see the difference between the two to give it a sense of more beef, even though the two story sections are the two towers. So that's the directive we gave to Kelly to give to her client and she came back and who can be ecstatic about this project at this point, but we felt it was a good return because it was more than the ask. That's my point. Yeah, yeah. Let me ask a question though. So, because I was trying to remember which meeting it was, so I could pull up the old elevations. If you're looking at the Shelburne Street West elevation. Okay. See, I'll be honest with you, I would rather have kept the brown, I can't pronounce that, the bark panel. I would have kept, rather kept that at the original height it was and truly elevated, you know, the light gray and the dark gray elements rather than raising the whole building up because now it just looks out of scale. I'm not sure I follow you, Mark, but. So, originally, the on the left side that's on the corner of Swift and Shelburne, that brown section that's above the windows was lower. Okay. And same with I believe the other brown. Yeah, the other brown section that's the third right panel over was lower as well. Everything was lower. So, you just raised the whole building up, but you didn't raise it with, you know, with windows. You raised it just with volume and panels. So, it basically looks like a tall one-story building now. Well, the windows were raised. The front windows were raised. The ones that were in the original drawings, they were close in. Okay. And the building now is 23 feet nine tall. No, I understand that. I totally get that it's actually has the most full house. That would be two stories. Oh, I get that. It totally has the height of a two-story building, but it basically has the appearance of a tall one-story building. You know, if you were, tell me what you would do if there actually was a second floor on that building. You know, what you would have basically no windows, no, you know, it would be an enclosed space. That's what I'm trying to say is that, you know, having the intent of a two-story building, you know, it actually has to actually read as a two-story building. So, what's up now is the old one. And I guess I would just interject that this is not a how much have you improved question. This is have you met the standard? Right. But I, you know, I thought it was relevant to bring it up because of Mark's point about not having, about the brown portion being raised. Do you have something to say? I know you stepped up. So, the light turns bright green. Can it be more green? No, push the push button. How about that? Oh, there you go. All right. I'm Greg Rabbidow from Rabbidow Architects and Alan Spencer's with me today. We did the other two buildings on the site and the visuals. And I'd like to direct your attention to this image here where there's a red Mustang in the center of the image. It's all about the Mustang, right? Well, I mean, this is the same site, the same project, the same intent. And, you know, it's unquestionable that these are real second stories. And I think a lot of it is just the proportions. Because as Gary pointed out, there's plenty of volume on those stone masts. They're, you know, they're 20 plus feet tall. I just think it needs one more pass through the design team to correct what's deficient. I really don't want to get to the point where the board is like holding our marker hand. And No, nor do we. Right. So what I would offer is, I mean, that we clearly understand the standard. We've represented that to you graphically. And I think with one more pass, Chase could salvage this. If they at least paid attention to the proportions and considered using a different kind of glazing. And I agree with you, there's, we did a kidney drug store down in Pinesburg where we pulled up that center of volume. It's not what the bank necessarily wants, but it's not unexpected in a bank to have a little special volume. I think we could work that out with them. Because I don't want to bog down on that. We really, we appreciate the patience and coherence you've shown to this point. We've got a lot of other issues to get through too. One last thing. You say you sort of lifted the windows up from the original design, but the original design, the windows seem to have been actually clear glass above the main entrance. And now you raised them up and made them spandrel. So you have actually reduced the amount of clear glass that's in the front entrance. That's, that's correct. But we still exceed the amount of clear glass in the code that's required. And the solar gain on that road is very, very intense. Understanding the city has their climate initiative that they're pushing out there and promoting and has great agreement. Chase has the same issue. So clear glass up into the space adds a huge amount of solar gain on these properties. Just this is from 40 years of being down there on the street at two or three in the afternoon when the sun breaks down below the canopy and melts all your candy bars. So it is real and it's serious. So having it spandrel or coded or something, I don't think is unreasonable. As long as we can meet or exceed, we wish to exceed the code. The code is 60%. 60% of blazing transparent. Right. So as long as we wish to continue to exceed the code so that we're not asking for a give on that, what we are asking is where the window is into the structural part of the building. Is it a big ask that that one is coded if we're meeting it? Elsewise, I have one question. Quinn, did you raise your hand? No, I have one question. And then I think we should move on because we've got a lot to cover in the picture with the Mustang, the building in back of the portion of the building and back of the Mustang. Is that a proper two stories? Yes. Okay. That's the mix use building. There's three dwelling units. Okay. Thank you. Commercial space. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Right. Because it does look like two stories. All right. Number four, and I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board, pardon me, discuss whether increased glazing transparency on the Shelburne rug facade would increase the overall compliance of the PUD with the purpose and standards of the LDR. Staff considers transparent glazing to be the most consistent with translucent glazing, slightly improved over spandrel. I think we've kind of covered this, haven't we? If I could just kind of interject a little bit. The context that I probably should have given here is that this is a funny standard and we as staff think it may have been a slight error. It is what it is and you are beholden to the regulations, but in the case of a PUD, you know, obviously we're looking for improved compliance with certain things in order to allow more flexibility and other things. The reason we think that this standard may have been an error is because in the form-based code that this is supposed to be sort of a light version of, the transparency only applies to the primary and secondary facades and it doesn't matter what you do for the other facades. So we've put it on the list for the planning commission to consider whether this should be changed in the future to refer to 75% transparency on the primary and secondary facades, but as it stands, it's a generic statement. Okay. Okay, can we move on? Number five, this is about the front-facing presentation of the multifamily building. The comment is improve the layout of the front of the multifamily building to provide landscaping that supports the front-facing requirements of the LDR. What are your comments about that? Right, so Marty, would you mind pulling up maybe the C-200, the overall, which I did not write the packet page down. I'm sorry. So the feedback we received about the area north of the multifamily building was that the pergola was perhaps too suburban, which I may disagree with, but we wanted to listen to your feedback and provide an alternative that was perhaps more urban in nature in the urban overlay design district. So we removed the pergola totally and we reconfigured the plaza space. We widened the entrance to the north facade of the multifamily building, increased some of the paving. We added some benches to help connect it, to create movement, have a more welcoming space where folks are happy to come and sit outside of this front entry. And then we've also added a sculptural element. So it's a little bit hard to see, imagine on the drawing, but there are the five little dots we see around. And those you'll see in the, I think the L2 drawing, that's the landscape details, landscape site details, and then also in the renderings that you have in front of you. So what we've chosen is a kind of local to New England artist from Massachusetts, and there are these kind of goals. And the reason that we chose not one singular sculptural piece was to try, because it is a PUD, we wanted to create an element that had movement and also connected the entire site. So there's a total of eight that are, oh yeah, this is actually a great one, because these are some of the features, those are the goals. And then also those are the curvilinear benches. So they're really high quality benches. And we've taken these goals, and we've kind of, there's five up by the multifamily, and then there's three by the corner of Shelburne and Swift. So we've tried to use them as both a unifying element, an urban sculptural element, and then also to kind of create movement and flow throughout the site. So that's what we, and then also, I think that I hope everyone can agree, we've tried to create a really well landscaped plan. So there's really, there's no lawn or anything, it's all planted, and we're trying to create a really kind of rich urban environment. So that was what we, those were the changes we made based on the feedback we got from staff in your deliberative session. Marty, could you go to the previous page? So the comment here, yeah, and then just zoom into that front plaza area. The comment here was specifically linked to the concept that the urban design overlay is supposed to be pedestrian oriented and buildings that are more than 50 feet from the road should be heavily landscaped in the front yard in order to achieve that pedestrian connectivity and that street-facing presence. So that is the question here is, have they, given that the building is further away than, you know, would achieve street presence on its own, has the landscaping achieved street presence instead? Thoughts, board members? I'm a little confused about the whole, you know, this pedestrian, you know, street front facing, I like the layout. You know, I really do think it has a rich textural layout. It's got some good planting areas. I love the, you know, the sculptural element to it, the curved benches. But you know, so I'm, I'm a little, you know, not confused, I won't say confused, but you know, what the code is that for the urban overlay district for pedestrian front faces, you know, how this doesn't meet it, what's the differential that we're looking for? I think the board's direction was the previous version did not meet it. Okay. Okay. And I'm gonna say, well, it's the previous version because I like what I'm seeing, you know, that what's changed. Just speaking to the landscape piece, there is a lot of, there's a lot of different elements. We have the canopies, we also have the underplantings and some mid-sized trees. The bioretention areas are also planted. So we have tried to take great care to kind of integrate the seeding also into some of the landscape and really kind of bring all of those elements together. I like it too, I'm just going to say. Do you want to pull up the old one? Are you okay? I mean, unless there's something about this that's deficient, I really like this layout. And I think that it's a nice transition. It's got some good pedestrian flow. It has the vehicular drop-off, but it also has, you know, some elements to it that isn't what I would normally see on your traditional just, you know, front of an apartment building, you know, block. So I think that it's pretty successful. Any other comments from the board? No, I think one of the issues we had previously was for the front of the building, it looked more like the side of the building. And I think this looks a lot more like the front of the building than the previous design, although I couldn't tell you exactly what the previous design was. Okay, let's move on. I'm going to read number six. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to demonstrate compliance with site amenity and landscaping requirements on a phase by phase basis. Absolutely. So we did provide a phase plan as we discussed at the last hearing. And phase one includes basically, thank you very much, Marty. Let's zoom out there. Phase one is the blue. And then phase two is the green. And then that red hatch you see over the blue is really kind of phase three, but it's really just the tail end of phase two. It's the final coating on the pavement and kind of those finishing pieces. So those will kind of happen somewhat concurrently. But the phase one open, I just I have the calculations and I'm happy to provide them in written form and tell you verbally what they are now. But we do meet all of the requirements for each phase in terms of what would be required individually, even though this is a PUD. So for phase one, the open space required for the commercial is 396 square feet and the residential for the three units above the mixed use building would be 180 square feet. So that's a total required of 576 square feet. And we're providing 890 square feet in that interior space between buildings, the financial, exactly the financial institution and the mixed use building. So we definitely go over what's required for that phase with regard to open space. And then with regard to the planting, the calculation that I did was that we would be required to do $51,500 worth of our landscape budget. And without any benches or hardscape elements, we're providing $51,700 and over $60,000 with some of those hardscape elements. Questions? Okay, number seven. This is about the drive through ATM. John, I'm sorry. This was where we were hoping to have a discussion about the inclusionary zoning. It's one of the, it's on page. Oh, these aren't numbered. The page after page six residential, it's residential density and 18.1, 01 inclusionary zoning. If possible, we would like to take just a moment. We've got Mark Hall here to just talk about that. Okay. Go ahead, Mark. Yes, there's a legal memorandum in the file that you can all review or you already have reviewed. One thing I wanted to point out when I came here today is looking back at it, I happened to see that there seems to be a conflict in the ordinance itself between what's contained at the density bonus at 18.01 G2 in the example four that's referred to in your notes. I don't think the two provisions can be reconciled. And I think that's how we got to this point. This is supposed to be a density bonus. You're supposed to get one market rate for one additional unit of inclusionary. As it's being interpreted, we're getting no bonus in terms of market rates. If we're utilizing the bonus of the seven additional units we're allowed under the ordinance, they all have to be inclusionary. This is problematic because it has a pernicious effect that we'll have to take the seven additional units out of the project. Because we can't build seven additional inclusionary units in this particular project. So you have a bonus, it's not a bonus, the results and the pernicious effect of removing seven units of housing out of the project for which our inclusionary. So I think this is a very important issue. I don't know if you consult counsel over this, but I think it's very problematic for not only for this project, but for any other project you're going to have in South Browington that has people trying to take advantage of these density bonus. So I just came here, I'm not going to reread what I said in my memo. It's really short, really sweet. But I do want to put it to your attention. This is a very serious issue. It's going to sort of cutting your nose off to spite your face in the context of this project. So I would strongly encourage you to have counsel consider this, your own counsel consider this, because I do think the interpretation is incorrect. Marla, do you want to respond to that? Because I know this is kind of your area of... So in terms of whether our City Council is to the board, not to the applicant, and so you are not under any obligation to share any information you've gotten from counsel. As you decided in the deliberative session, the interpretation of 1801 G2 and example 4 are the same because of the term base zoning density unit maximum. And I think that staff, and I got the sense that the board as well, tend to agree with Mark that this is not great, but it's hard to read it any other way when you read it the way it was intended to be read, which is that the inclusionary have to be included in the base density, and then you get bonus units on top of that. If I could... If you go through the story problem, which is sub 2, and you do the calculation, the provision example number 4 is incorrect in the way it's calculated, because it too includes all the inclusionary, all the bonuses being inclusionary, and you cannot reconcile that with very straightforward language in the provision itself, as you get one bonus unit for every inclusionary unit. You're only talking about the 7 above the 23, and it's a 1 to 1 ratio. There's no other way to read this. Yeah, I think it's intuitive what you're saying, but we did have an executive session for almost 45 minutes an hour. We talked about it, discussed it. I think everyone agrees that it's... Excuse me, excuse me. I'm talking. I think it's... I think everyone agrees that it's unfortunate, but it is the letter of the ordinance, and so that's, I think, where the DRB fell. I don't think a decision has been reprinted by the DRB that I'm aware of. Has there been a vote? Has there been something issued? Or is there just something came up on the executive session? I think you should reconsider it in terms of what you're talking about, because I do think the ordinance, the explanation for why you come up with this pernicious result is that there's a mistake in the ordinance. And under basic rules of construction, statutory construction, the provision two, sub two, describing how you do the calculation is it can control the outcome in the case of a conflict. And I think that's what you have here. I think that's what happened. That's why you come to this number. And this is going to come up over and over again. And then in this particular project, you're going to lose 70 units of housing, including four inclusory. And I just, anybody that looks, has looked at this on our team has resolution. So that's why I'm saying you should consult with your council relative to what this says, how it should be interpreted, how a court would look at it. And then maybe you might find a basis for saying, yeah, developer, you're right. Please put the 70 units back in the project. Can anybody have any Marla? Can you shed any light on this? I think it's up to the board to decide if they have enough information to make a decision on the matter. Okay. And if you have all the information you need, there's nothing more that needs to be said. Unless you have any questions. Okay, thank you. Anyone else have any questions? No, okay. Okay, let's move on to number seven. This is regarding the drive through ATM. You read the comment. What do you have to say? Lucy, we're not going to comment any further on the ATM. We hope we've made some persuasive arguments as to why it's a waivable as part of the project for, and we hope that you will agree. But we don't feel the need to go back into that. I think we've, unless anybody has questions, I think we've covered this one in previous hearings. Any questions, comments from the board? Number eight, this is regarding open space and the requirement for that. The applicant has proposed to revise the site amenity space on Swift Street to include a stormwater feature. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate what type of open space this is proposed to be and how it meets the requirements for that type of space. Yeah, so the the open space type that typology that we're using is snippet park. And that's really kind of the one that fits best here. And we think is appropriate for this particular site. And that's kind of described in the LDRs as a small sitting area intended to provide a welcome respite or between or adjacent to buildings 600 square feet to 4000 square feet. Seating must be a main focus. It should be high quality fixed seating and landscaping shall be a primary component to kind of summarize what the snippet park piece says. So what we I think in kind of in my conversations with staff, we have been directed that maybe sometimes we're a little conservative in what we're calling our site amenity space. So that was a well landscaped area. So I thought that maybe we could expand it. We've definitely provided extra and I think that it counts that whole kind of we tried to create a snippet park in that whole area. But that's the area we kind of called the site amenity for the calculation piece. Is there a picture of that in this new packet of illustrations of the I think it would be best if the ones that are looking from yeah that one that you've got there Gary. This from Swift Street. Yeah kind of from interior north of the bank. Yeah looking at the. Could you hold that up for us Gary so we see it please. Swift Street looking into the multifamily in the rear. Bear with us please. Yeah okay so it's off the storm water feature is off the page to the left in this. Oh yes was that the specific thing you wanted to see the storm water feature? Well the snippet park. Oh well we don't have the I think all of the views that we have provided are kind of from it's it's really that kind of the plaza snippet park space or it's yeah that's not quite where we're counting. I think if you go to the C200 sheet that that shows where we the delineated space of what we called the site amenity. Okay that's page 18 Marty. Yeah right there. Yes the page that you're on. I think you've got it up Marty. There's like a dashed line if you can zoom into the top area there. So that's the area we were specifically calling the snippet park. So the line yeah so the line they have is sort of around the seating area and then around the storm water feature as well. Questions? Is the storm water feature is it a dry pond? It's a planted so it's going to be a planted bioswale so it will mostly be vegetated with periodic inundation and I think part of the reason we also included it in the snippet park was the sculptural element as well so yeah so it's intended to be vegetated though. Questions? Number nine this is a response to the DPW and director of capital projects. What are your comments about this? There weren't any specific comments that were identified as being unresolved but we are certainly happy to work with staff and DPW and the deputy director of capital works to resolve anything that might be outstanding. I believe they're very technical in nature so we're happy to resolve that. That's absolutely no problem. Questions? Comments? It looks like I did hear back from the deputy director of capital projects that their comments had been addressed but I honestly I wrote this a week ago so I don't remember if there were specific public work comments that I had in mind as well so let's just say that we certainly tried to address everything so if there's anything else yeah it was just there wasn't like a narrative to go with it so some of I wasn't sure where to look for the answer okay yeah sorry about that no it's okay um but I think your proposed approach sounds perfect okay let's move on to number 10 um we need a revision to respond to the uh south burlington water district yeah that's also no problem those are very technical kind of construction oriented comments about the ductile iron pipe so we'll absolutely make those revisions to comply with what CWD has requested okay thank you um number 11 it looks to me like those can be conditions of approval if you could just go back to that page yeah those could all be conditions of approval okay uh number 11 regarding the bike rack I think that this uh was a comment about not having a call out to that bike rack and that's no problem okay and I'm going to read 12 on April 4th the applicant indicated they would provide long-term bike park parking on lot one this does not appear to have been done staff recommends the board asked the applicant for an update so that actually I think that might have just been a mistake by staff's part because that was included if can you go to a one marty please it was the call out was a little bit off to the side so it was easily overlooked I think it might be at the very beginning I think the a one sheets might be towards the beginning is that an architectural plan it is yeah I think you're close maybe yep that one um and if you zoom out and look at the bottom left there's a call out right there long-term bike storage so we have provided the required long-term bike storage interior to the building okay very good any questions um number 13 this is regarding plans to respond to the storm water section yeah so um with this what our proposal to do is um marty would you mind thank you for your fancy footwork um if you could go to the la the l2 i'm sorry not the l the c200 the overall plan again um that's best so this this area in particular is south of the multifamily building um there's a little grassed area uh with a swale to kind of move water away from the building so what we're proposing to do to address uh the city comment is that we will add a drain that will it's just south of if you can move your cursor to the left yeah a little bit left kind of like right there centered on that wall just a little to the right of the wall we're proposing to do a yard drain that would catch the water from the swale it would be at the elevation it's like 214.5 elevation and it would outlet directly at about 206 into that um bio retention area so that's how we're proposing to um address that particular issue okay thank you is that a storm water infiltration system in a pit yes i mean there is a wall south on the south end it's not exactly i don't know if i would call it a pit it is a lower elevation than some of the surroundings the wall on the north end it looks like that varies between maybe three feet and zero so maybe it's exposed to the ramp but otherwise it's significantly below grade um it is yeah so the elevation of the parking lot above is about 214 to 215 so yes there is a retaining wall that is has a guardrail on top okay and the last comment is regarding the exterior lighting we need an update please yeah so um this i'm not quite sure what the i how to address this in except that what these lights that are proposed the three lights on the southern and marty if you could like go back to that l the c200 overall plan those specifically we're talking about the parking lot lights that are on the south side of with the border of the adjacent property these are replacing parking lot lights that will be removed so we're kind of simply really we're really just replacing them um and we're not providing any additional light it's i think it's probably a better lighting situation than currently exists currently their cars parked both sides of the line the neighbors we've well when the pizza lights were on and they were on for years after we closed it um it provides lights for both thank you questions comments okay so that brings us to the end of the staff comments and so before we move to public comment i'm going to ask board if anyone has any additional questions um and if you feel we have the information we need to close the hearing well no weren't we talking about one more pass on the elevation oh the elevations yes of course of course so any other questions before we continue the hearing vote to continue the hearing okay thank you mark um okay let's turn to public comments are there any members of the public who would like to comment on the project marty do you see any online any in the audience no okay so i would entertain a motion to uh continue to win what's the date so i think that let me just check my list but i think that we are pretty flexible um it sounds like kelly was saying that it takes some time to get that stuff through chase so what would be a good um date for you guys kelly i think that that questions for you uh when would the next meeting be the next available meeting would be july fifth and we need materials two weeks before that and what's the meeting after that yep that's correct oh july 18th sorry i didn't realize marty didn't have his mic on but july 18th would be would be an appropriate amount of time to really um get with the chase designer and then move forward with approvals internally and then bring bring it back to the board okay thank you so i would entertain a motion to um continue this hearing to july 18th 2023 second um we didn't have a motion oh i thought that's what you did oh all right all right i considered a motion mark has seconded any any discussion all in favor of approving motion right any opposed no good thank you very much thank you for your time see you in a couple of weeks right on time that's great let's just say that good work on timing okay pardon me yeah item number six pardon me final plat application st 2307 of 600 spear fjt llc for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot development developed with 7 000 square feet storage building and single family home the planned unit development consists of one 6.10 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four family buildings a 1.8 acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex pardon me and a third lot containing proposed city streets at 600 spear street is there anyone who has a conflict of interest or any disclosure okay i don't know if i've said in the past i've done work with frank but it was probably two decades ago and i okay yeah yeah exactly i don't know if it matters but um board member frank cokman had a similar disclosure so if he gets continued he'll have the same thing okay and he and i spoke in advance and he said nothing had changed so he would make the same disclosure okay thank you who was here for the applicant please my name is frank bon turkovich right welcome back thank you i'm lucy there landscape architect with tce and online we also have abbe dairy hi okay good um would you raise your right hands please uh do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth on your penalty of perjury yes thank you so um let me just get organized here okay um so so i can't help but want to dive right into this because we spent a fair amount of time talking about it could you walk us through the plans for the metal building please um is this a new application to john i hate to like slow things down but i just don't want an intro i read it okay i think i understand what's going on okay oh yeah we had a lot of discussion about how to fancy up that big metal building so i'm dying for you to tell us about that because i'm sure you put some energy into that marty would you mind going to the colored elevation i think there's some 3d renderings that we included in the package i'm sorry i don't have the packet number and they're specific to the metal there you go you painted it so it looks like a red a vermont red barn a little bit yes a little bit uh what we're trying to do with the metal building is recognize that it's um it exists it's part of the project it predates the idea of even doing the housing on the project so we've been working on uh to try to find a way to address the city's concerns of having it relate uh and integrate into the project we don't we don't we didn't want to do anything really um uh trying to find the right words um we didn't want to put trim on it make it look like a colonial building we didn't want to make try to make it mimic some of the farmhouse look that we're we're accomplishing on the residential structures we really wanted it to be to stand alone and have a more integrity and more appeal uh it's interesting in hindsight now that the way that's really being accomplished we think is that there's a street that comes into the project which is which is intended to be a city street eventually and it goes east and west into the into the site then it reach make reaches an intersection and it turns and goes north and south this building is is contained on that on that western block of the project so um as it in in other places in south burlington and in our area here you would wouldn't be unusual to drive especially in an urban area to drive by a mix of different uses in different buildings so once the project is finished we think when you arrive on the site you won't be driving right into this housing project you'll be driving by another house that doesn't exactly relate to the project either but you'll pass by this building and then you'll get to the to the intersection and you'll see that there is there are additional buildings in front of you this aerial view shows it pretty well so we so I think a lot of our effort to uh put this steel building in the proper context is being accomplished by the layout of the site and the way we we arrange the streets and and the landscape architecture but moving on to focusing on on the the appearance of the steel building um yes we think that paint painting it is going to be a big impact it's it's a color that's similar to the barn red colors that uvm is using on its farm structures which are just located to the north a little bit the roof will be a dark color the building needs a new roof and that is our really one of our top priorities is to is to get that done soon um and then the exterior uh in addition to the paint and the trim dark trim color that we're proposing um we would eliminate one of the doors that you can see on this east side of the building and that door would be converted into window space for the the shop area on one side and then there's a bike repair area on the other side of that of that entrance on the on the east side and on this south side where you have that roof projection that overhangs that's intended to be access to what we hope will develop into a workspace for tenants who are looking for a onsite convenient office space that that we've all gotten used to to some extent because of the past few years when you have to work at home but you'd like to have someplace to go to to do your to do your business work um they to the left side to the west side of the building is is that half of the building we intend to retain for our business operations we have our project includes a 500kw solar field and also it's being used today as a continuation of a business use that it relates to our real estate activity so we have lawn mowing equipment and other facilities in there. I'm offering that to you as as background some of you have already heard this so do you have would you like me to talk about anything more specific or let's take a break there thank you for the overview um comments from the board about this the appearance of the metal building I will since I've kind of been the mouthpiece all along on this yeah I'll just say honestly thank you you know this is really what I think we've been looking for at least I've been looking for since day one I think it just took the fact that you didn't know exactly how it was going to play into the overall project and I think this is a great integration you know whether you go with option a or option b whatever those things are you know I think this is a nice amenity used to the rest of the project you know with the storage spaces with the potential for home office use whether it comes workshop you know I think it's been a nice spruce up of the exterior without right without slapping on trim and clabbered siding it's respectful of the you know agricultural history of the site and but recognizing the next step forward so I'm probably I agree I really like it yeah I'm glad I'm glad I really like it I'm glad I'm glad it resonates with the numbers yeah any other comments you know we don't approve Frank's tool shed as a sign you know as part of our that is outrageous that is so Lincoln Brown took a liberty to do that okay so let's move on to this number of first comment this is staff recommends the board invite the applicant to present how they believe the proposed modifications successfully integrate the existing building into the project in both form and function and for the board to determine if they find these criteria met I think we've just discussed that so we can move on I am in the process of hoping to not be a wet blanket but I am checking the old staff report because I know that there was some discussion of commercial uses and then the statement was made that it was going to be a youth supporting the residents and so it wasn't a commercial use I just want to make sure that there aren't any orange flags yellow flags because we sort of let that issue go and I forgot exactly what the answer was I think it's it's not it's a commercial use that's supporting the existing development correct it's not its own separate standalone it sounds like some of it and some of it is not this building is is grandfather it was used by the cull yard family as a construction base of operations that use has been continuous and through our ownership we intend to dedicate half of it to uses that are exclusively to support the housing project so if you will it's we're reducing the amount of quote unquote commercial use and dedicating that to housing thank you I will I will keep looking to Claire put a finer point on that just because I don't want to have a situation where we're in an oops we've closed the hearing and then we have to reopen so I'll just keep looking while you guys are talking okay thank you um so number two this is about the easement and we need a confirmation staff considers this can be in condition of approval but recommends the board confirm with the applicant that they will be able to make the necessary changes since this is a critical element of the project yes well we do have uvm's cooperation they've been very cooperative they like the project and they supported requests that we've made to them to accommodate the solar field in a way that really benefits that makes that more successful they were also willing to provide the easements that we asked them to provide to allow us to do this design if more is needed and it sounds like it is we'd like the we'd ask the board to please make it a condition we will find a way to comply but that has not been accomplished yet okay any questions from the board number three this is about removal of one of the snow storage areas that's no problem perfect do that thank you um four um I'm not quite sure what this means but it's about adding spot grades right yeah so this comment is and I've talked to Marla about this specifically as to what dpw is looking for and what we provided and so I can verbally kind of based on this comment I can verbally describe and Marty maybe it'd be best if you could pull up the um this one I have the packet number I think um the page 25 of the packet c 200 overall yeah the two are just your it's like a couple sheets uh right I think it's that one yes perfect um so this relates to the crossings over the driveways uh the preferred dpw standard is that the the um driveways come up to the crossing the alternative version is that there is a tip down where the sidewalk meets the road grade or driveway grade and has a detectable warning we need to utilize both of these techniques in this particular project for drainage reasons and also because of the mountable curbs that we have for um safety fire access so just to kind of walk you through verbally what what they are the at grade crossings those that where the driveway comes up to the crossing are the bike path south of the metal building yep right there um and then the other at grade without a tip down would be the mid block crossing on the north south south connection that one exactly um the other crossings are required to be that does show detectable warning but after kind of some clarification from staff as to what that standard is supposed to be will revise the plans the rest of the crossings will all need to be tip downs um for the reasons I described either kind of drainage or for the mountable curb access okay any questions number five um this is about we needing a timeline uh for the uh excuse me for the crossing on on spear street um we would like our request would be that we'd be allowed to do that after phase one which is about half of the units are completed and we're starting to hopefully generate some revenue it it would just help if we before we required to complete that particular improvement which is pretty um distant from the rest of the site work that's going to be happening on the project but we would complete it prior to commencing construction of phase two so after phase one like right in the middle if there's a break and if there isn't a break we'll try to do it as soon as possible okay does that work for us thank you and I think that brings us to the end of the staff comments don if I could just make one clarification in the staff in the staff notes um the there was I just want to make sure that the record is clear that the public street lights are this wasn't in red but the public street lights are um dpw standards um and there was something that said that they're not so I just wanted to kind of set the record okay that we did um sorry I think it might have been a typo yeah because they I was checking it as it was in draft form and I got the confirmation that they are so you're all set right thank you sorry thank you um before we ask for public comments are there any other questions from the board um I would just ask if Marla has any wet blanket orange flag she wants to put up at us to comment on before we sort of I am still checking okay because Swift Street is a funny thing but wait how is this in the Swift Street residential district that doesn't make any sense where are you what's on the district is this it's I south I south thank you the preliminary plat decision says Swift Street which doesn't make any sense um so general office is permitted um I think so I guess my question let me put a finer point on what I was asking the Cool Yards business was more like um maintenance business or trucking construction construction um which is not permitted use um and they as you said are vested and that's fine it sounded like you were proposing to change it to um materials for maintenance of this property but then also maybe some office and I just wanted to confirm that the office is also permitted it is we would not be using it for uh office uh on the market so to speak we're using that half of the building in the same way the Cool Yards used it as okay construction operations so we would we do not propose to like subdivide it into space and rent it as office space oh thanks that's cool and that's the north side of the building that we're talking about and um Marla we I'm aware of the fact that there are that we're not zoned for that so we're not asking for that okay I just looked at our zoning map and it looks like that it's surrounded by IA south I think that's we've known that it's sorry it's just been so long since I thought about this I think it is R4 R4 right yeah it does it does say R4 on the property on the front cover page great look at us yeah sorry so we're good yes okay thank you so let's take a pause here and um see if there's any public comments on this project anyone in the audience no anyone online Marty do you see anyone okay thanks all righty um I would entertain a motion to close this hearing make a motion we close final flat application SD 2307 second second thank you um any discussion all in favor say I oppose no thank you well thank you I I know that you uh as a board hear a lot of uh flak from applicants maybe the public about how this process goes um this has taken us a long time to get to where we are today but it's really been because we wanted to try to do a good job and solve these problems and look at these design issues and we're also in an economy that kind of makes it hard to anticipate sure how this is all going to work anyway but uh you've been great to work with your staff's been really good to work with this has gone really well for us as applicants so I I know you just I don't want you to hear negative negative negative all the time about how tough the project process is but it's been it's worked well for us okay I'm glad to hear that thank you for your patience and we are very lucky to have such great staff yep so thank you and good luck with your project thank you should it be approved yes thank you okay um the next item on the agenda the minutes from the may 2nd meeting great yeah um any comments on the minutes I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes I'll move to accept the minutes may 2nd thank you Quinn uh 2nd I'll 2nd okay whatever let's fight over um any discussion all in favor of approving the minutes say aye aye oh no okay the the minutes are accepted thank you sue and our final item on the agenda is um new business yeah so I just wanted to briefly go over the I don't even want to talk about what the changes are I just want to list the subject areas of the changes so there's two new LDRs that have been adopted since we last talked about it one was adopted on May 15th um all adoptions become effective 21 days after um so none of these things are relevant to applications you've heard yet but they will be and you know we're always reviewing the correct version that um of the applications if it's helpful for the next several meetings for me to put like what version is relevant in the staff report I can do that um so there was a version adopted adopted on May 15th I think we've probably got two or so applications that are going to be subject to those rules the changes from what you're used to are mostly pertaining to natural resources actually entirely pertaining to natural resources one changes to remove human made steep slopes from being regulated human what made steep slopes okay so if it's a natural steep slope you can't build on it but if it's um an unnatural steep slope that human made then you can build on it um it changed the authority for admin versus drb review for certain natural resource impacts um it included exemptions for natural resource impacts that the purpose is to stabilize things or maintain things um and then the big one is that it has reduced the wetland buffer that we only increased to 100 feet a couple years ago back down to 50 feet for existing single family and duplex lots that are less than half an acre so what we were finding is that um projects and puny's 100 lots um they were kind of designed around the 50 foot well and buffer and all these people had their backyards in the wetlands so um that's now if it's a under half acre lot they're back to the way they were and so everybody's happy so that's the first one the second um change is not going to really affect you guys hopefully because I think it's written pretty clearly but the only change aside from some technical corrections page numbering that sort of thing um is that the solar photo vortex system that is required to be accommodated under commercial building energy standards will now be required to be actually constructed so we are going above and beyond the state requirements and people are going to be required to put solar on building subject commercial standards which includes fully residential buildings that are four stories or greater okay so that's it um newest versions are on the website please download them use them question on this on the solar requirement for commercial buildings what level of solar I mean is there a certain percentage that they have to install or is it just literally could they throw one solar panel up there and say we've met yeah so the cbs is um 40 percent of the roof area has to be solar ready and so they're going to have to construct 40 percent of the roof yeah and there are some restrictions that has to be you know step back five feet from the edge and be more than five feet in width it can't be little strips of solar right um and the bugaboo there has been balancing that requirement with fire safety code requirements so far you know getting access to all the required elements and still having 40 percent of the roof covered in solar does the solar impact height or is it exempt from height that's an interesting question obviously elevated right so if it's connected to the grid it's exempt if it's connected to the grid it's exempt um that's 40 413 24 vs a 44 13 right um but if it's not connected to the grid which is going to become real I don't know if you guys recall but um when UVM was in here or UVM medical they said they're in this situation where they can't connect more to the grid they're they've hit their maximum um so it has to be they still have to do it but it couldn't be connected to the grid and I think that there is I don't know how the rooftop structures section would apply I don't think we've thought about that I certainly hope the planning commission did but I will look into that question okay because I would be one way to deal with the fire clearances and stuff like that if you elevate them and then the question is could that become a design element for like a rooftop you know outdoor space oh absolutely but if you're up against your height limit you know does it count towards height if you're if the solar is it raises you above your height limit but it's you know you know a renewable energy source right does that exempt them from height right and the building itself needs height but then you put the solar panels at like eight feet to get your clearances in that then creates a shaded outdoor space which you need obviously two means of egress and stuff like that not just with access hatch right so the specific definition of what counts towards height is like that six different things that count towards it and six different things that count against it and I don't think Marty and I have done that analysis yet but it's something we should do and I hope the planning like I said I hope the planning commission did do that analysis I'm just thinking that's also a way to offset the impact of forcing someone to install 40% with solar not just make it retrofitable and saying well you're going to get the benefit of being able to add rooftop access space or something right I mean people can already do that and doesn't have rooftop amenities you know have it shaded right yeah yeah okay I think that's it for tonight and the meeting is over I have a question