 Are we recording? Yeah. OK. Welcome, everybody, to the city of South Burlington, South Burlington Development Review Board meeting at 180 Market Street or online, Tuesday, June 7th, 7 p.m. Let's see. You over the stuff first, or what's she been doing? I was going to start with emergency evacuation procedures. Emergency evacuation procedures. We've got two doors there in the back with exit. And then the door immediately to your left as you go out the door is the quickest way out of the building. Let's see. Changes to the agenda. We do have item 12, site plan application, SB 22-020 of Naglian Chase. Let's move that up to item just before item 5 because we'll take some action on that. And we'll go quickly. There are some other items that are also going to be continued. So hopefully we'll move quickly. We also got some guidelines there on time. So let's try to keep that in terms of the start times of these and I will ask how many people are going to testify in case we need to set some time limits. So that's there on the changes of the agenda item. So announcements here with the meeting. I'm Dan Albrecht, Vice Chair of the DRB. And with me are members Mark Baer, Frank Kaufman, and Shuliganzee, Stephanie Wyman, Quinn Mann, and Marla Keene and Delilah Hall from the staff. And our minute are indefatigable. Minimum taker is online, so we all make here. So a couple of things here just about procedures. Just to want to stress that the DRB is a quasi-judicial board that oversees adjudication development projects within the city. Our role is to hear and review applications for development under the applicable regulations. We can only approve applications that comply with the applicable bylaw or state law. And the board can only levy conditions that are permitted under the bylaw by the same token. If a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, the DRB is bound by law to grant the approval. A couple of things just in terms of procedure. Please be respectful of all participants, board members, hardworking staff, applicants, and other members of the public present. We'll go through each agenda item. We'll first have the board and the applicant. We'll get more information. Board members will ask questions. After that, we'll open up the floor for public comment. If you're here in the building, please sign back in there on what agenda item you're here for. So just to have standing for later on, if you want to raise an appeal, same thing if you're on the line, put your name in the chat on what agenda item you're here for and all. Please keep your, anybody online, please keep your camera and microphone off until you're ready to speak. And we'll recognize that. And if there's a lot of people, we'll alternate between people in the room and people online. Once you're recognized by me, please identify yourself to the board. And we'll see if we need time limits or not. The chat is not for chatting. It's not for pontificating. It's not for throwing insults at me or members of the board or staff. It's purely just to identify who you're here for. So please limit at that. Any side conversations here in the room, please take them outside. Please address the chair. Do not address other members of audience or staff. And do not interrupt others when they're speaking. Please be respectful. I will direct responses. Please try not to repeat yourself. Keep your comments germane to the issue. And I will make every reasonable effort to make sure everybody's heard. Comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the Planning and Zoning Department. M. Keene at M.K. double E and E at sburl.com. And please identify what issue you're commenting on. Please include your first and last name, email, phone address to be included in the record. Please note that once a public hearing has been closed with applicant talks, we take any testimony. The board talks about it. Once we decide to close it, no further comments can be accepted. So thanks for your forebearance. And I just wanted to go through all that since it's been a while since I've done that myself. OK. I will do an email. I will check with everyone I meet. OK. Maybe try signing back in or signing back on, maybe. OK. So first item here as we move the agenda is site plan application SB 22-020 of Nagli and Chase construction to construct a single story. 21,790 square foot office building. Create 2,160 square feet of outdoor storage and associated site improvements of 39 Bowdoin Street. And who is here for the applicant? You've got to push the button on your microphone. Excuse me, Judge. Could you pull the mic up a little bit? And is it at the green button on? All right. David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Do I need to swear them in if we're going to continue it? OK. So, I understand you want to continue this. Well. OK. Oh, the 21st is. Do we have room for it then? Absolutely. OK. Yes. Somebody want to make a motion to move to the date certain of the 21st? I'll make a motion that we continue or move. Just continue, correct? No, because we didn't even open it today. Or do we open it today? Well, the hearing opened because it was publicly known. Right, so we're continuing. Continue. Site plan application SB 22-020 of Nagli and Chase construction to June 21st. Second. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? All right. I'm recused, so I'm going to abstain from voting. OK. Overturize then. The motion has been made in second to continue to June 21st. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposition? Chair votes for affirmative. OK. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. All right. OK, so the 910 o'clock slot opened up. That's right. OK. OK. Number five, site plan application SB 22-021 and conditional use application CU-22-04 of El Gato Contina to amend a previously approved plan unit development for a 705,335 square foot shopping center complex. The amendment consists of adding seasonal mobile food unit as a use and designated an area for seasonal mobile food unit operations 155 Dorset Street. So that one was continued due to defects in public noticing to June 21st. We just need to announce it because some of the public noticing went out. So that one, we don't need a motion. It's just continued. OK, everybody. So that one is up. So anybody who's online or in person for that one, please rejoin us on the 21st. All right. Thank you, Marla. OK. I'm going to read another one here in the record. We're on a roll here. Continued final plot application SD 22-05 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units in non-residential space as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two five-story multi-family residential buildings on lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 square feet of commercial space and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive. Anybody here for the applicant? OK, have a note that the applicant has requested continuation to June 21st, 2022. And you get a motion to that effect. Make a motion that we continue final plot application SD 22-05 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to June 21st. Second. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Frank. All those, any discussion on the motion? All right, June 21st. And it's already scheduled and we've got room. Great. All those in favor of the motion to continue SB 20, or the one I just read, SD 22-05 to June 21st, if I'm not saying aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any negative? Any abstentions? OK, boom. Next one, continue site plan application SP-22-008 in conditional use application CU-2201 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to contract the 52 space commercial parking lot an existing 4.3 acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants on the adjoining multi-family residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. Anybody here for the applicant? OK, and that also is going to be continued to June 21st. Can we get a motion to that effect? To make a motion, we continue site plan application SP-22-008 in conditional use application CU-2201 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to June 21st. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made in second. Any discussion? OK, all those in favor of the motion to continue SP-22-008 and CU-2201 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to the June 21st, 2022 meeting. Say aye. Aye. Zero votes aye. Any negative for the abstentions? No. OK, boom. Final plot application SD-22-07 of Hickory Hillside, LLC to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre parcel into four lots of 65.31 acres, lot one, 0.69 acres, lot two, 0.6 acres, lot three, and 0.91 acres, lot four. The purpose of conserving lot one and constructing a single family home on each of lots two, three, and four, and 47 Cheese Factory Road. Who is here for the applicant? Excuse me, Andy Rowe, Judale Consulting Engineers. OK, Mike's on. Great. And I believe that Brandon Bless with the applicant is also online, or was at least intending to be online? Is he there on the camera? Is he there? Do you see him? Yeah, yes, OK. OK, anybody who's going to, so by the people here for the applicant, Brandon, can you just identify yourself? And anybody else who's going to represent the proposal? Brandon Bless. OK, and your affiliation again? I am the applicant. OK, great. Anybody else as far as representing the applicant? OK, all right. So those representing the applicant, raise your right hand. And do you swear to tell the whole truth, the whole truth, under the pains and penalties of perjuries? Is that good? I do. All right. Oh, good, Brandon? All right, great. OK, so why don't you give us kind of an overview, and then we'll go through the staff comments. And again, anybody here from the public, please sign in on if you're going to testify on this. Anybody online, just put a note in the chat that you want to testify after we get done with the presentation and the board discussion. Go ahead. OK, good evening. Final plot application for a four-lot subdivision. The property is located on the south side of Cheese Factory Road and on the west side of Route 116, Hinesburg Road. Although it's a four-lot subdivision, three single-family homes are being proposed. Three single-family lots are being proposed with one conservation lot. Two lots, just under 7-tenths of an acre. One lot at just over 9-tenths of an acre, and then the conservation lot, lot four at 65.3 acres. There's a shared private road that'll provide access to the development lots, as well as the conservation lot, included in your packet where the details on the conservation restrictions, the conservation plan for the conservation lot. I can get into more detail where we can jump to the numbered items in the staff report. It's been a while since we've talked about this, so we've got some time. Do you want to highlight the changes from preliminary? Yeah, maybe I'll. Thank you. I think the primary change is the fact that the Westerly single-family lot was previously part of the conservation lot, and now it's on its own parcel with the conservation land being its own entire separate parcel. Again, each of the three single-family homes is located on its own individual lot. I think that's probably the primary difference, other than the wastewater designs now being complete and shown on the plan set. There's some additional information as far as the wetland. It's actually a city-defined wetland because a wetland can't exist in terms of the state definition and agricultural use, so there is a small wetland, Class 2 wetland that comes up towards Cheese Factory Road at the project entrance. The project entrance does involve some impacts to the city wetland buffer in order to construct that road entrance and in order to construct a swale at the outlet of a stormwater culvert underneath that private road. All right, why don't we go through the staff comments here. Sorry, we didn't get a chance to talk. Did you want me to sort of guide them, or you want Andy to guide them? I can go through it here. OK. OK, first one on page four. A little discussion here about the subdivision as far as approval of a conservation plan. That recommends a board allow this additional lot as a conservation lot in addition to the redevelopment lots. The LDR clearly allows for three building lots and requires a conservation plan. The LDR also actively supports the conveyance of line to a qualified conservation entity. And I'm just curious, Maro, when do they have to formally file a conservation plan? So that would be concur, so the, we've been around this before, and what we found is the conservation agency doesn't want to record the conservation easement until the land is officially subdivided, but we don't want to allow them to officially subdivide the land until the conservation plan is recorded. So what we end up doing is filing both documents at the same time. OK. Board members? Yeah, I'm sorry. I understand that the staff thinks that the fourth lot is convenient, and I assume accomplishes what staff sees as the real purpose of the regulation. But the regulation is black and white, and I'm not sure where we get the authority to increase the maximum number of lots from three to four. Now, it may be in here somewhere. I just, this is fairly new. I don't see where we have that authority, no matter how good the purpose. So this is an application under the December 28, 2020 regulations. Oh, not under these, right? And what did that provide by way of waiver? That was any PUD, which this is. Is this a PUD? Yes, because it's an SEQ, and all SEQ subdivisions under those regulations are PUDs. Sorry, I need to think that one out loud. This is a PUD, and it allowed all things are waivable except those three things in a PUD that you're well familiar with, a five foot setback and parking in the front. OK. That's what I needed, right? OK. So you're thinking it needs to be an explicit waiver, then. Pardon? You're thinking it needs to be an explicit waiver. I'm sorry. Despite my aid. You're thinking that it needs to be an explicit waiver, then, just to be clear. I don't have the old ordinance in front of me, so I don't know exactly how it reads. If you think it does not, then I would accept that, so long as the basic authority is there. OK. We can talk about it in deliberation. It seems like we're on the right track. I support the intent of the plan as it's drafted. However, we need to craft the conditions or the approval. I think that what's presented is fine. And it appears to meet the regulations however the wording needs to be. Do we have a general ETA on the conservation plan document, even if it's a draft to look at? It's already in the pocket. OK. Great. Awesome. Perfect. OK. Moving on to item page five. Regarding wetlands protection, 12.02E encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. Staff comment. The board of preliminary plot found the applicant must supply the area proposed last two buffer impacts at final stage of review. The applicant has not supplied this information. Do you have updated information on that? 5,160 square feet of buffer impact. Thank you. And is there a threshold that we're, if it was, we just want the information? OK. Board members, any comment on that? All right. Great. Moving on along. Well, hang on a minute. Is there a plan on which that information is supposed to appear? But do we have that plan in hand yet? We have the plan. We can include a condition that they add that number to the plan. Basically it shows the impact. It just didn't have a quantity associated with it. Now we have a quantity and we have a location. Right. So I think that's sufficient. OK. Bottom of page six, regarding suitable landscaping, infects, fencing, provided to protect wetland stream, et cetera, et cetera. At preliminary plat, the staff comment at number three, at preliminary plat, the board found the applicant must include demarcation, the undisturbed buffer, and form of landscaping, fencing, and boulders at the final plat stage review. The applicant provided a row of boulders based 25 feet on center with a minimum dimension of 24 inches and a minimum above ground height of 12 inches. They have also included a provision that a continuous split rail fence may be provided instead. Staff recommends that we, the board, determine whether to consider the proposed boulders to be adequate. I actually feel that the split rail fence, while it just, well, maybe the discouraging the translation between wetland buffer and the property is what we're looking for, I think boulders 25 feet on center, 24 by 12, are going to get lost. The grass grows up, none of them are going to get lost. I think the split rail fence is a far better demarcation of the wetlands. So one of the things that was talked about at preliminary plat was that this is, Delilah, can you pull up the plan, that this is along the driveway and not part of one of the development lots? And I don't know if that changes anything. So I guess my concern still is that when you do go to mow someone might not see a 24-inch by 12-inch high boulder in tall grass, and they're just going to whack it. Whereas the split rail fence is a clear delineation and clear visual for maintenance and separation. That's where the fence is right there, or the boulders. That's where the boulders are. I think there's another sheet that has it a little more clearly. What immediately adjourned? Oh, sorry, that was wrong. Boulders are here? Is that right? That's better drawn. Oh, right, because that's the buffer. Yeah, so those are the boulders. You can see those little dots inside that ink line. And then there's fencing too, or is that the option? Either boulders or fence? Neither or. So there's also a section that would extend perpendicular to Cheese Factory Road. A very short section of what you originally drew, Marla. If the board's not comfortable with the boulders, perhaps the boulders would be OK in the area that Marla initially highlighted with the section of split rail fence coming back. I'm just wondering if that area is going to be used for grazing, which I think it currently is now, whether that fence would discourage that. Well, or just be an obstacle out there for the animals to take down over a short period of time that maybe the section coming in directly adjacent to the private road could be split rail fence. And then the other section that kind of heads out into the field could be boulders, if that needs to be marked at all. I have a question. Many things cannot encroach into a wetland. Is a cow allowed to encroach in a wetland? Yes. Specifically under state law, it's an agricultural exempt activity. I was thinking that might be the case. Then I'm OK with the split rail along the private drive, and then the boulders going off into the field. And that I won't interfere with any plowing operations, is that fence set back far enough that nobody's going to? OK. Yes. All right. All right, let's move on. OK, bottom of page 10. A lot of stuff here about lots. Can you just bring that up, and we'll take a minute to digest that on the screen, if you can? Bottom of page 10. All right, so the first one on item four. I'm not going to read the whole thing. Let's just go to the question. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant why they have proposed a larger building envelope for lot two and discuss whether it should be reduced to better support the environmental protection goals of these zoning districts. Staff notes the regulations do not require a building envelope, but without one, the applicant must construct the homes as shown on the plans. So I think the reason that the building envelopes are shown the way they are is where the mound wastewater systems were originally expected to go. They actually ended up further down the slope towards the back of the lot than originally anticipated, except for the lot furthest to the west, which has the larger building envelope. The other two are slightly smaller. What's shown on lot two is a building envelope that has a depth of 100 feet. The lots are 131 feet wide, minus the 10 foot setback on either side would leave 111 foot wide building envelope. So on lot two, it's 111 feet wide by 110 feet deep. It's about 15 feet less on lots three and four. The applicant would actually like the flexibility to have the same building envelope on lots three and four as on lot two so that they could stagger the homes rather than having them all lined up. In any case, such a much smaller building envelope that's being proposed than if we had simply used all four lot lines and offset them by 10 feet or 25 feet, 25 feet being the front yard setback. I don't think the homes would obviously offer flexibility in where the home ended up. Would also give them some flexibility in how the home in the garage related to one another. I don't think the homes are going to move too far down the slope because they're moving down the slope to a lower elevation than the private road. You're not going to want a driveway that shoots down into your garage for a number of reasons. But it would provide the applicant some flexibility or those future homeowners some flexibility in the layout of the home. Well, what is the, what's the sideline dimension at the extremes, where the purple, where the magenta is, whatever that color is? So from the side of the building envelope to the sideline is 10 feet. Is that what you were asking? Yeah, so potentially. The width of each one of those building envelopes is 111 feet. And the deepest one is 100 feet currently. The other two are roughly 85 feet. So you could wind up with a 10 foot setback for two buildings. Well, you could wind up with a 10 foot setback for three buildings, but in one scenario you could have two buildings that are basically 20 feet apart, right? Correct. That is possible. But with 111 foot width building envelope you would have two very unhappy homeowners. Right. I mean, given the, You've got a pretty large lot. You would not have that. So what's driving the choice? What are the drivers of the choice? The slope or something else? No, I was only noting the slope. I think the slope is probably gonna, in all likelihood prevent the home from being moved all the way to the back. But you could have a situation where the home is more of a rectangle. You could have a situation where the garage is up front and maybe the home is set down the lot a little bit. You could have an end load garage here. It just offers. Don't we have some rules about where garages have to be? We do in all zoning districts in the SEQ except the SEQ NRP. And this is a project in the SEQ NRP. Is there anything that talks about the setback offsets from the the septic fields? Like how far away does your building have to be from the septic mounds? Even on lot two, we've got more than required. Even on lot two, okay, okay. So you then, I mean, well then, but on lot four, it's pretty far up right now. If you were to translate that same 100 foot building envelope depth onto lot four, would you be still have enough distance offset from your septic mound? The location of a septic tank and the siphon might need to be moved further west just in order to be able to construct those and still get to the mound without impinging upon the footprint of the mound, but yes. I mean, I don't see why the building envelope is really driven by the setbacks. It's not really driven by anything else, is it? Right, so a couple of redirects on this. One is the regulation in the SEQ NRP that homes be within 100 feet of each other. The board at preliminary decided that this arrangement where they're within 100 feet of one another, not all within 100 feet in a triangle configuration was okay. So we're trying to sort of respect the spirit of that preliminary approval. And then also the idea that without a building envelope, they are married to what they've shown on the plan. So this is giving them more flexibility than they would have had if they didn't have a building envelope at all. Right, what I'm saying is how would this prevent, if we were to just agree, which I'm not sure where we have the authority to not agree, to allow them to put the rear building envelope that's currently shown on a lot two, the same for a lot three and four, is that what you're asking? Yes. Yeah. Right, so you're not obligated to approve a building envelope at all. Okay. But everyone seems in favor of it. Staff doesn't really see any problem. We kind of want a building envelope because if there wasn't, then whatever was shown on the plan would have to be built where it showed. Right, or we see them for 47 amendments. Right, Josh. Right, and there's no way to know exactly what size footprint would be constructed. Marla, could you elaborate on your comment or discuss whether it should be reduced to better support the environmental protection goals of the zoning district? Can you? Just not seeing the impacts one way or the other. Well, the purpose of the NRP is to conserve land while allowing the owners to get some value out of it. So by conserving more land, by having a smaller building envelope, it marginally increases the environmental protection goals of the NRP. Given that this space is between the home and the septic field, I mean, I suppose the cows could walk through there, but you're not really gonna let a mature forest grow up there. I remember when this came, when we were discussing this preliminary plot and the discussion about who was gonna live in what houses or whatever. The applicant wished to talk about that a little bit, just it cursed me unless we're getting into it later. I remember there was discussion about worker housing or who was, what was the division? Yeah, these aren't like open market homes, right? I'll let Brandon address that. Yeah, I can't remember exactly, but it's been a while. Go ahead, Brandon. Yeah, these are farm community housing sites. So you're right that they're not standard market rate homes. The ownership structure is such that actually what you're looking at is a blanket conservation easement. So all of the land, including underneath the house sites, is under the same conservation easement. And the homes are owned as sort of a, you own the home and the structure itself without owning the land. So you're actually, the land itself is, even within the lots of the subdivision are subject to the conservation easement. So it's a pretty, it's pretty different. Ownership structure as well as just long-term land use. And then the only reason that we're seeking subdivision is because we're required to, in order to have more than one house on this lot. So the subdivision lines are already chosen to be as agriculturally sensitive as we can. And then just trying to keep that conservation easement blanket on the whole of the property. What we're doing is piloting a new farm labor housing model for the state. So with conservation easements, the traditional model is what's called a farm labor house site. And then that house site is inextricably tied to the land. So in order to own the house, you have to own the land. And when you have multi-family, multi-business farm ventures like we do bit and butter farm, that is a really challenging paradigm to deal with. So that if you have two, three, four, five families all farming together, it's really hard to co-own land, co-own each other's houses because the house and land have to be tied as a single lot. So we're trying to do that here without just creating standards of divided lots and having a single conservation package and then having what we call these condo house rights. So you're owning the structure without owning the land. Hey, thanks for that explanation. Well, we're on it here. Why are there, just curious, why are there three separate? I mean, given that this is quasi communal and quasi one owner, not open market houses, why are there three separate septic fields? I would love for there to not be three separate septic fields. We tried multiple different iterations of septic design, including community mound system. We actually tried an alternative approach to an application where we do these shallow, like frost protected micro and metter drip fields instead of doing these big mounds on the site and bringing in a bunch of mounds and trying to bring down the cost of the project as well as doing more of a community based approach and that the engineers were working with. We worked with a few different folks and it seemed like everybody thought that this was the most cost effective. Okay. I wanna elaborate, I was just curious. Oh, I mean, it's something I was kind of passionate about to figure out a different way of doing this, but it's just the way it ended up working. Also, these house sites may be built, there may be a long time horizon between say house one and house three. And so the issue was whoever is house one is sort of inheriting the cost of building a community mound for everybody else. Okay, thanks. All right, staff comment five. Staff recommends a board including condition overall coverage for each building lots, two, three and four should not exceed 30% and building coverage should not exceed 15%. Staff recommends the board discuss an acceptable analogous maximum for the conservation lot, lot one. So does this make sense? The underlying zoning district allows 15% building coverage and 30% overall coverage. They're only asking for six and 9% the request, the recommendation of staff is that they be allowed to realize that full development potential of these three lots within the building envelope. And then the further recommendation is that the conservation lot have a little bit of wiggle room as well if there ends up being a need for a small expansion in the future. But if it's already allowed by right in the zoning and the LDR, why do we need to state it on the record? To be honest, it's because historically there's been a lot of confusion when it hasn't been explicitly in the decision. Okay, we'll do that. Does that sound okay to the applicant? Yes, I believe the applicant discussed this with Marlin and they're okay with the recommendations. Did you have a request for additional coverage for a lot one, like you're asking for 0.4 did you wanna go up to one or something? Agricultural structures would be exempt? Yes. So I think that I think 1% is fine. I mean, we're really just talking about the gravel drive. Anything else that would happen on that lot would be exempt. I, at least anything I can envision would be exempt because it is a conservation lot. 1% sounds safe. Okay. All right, moving along. Look at that. How's it? Dang. Okay, board members, any further questions you wanna raise of the applicant before we ask if there's any public testimony? What did we decide on item number four, building envelopes? I don't recall it's sort of resolving. I was gonna have you guys talk about it in deliberation. Okay, got it. Unless you had other questions. Yeah. All right, okay. Applicants, do you have any questions for staff? Any clarifications needed? Nothing to add? No. Is there anybody here in the room who wishes to testify on this? Other than the applicant we already heard from. Okay, anybody online who wants to testify? Nobody? Okay, great. So, yeah, let's just go for a motion to close people. I make a motion that we close final plot application, SD 2207. Second. Okay, motion's been made in second to close the hearing on this application. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. On the negative votes. Okay, motion carries. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Willis. Thank you. All right, moving on along. Rookie's off to a good start here. All right, okay. Number nine, item number nine, or maybe it's actually 10 on the agenda. Site plan application SP 22-019 conditional use application CU-22-03 of Vermont Common School to amend a previously approved plan for a general office building. The amendment consists of converting to educational facility as a use and minor site modifications, 55 Green Mountain Drive. Who is here for the applicant? For the applicant, Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. And Dexter Mahaffey from Vermont Common School. Great. Anybody online for you guys? Any other staff floating online? I don't believe so. Okay, let's swear you in here. Raise your right hand. Do solemnly swear to tell the truth regarding this application under the panes and penalties of perjury? I do. I do. All right, great. Guys have the floor if you want a little overview. Very good. I'll introduce the project currently the Vermont Common School occupies property at 75 Green Mountain Drive. What's highlighted on the screen right now is actually the application pending before the board. That's for 55. So you're gonna hear those two numbers tonight. 55 is to the south and numbering system for the street goes to the north. So that's the plan you have in front of you is the highlighted yellow circle is the 55 Green Mountain Drive previously in office use. And the school is looking to expand its capacity as far as the programs that it would like to have available as part of its school operations. So to the north again is the 75 Green Mountain Drive. And again, that is the location which all the students currently head to every morning. And in this particular case, the proposed expansion to 55 Green Mountain Drive to the south would actually enable them to have a gymnasium that's currently not in the existing building. The proposal also is to add some offices for the staff and also a handful, approximately four classrooms. So in this particular case, again, the school trying to basically provide appropriate space as well as programs for its students. So in this particular case, there is existing parking lot. There is a means of at least moving around the site itself, but one of the components, the site improvements that this particular application proposes is the ability to safely or at least to direct students from one particular property to the other. So within the site plan submitted to the board, there is a program for a directed pathway that not only moves across 75, 255, but also across the small portion of the University of Vermont owned parcel that's currently used for access road, but nonetheless it does divide the two properties. So what you're seeing right now on the screen, primarily in the bottom half of that drawing is the 55 Green Mountain Drive proposed conversion from office use into school space as you move up along the pedestrian path, excuse me, you get into a situation where we cross through a vegetated area. There's a number of trees. We are proposing to remove one cherry tree to enable that particular pathway. We were very challenged as far as ADA access compliance, as far as vertical grade change. That particular pathway as you move northally does cross the University of Vermont property and then we are extending a path proposing to extending a path to 75 Green Mountain Drive, which again is the existing school property. So as far as site improvements, that's primarily what's happening on 55. One thing that eventually the staff report will talk about is where do we put the bicycle parking? Because your rules specifically say every lot needs to have a supporting infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians. And in this particular case, all of the students currently go and are proposed to go to the existing school site at 75 Green Mountain Drive to the north. So we really feel the most appropriate place for that particular type of infrastructure is on that particular property. But again, we're open to discussions in regards to how to basically achieve a suitable solution in regards to regulations versus operations. I think that's, in this particular case, another thing, well, I won't spoil it. So we can just go through the notes and highlight it that way. Thank you. Okay, let's go through the staff comments. Bottom of page four, discussion of access and circulation and functional capacity and transitory and development. And staff comment, I won't take a minute there at the bottom of page four to read that there. So the gist of the item here is that staff recommends the board require the applicant to propose to determine the previously approved and potential trip generation based on square footage. The number of potential trips is found to increase. The traffic impact now should evaluate whether it would reduce the level of service or otherwise have an adverse impact on the nearest signalized intersections, those, et cetera, et cetera. If no adverse impacts are found, the project will be subject to a traffic impact fee per new trip, but otherwise will be unaffected. And then so staff comment number two is sort of related at this point. We received a package of supplemental information regarding traffic. And so we didn't have a chance to sort of include an analysis of that in the packet, but we have reviewed and we've gotten technical review of that and we are prepared to discuss it if you wanted to make your presentation. Well, in this particular case, I think I understand that one of the challenges in regards to a proposed land use on a piece of property and essentially we have two properties that would be operated by the school is that we need to assign perhaps a certain amount of traffic to the 55 Green Mountain Drive property. And in this particular case, one of the concerns of staff was that the proposed school use, whatever the number of students would exceed what was happening previously on the property. What our findings were is actually because of the square footage in the office use that actually there's a very large number of students that can be permitted on the 55 Green Mountain Drive property. That's the one that's before you, without exceeding what the ITE standards call for in regards to office use for the same square footage. So we felt very comfortable with regard to the fact that we were not going to be increasing the amount of traffic from this particular property. Even if we just operated that property as its own school. So we're very comfortable there. And at the same time, we also were trying to kind of concerned with when the school purchased the property. They essentially also bought the grandfather to either baggage or good things that go along with it. So they were also very concerned about giving up the historical amount of traffic that has been experienced on the nearby intersections and how could we come to a solution that would enable that to be carried forward. So in this particular case, we conducted our traffic impact analysis as far as essentially trip ends based on the ITE numbers and found that this particular property could support up to 170 students by itself and not exceed the previously authorized or I should say at least ITE generated traffic for an office use. So it seemed that there was no community impact. And I guess the question would be is how we could work with the board on ultimately finding a solution that tried to retain as much of that value as possible. And for reference, what's the current enrollment? Current enrollment is between this year is 100 students, the year before is 110. Thanks. Staff, did you review the materials? Yeah, so we have sort of a memo from day an email from Dave that kind of explains what he said. The big picture here is that we don't have the reporting structure in place nor do we have city council approval to start tracking people's numbers of students. So we need to approve 55 Green Mountain Drive as a use and that use is school and that's great. So it's currently approved as an office. We had our consultant BFJ take a look at what the trip generation for an office would be. And I think they concluded the same as Dave which is 27 PM peak hour trips. And then they did a slightly different approach than what Dave was describing. Instead of saying, okay, how many students could we have in order to get to 27 trips? They said, all right, let's apply the student density of the current school because that's what Vermont commons has sort of decided they want their enrollment to space ratio to be to the new property. And let's say, okay, if this school has the same students per square foot as the office building, how many trips would that generate? And that way they're not beholden to report anything. They did take all the office space and all the gymnasium space and consider that to be part of the classroom space. So it's sort of a worst case scenario if they applied the same density they have today to this new property. And BFJ concluded that at that density, the property would only generate 13 trips. The reason it's such a low number because they're thinking it would be quite a large number of students is because schools don't generate trips during PM peak hour. Kids get out of school at 2.30, 3.30 in the afternoon, not between four and six after school programs and teachers leaving being that exception. So with existing trip generation of 27 trips, sort of reasonable, I guess I wouldn't say worst case because there could be a circumstance in which they really pack in students, but a reasonable maximum would be 13 trips. So BFJ concluded that there isn't a problem here. I don't think that there's any need to sort of grandfather additional trips. Can you explain maybe if I can't imagine a scenario in which they would need to sort of preserve that 27 trips, would they? Typically once a property has an assigned trip budget, we, unless they are exceeding that assignment, that's considered their total budget. If they are below that budget, they're fine. Should they ever go above that budget, we would assess them for additional trips. So we would write into this decision that the previous approval generated 27 trips. And that would run with the land. And then that would run with the land and that their current new assigned use would be 13, which is below and therefore no, there would be no impact fee assessed. So if they were to later convert back to office. If they were later to convert back to office, they would have to, we'd run the numbers to see if IT changed it or something just to make sure it was still within the 27. If it was a little bit more, they'd be assessed additional trips. Great. Thank you for that explanation. Board members, any more on that? Two traffic items? Okay. Moving along to middle of page six. Bicycle, parking and storage. Staff recommends board discuss whether they'll apply this criteria in each individual site or whether they'll apply this criteria into 55 Green Mine and 75 Green Mine Drive taken together to provide a plan to not show any existing bicycle racks at 55 Green Mountain Drive. The approved plans for 75 Green Mine Drive indicate one inverted U bicycle, inverted U bicycle rack, providing space for two bicycle. The applicant state statements indicates that the actual existing racks have a different not allowable type. So we definitely need to provide the appropriate number of conforming bicycle spaces. So that goes without an issue as far as the applicant and we're comfortable with the condition as far as ultimately what the board decides is the appropriate number for that particular use. Dexter, perhaps I'll ask you as far as at least putting aside what the regulations say, what the school's experience is as far as the use or the number of parking bicycle spaces used at the school. So we have the rack that's non-compliant is because it's not actually, it's when it's the old vertical variety and it's also not fixed into the ground. It accommodates, I think, about 10 bicycles. We don't tend to see more than three or four parks there at any given moment. But that is, I think, in terms of use, the primary use would continue to be at 75 green mount drive because that's where all the students lockers are. And so any students arriving on the day, on a school day would be parking their bicycles there and then going into 75 and getting their materials out of their lockers. And then if they have a first period activity like gym or a class in 55, they would leave their bike up there and walk across. But it's bicycle racks on the school campus and different locations are gonna be helpful as well. So if it makes sense, there's a certain number in the board seats fit to say some on the north side, some on the south side, we will be happy to comply with that. We're in favor of bicycle racks. We use them. Okay. Board members, what's your thoughts on applying it to Cartier and each individual site or doing it to as a combined? To separate schools. True. But that's not super likely. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. So basically, we're probably looking at to have a buffer in there. If you had a hundred and a hundred, maybe it goes up, maybe how about like 120s, at least six spaces or something that sound about right. What if we were to apply the same sort of floor area to student ratio that we did for traffic to get the bike rack count? So... Is that an acceptable mechanism? Or are we supposed to use the LDRs? Well, the LDR says the number of students. Okay. And right now, they don't plan to add students, but since they'll never have to come in for an amendment to add students, maybe it makes sense to just apply a realistic future number of students and do that number of bike racks now. Yeah, I guess it's kind of a thing of like the bigger the bike rack you build now that you don't have to come back when you're out of compliance and you're up at 135 students or something like that. You know, so. That's appropriate. I think that's a fair representation of ultimately use on the two properties. So I think that's a fair recommendation and we're acceptable to that. But if we're only reviewing 55 Green Mountain Drive and we're talking about adding bike storage to 75 Green Mountain Drive, how do we condition that? You know. Has 75 gotten their site plan approval yet? Oh, well, yeah. So there's a concurrent admin application for 75 and that would catch the same thing because it's the same regulations. So that one will say based on 108 students and then this one will say based on that same ratio and we'll run the math. Does that mean it makes sense from a functionality not to put bike parking where you don't need it? And if it's all one use right now, I'm comfortable with just putting the bike, the sufficient amount of correct bike parking where it's needed for the two buildings, not splitting up because it's two separate sites. Oh, okay. That's not what I thought you were saying. Is that confused myself right here? Quinn? Yeah. Do we, I think Mark asked this question. I'm not sure. Do we have the authority to kind of do that approach if we just ask for the bike parking on one lot? The regulations allow the board to make modifications to the dimensional requirements of site plans. I think bike racks are kind of a stretch to call it a dimensional requirement. But we are, so we're required to put bike parking on 55 green mountain drive is what I'm hearing. I think the safest thing to do is just as Marla recommended, which is basically prorate the appropriate number of bicycle spaces based on the anticipated student number based on the capacity of the school, of the building, I should say. This is a curiosity question, more than a regulatory question. We spend a fair amount of time talking about spaces for bikes. Is that a significant cost? I mean, I've looked at the metal tubing that constitutes or the metal stands that constitute bike racks. On something of this scale, does that matter much? Whether it's six spaces or 20? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just, I'm asking, could you explain that to me? It really depends on the type of project, Frank. So if you're talking about a multimillion dollar project, it's a rounding error. If it's a project that simply has a simple path through it, it could represent a quarter of the cost of the project. So in this particular case, we, as Dexter says, we want to support bicycle use as much as possible. I will confess that there could be a situation where there might be an after-hours event at the gymnasium. True, or weekend events where they ride. Let's make sure we have the infrastructure there to support that. So yes, you have a lot of applicants that try to basically argue out of every dollar they can. We are here to basically make sure, we want to make sure it works and we want to make sure that you're comfortable with that. And I think Marla came up with what is the most defensible solution in regards to regulation compliance. Bike racks are running like $130 a rack. And you can park two bikes, but then it does have to be on a stabilized surface too. So you have to pour a concrete pad and rebar and whatever else. And what's that, like 13 bucks a square foot for a concrete pad? In the old days. I'd sell for $3,000. 20 bucks a square foot for a concrete pad. For 3,000, 3,500 bucks, including concrete pad, you've got 20 spots, right? Right, so like Dave said, it depends on the scale of the project, whether that's a drop in the bucket or a real number. We have to, we don't receive, we've received very little in the way of public funding. We have just a handful of tuitioning students. And so pretty much every penny that we spend, we have to raise or source from our internal revenue. So every penny counts. That being said, bike racks are a long-term investment that are well worth expenditure. If you advertise that out over 30 years and supporting non-fossil fuel transportation, it's well worth our time and money. Yeah, I was gonna suggest something by the gym space for people, a kid going to practice or something like that. I guess in order to write a specific condition, we need to pick where those bike racks are gonna go. Did you have a preference? So they're the current rack, can I go? Do you want me just to focus on 55? Yes, yes. So the two locations that would be ideal, one would be on the western portion of the building. There is site work to be done to make an ADA-approved sidewalk coming out of the building and crossing down. So somewhere in the vicinity of between that and the building itself. So as the path angles somewhat southeast of that would be ideal. So if your hand scrolls right in there or just somewhere in that area. Alternatively, on the northern part of the building in the north entrance halfway down, little further to the right, further to the right, right there, there's a long grassy area. It's a flat roof so we don't have snowfall dropping down onto it and there's a grassy area right next to the gym entrance. Should we be able to get that gym in there? And so that would be another ideal spot for it. They're out of the way and out of sight. Either of those just from a few pure use functionality at the school would be ideal. Thanks. Any information? Yep. Okay, all right, moving right along. Bottom of page six regarding landscaping. There's a lot of words there. Maybe I can cut to the chase. Yes. This particular site has gone through a number of different morphs in regards to its use and for whatever reason, previously approved landscaping plans don't look anything like what's out there today. So in this particular case, staff provided three different options for the board to review. We like what staff actually recommended, which is recognizing the quality of what's out there today as being the baseline for going forward. Staff asked us specifically to go out and add additional information on the species of those particular trees, specifically on the north side of the site and we're quite comfortable with that and going forward. Who was that landscape architect? There's a whole plan. No comment, I'm sorry. Okay, so identify the identified trees and do you have a calculation on the second bullet point about the least the same value as the previously approved landscaping? So those were sort of two different options. One is to say, based on looking at it, the landscaping looks at least as valuable as that which was previously approved. The second bullet was to prove it and the third bullet was say, forget it, tear it all out and put in what was previously approved. Okay, board members, what do you think about these three bullets? Do we have an opinion for the city arborists? Well, so most of these exist, actually all of them exist. So there's really no opinion to be had. They're already there and thriving. I'm sorry. They're already there and thriving. There is no opinion from the city arborists. But in terms of landscape requirements for construction costs. So there's no new costs required? Oh, I see. Because interior renovations don't go to, okay. All right. There's, do we need to say something? And I don't know, to be arbitrarily punitive is one thing but just to pass by the rather startling fact that what they actually did bears no resemblance to what was approved calls for some kind of sanction, no, some kind of. Well, our regulations allow things to be replaced. I mean, do we have any history? Is there any record about how this happened? You know, such a 100% departure from what was approved? We don't know. It all occurred prior to the school purchasing the property. So it is. Oh, it precedes your ownership? Yes. Yes, sir. They inherit it. All right, let's not. Let's not. We kind of let it slide. That's not to beat it up. So all right, pull it one, two or three, allow existing landscaping, demonstrate at least the same value or have them start over. What's the pleasure? I think if the existing landscaping seems sufficient and acceptable, I think one is fine. Just have them memorialize it in a plan so that staff can enforce it. Sounds good to me. All right, great. Yeah, it's all right. Okay, moving right along. That's it. Oh, yeah. Any other questions of the applicant, board members? Do you have any questions for us? Okay, any members of the public here in the room want to testify on this item? Anybody online? Okay. Marlo, do we have all the information we need for deliberations? We do. Okay, and as far as submittals from them and any data. Okay. Great, all right, can we hear a motion to close the hearing on this application? I'll make a motion. We close site plan application SP22019 and conditional use application 2203 of Vermont Common School. Second. Thank you, motion made in second to close the hearing on this item. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. All right, motion carries. Great, thanks, guys, appreciate it. Thank you. For your time. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item, continued site plan application. R8, continued site plan application SP-22-003 of RHTL Partners LLC to modify a previously approved plan for a 10,000 square foot automotive sales service and repair building on an existing 2.61 acre lot. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,155 foot square foot building expansion 1795 Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? Okay. Abel Toll, the owner. Okay. Kyle Sipples, I'm with the, I work for Abel. Okay. Anybody online? Yeah, Jeff Olesky with Catamount Consulting Engineers. Dan Ray here with Jewett Construction. Allen LeBlanc, Jewett Construction. Lori Kulcom for Jewett Construction. And Eric Woodman, CEO of Jewett Construction. Okay, is there anybody here online or here, the two gentlemen here who was not at the previous time we discussed it a couple of weeks ago? Anybody, you all were sworn in last time? I think so, yeah. Everybody was here last time? Okay. I just want to be clear. Okay. Go ahead and talk about what you've done since the last time we talked and forgive me, I'm going to stand up and walk around because my back is hurting. So go ahead. And Jeff Olesky from Catamount Consulting. I guess I'll take the lead here off the bat. So since last hearing, we have submitted a complete revised package of information that attempted to address all the previous staff comments. And I guess I'd start by just briefly running through those in a quick bullet point fashion as outlined in the cover letter that we had sent to the city staff on May 23rd of this year. The first and primary one was kind of a reconstruction or a redesign of the front door entry. As everybody recalls, there was quite a bit of conversation about that at the last hearing. And since that time, we've essentially shifted that door slightly, revised the side lights, added some wider millions and also have a small projecting canopy out over that doorway now. In addition to that, the paneling above the doorway, a building facade above it has kind of been realigned to be symmetrical with that doorway. And these were obviously all done in an attempt to further kind of accentuate the front entrance as requested by the staff and board at our last meeting. Correspondingly, we've made some additional changes to the front sidewalk and patio areas with regards to varying some different materials and pavers and whatnot to accentuate the entrance there. And similarly, making some updates and changes to the landscaping plan to again also kind of make that front entrance a focal point. Secondarily, and again, I apologize if some of these items are redundant. I'm gonna try to just highlight the ones that are changes since the last hearing. If you recall, we had submitted a few things right before the last meeting that I don't know if all board members had a full opportunity to really review and take in as part of that. But additionally, we did add a cornice on the top of the front entry facade and building as previously requested by the board. Again, we've added the trash recycling dumpster enclosures in the back of the property. As going through the list, there was a request for the easement area, access easement to the property to the south. That has also been added and easement language provided to the city and city staff. And I believe Kyle can weigh on this in a little bit, but I believe he and the city attorney have gotten back and forth and gotten that language, if not complete, close to complete. And so everybody's in agreement that it meets the intent of that easement and right away access in the back of the property. And then lastly, we did add some additional landscaping to the proposed landscaping plan for a couple of purposes. One was to provide some additional screening to existing mechanical features on the south side of the property, as well as add some additional trees on the west side of the property for some more perimeter landscaping. And then tying that all together was to adjust the landscaping budget so that the landscaping budget and eyes of city staff comply with the intent and met the requirement. So I think that's a quick overview of all the changes we've made. I'll turn it over to the board or staff to go through the staff notes, if we wanna do it at this point. All right, let's go through the staff comments here. Can we bring up a plan that shows the path of the walkway just so we can do a different slide? So regarding the requirement is that there shall have a direct separate walkway to the primary road, at least eight feet wide and maybe under for design but must service pedestrian act. No changes have been made to the site plan which includes steps connecting to Shelburne Road, steps connect to a north-south roadway shown on the provide plans which does eventually reach the proposed entry. The walkway is not direct. So staff considers an alternative configuration. Looking in the walkway nearer to the front, if it may be possible, a direct connection is not possible to the location of existing trees and the applicants proposed front entry location. Without moving the front entry, the alternatives are to accept the configuration as proposed, locate the walkway where the bicycle racks are proposed or to locate the walkway south of both the front entry and the side entry. Staff recommends the board discuss whether improvements to compliance with this criterion are needed. Let me just take a look at that. Does that make sense? So the walkway, obviously, I'm gonna draw this line. This would be how you'd get to the front door. And then there's these three trees here, here and here that are in the city right away so the applicant can't change those. So true direct entry isn't actually possible. So if they were to modify the entry, we think the only options would be to come like this or to come like this and the question, or maybe something diagonal, but the question was whether any of these are really any better than what they've proposed. Yeah, I have a comment after thinking about this. I'm much more concerned about the facade and for that I would defer to Mark's judgment about whether in fact they've done what they can but as far as the path goes, I make an observation. This is Shelburne Road. This is a car dealership. No one, and they're not allowed to have parking in front of their building. No one walks to their friendly Shelburne Road car dealership. I'll let that comment just sit there for a moment but having that in mind, I think the path meanders enough. That's my comment. Yeah, my comment is that the sort of patio there kind of opens up the space and makes the sidewalk a little bit less of an afterthought, you know, as opposed to just, well, I missed it, you know, so I didn't let makes kind of a little, of a greeting space as it were. I'm sure the sales guys will be hanging out there or whatever. So, a costing passerby is my car. Well, I, you know, I understand that sentiment but, you know, there's also maintenance features, right? So if you're waiting for your car, you're gonna wander around and go for a walk. Exactly, whatever it is. Same observation, where you're gonna walk? I mean. Well, I just add, like, I work on Shelburne Road and so I drop my car off at the dealer and then I walk to work. So I do have to walk along Shelburne Road to get back to the office and then back to pick up my car. So there are some people who will walk. I think that this is sufficient. And we are getting, you know, for what it's worth, I mean, it does, it sounds sound like an Abba, we got a lot more apartment buildings being built and more than the pipeline. It's gonna keep going and if gas stays at $5 a gallon, we're gonna see more people walking. What I'm getting at is, how many of them are walking? Oh, actually, you're saying drop off, drop your car off. Right, I have to drop my car off. And then come out the front door, right? Yeah, I mean, I drop my car off the dealership for service and then I walk to work, go to work for the day, and then walk back to pick it up at the end of the day. And that's all on Shelburne Road. So it's all, you know, people are still, I see people doing this, I know I'm not the only one. Okay. But I think this is sufficient. I mean, the way that they have it, I wouldn't say that. Well, I mean, that struck me as sufficient. Also, isn't there a topographical issue with the steps? I mean, how I, you know, don't you have a ridiculous grading problem? Are we satisfied with this yes or no? Let's move on. Board members? Okay, great. All right, boom. Thank you. All right. Next item, regarding the top of page, whatever that is. Oh, there's no page numbers. That's okay. Item number supplemental regulations on off street parking and loading 13.02. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether they accept the general objective of the edits proposed by the deputy city attorney. If so, staff considers the board may allow the finalization of the draft easement as a condition of approval. So the edits there, I think I'm gonna to read that above the staff comment so we know what we're talking about. So the first question, are you guys okay with the edits proposed by the deputy city attorney? Yeah, I can address that. So I submitted to the deputy city attorney revised easement deed that incorporated her suggestions. However, I did add two small things to it. We were using the property line, she was using the pavement line as the easement. So because that's closer to the building, there were some, there were two sentences added just to ensure that we can maintain ingress and egress from the service department, which the easement would impact that area. And then the city attorney had also suggested language that we agreed to that if the car wash lot needed permits for the easement for whatever reason that we would cooperate and apply on their behalf. So I just added some language saying that they would be responsible for the costs associated with that if they did pursue a permit. And did the deputy city attorney reply back to your tweaks? They said they would review it. It was submitted Thursday of last week and I heard that after four o'clock today they were gonna review that. Will we have that information in time or how do we handle that? Yeah, so I did hear back from the deputy city attorney that they, she's reviewing it. But it sounds like the, just the description of the changes, the different, did you, were you okay with the other changes that she had made? I incorporated those, yeah. So he incorporated the changes that she had made. And if the board has no objection to the changes he's proposing now then I think we can leave it to them to finalize. I guess my question, do all the attorneys have to agree before we can close the hearing? No, typically the condition reads something like the applicant shall record an easement subject to review and approval of the city attorney. Great, awesome, thank you. I just wanna make sure, I'm having also some dialogue with the deputy city attorney about fitting this overall within the regulations. So I just wanna make sure that we're happy to do the deed and so much as the regulations require the deed. Most importantly, Frank, are you happy with this? I'm gonna defer to the city attorney. Okay. Well played, Frank. Okay, any more on this board members? All right, moving right along. Next item regarding landscaping budget requirements. When the board finds, is Steph coming through, when the board finds the other provisions of the landscaping criteria, they may allow the applicant credit for landscaping elements other than trees and shrubs. Staff recommends the board discuss whether the project does enough to address perimeter planting requirements of 13.04B and 13.04D before allowing credit for site improvements other than trees or shrubs. Quick question on the patio pavers. Is the 6,500 differential cost between that and concrete? It is now, yes. It is now. 6,500 is the differential cost. Okay. All right, in the stone facing. All right, so board members, how do you feel about first does it address enough perimeter planting requirements? Do we wanna, is there a landscaping plan you can bring up? Probably. Yeah, I think it's L1, Marla. Do you have a page number of the packet? I can tell you right now is number... 17. 17, yep. I will say this landscaping plan has been revised since the last hearing. The trees in the upper left of the parking lot have been supplemented. I can't remember if there were one or two there before, but we got it a third. And then additionally, there's a new, I believe like a Arbivide hedgerow along the south property line intended to screen some mechanical equipment, existing mechanical equipment on the south side of the building. So we certainly did make some improvements in additional landscaping endeavors to attempt to satisfy that perimeter requirement. You know, and obviously also noting that everything to the north of this parking lot is existing vegetated woods along that the stream corridor, the Marla Brook. And then there's a kind of an existing wooded area on the west side of this property already. So the, really the perimeter parking is, our perimeter landscaping is kind of a tough thing to accomplish with a significant resource, which is why we did what we felt we could do. And then at the same time, still attempting to take some credit for some of the aesthetically pleasing hardscape features that we've implementing on that front walkway. Can you, I don't, I'm not seeing many trees on the south side of the building. There's another sheet that somewhere is zoomed in the next page. Okay. Yeah. Right now there's a very limited space between the south side of the building and the property line. And there's, and it's, I think it's maybe 15 feet at most. And we've got, you can see where that row of arborviety are proposed to like an electrical line there. And these are, excuse me, just Marla just to clarify, these are a budding commercial lots that require to screen. Are they? They're not required to screen between these. But they've got some new stuff proposed there. Okay. All right. Thanks, Jeff. Board members, how do you guys feel about the perimeter planning as inadequate and are you okay with the credits for the stone facing and the patio pavers? Hey, I'm in. Yes. Okay. The board members. Okay. Okay. Staff, you okay? All right. All right. Boom. That's it. Do we want to take a minute to look at the facade changes? I've taken a look at them and it goes to an aesthetic subjective thing, but I think they've done what we asked. Can we look at that east elevation? Cause that was the big discussion about the doorway and trying to create a central focus. Page 11, the 3D view sort of does the most. Okay. So that's the, and the glass is different. The door glass is going to be a little different and there's a slight overhang a little bit. There's a little canopy. The door has been differentiated before it literally was like it was one of the storefront panels that had handles on them. Can you say how the glass is different just so I can record that in decision because I didn't get that when I was looking at it. Dan or Eric, do you want to, yeah Eric chime in on that maybe? Sure. So there's some requirements that we have to meet not only for Vermont energy code, but also for compliance with the Mazda dealership and their protocol. So we elected to add, and it's a little hard to see on this, but we elected to add black vertical mullions on the outside of the side lights. So if you zoom in just a little bit more on the right hand picture, you'll see if you pan to the right. Other right. The other direction. North. Keep going to the other drawing. The other 3D view. So keep going, yeah. Yes, yeah, right there. So these columns are matched. They're black ACM now. I know it doesn't show very well here, but as opposed to just being the standard storefront, these are going to be wrapped with a composite metal so that they're black and they match the color of this overhang and they'll help delineate that that's a door and it's not just the single pane of glass that moves across. We also added the side lights there to again accentuate the fact that it's a primary door and not just a door on the side of a glass panel. We can't even discuss signage numbering or anything like that, correct? Yeah, I mean, you can't include it in the decision. Okay. Understanding that we can't make it part of the decision, our intent, we have requirements from the fire marshal that require the building to be numbered with 12 inch numbers, I should say. Our intention is to put them on the face of that overhang or of that projection slightly lower there that there's the, yeah, right there. Yep. We intend to put, yeah. Yeah, again, just to help accentuate the fact that this is the primary entrance. Yep. I just had a really bad thought. Like a shoe drop in your back of my head and I'm not sure it's applicable. If you could pull it away, I appreciate it. I was okay with the front steps. I'm backing up on something. I was okay with needing the steps to get to the bare and shoulder road. Do we have any kind of handicap accessibility issue with that? Our regulations do not speak to that entrance being handicap accessible from Shelburne Road. Specifically, the city tries to stay out of the business of handicap accessibility because then it opens us up to legal ramifications if our regulations are ever contradictory to what the law says. Well, we don't have anything prescriptive about that in the region. We do not. Thank you. Federal regulations don't require it because you have an alternate access. Okay, that's after the issue. Yeah. Marla, I just noticed this proposed renovation drawing. Is that signage there? Should that be stricken from the? Yeah, we'll include a condition that says it will be removed from the record unless this is an exhibit, which I don't know. This is in packet. Yeah, I don't know if it's an exhibit or a plan, though. So if it's a plan, we'll all say that it has to be removed. If it's an exhibit, it can be on the exhibit. Okay, gotcha. All right, thank you. Federal. All right, great. All right. Any members of the public here in the building will testify? Okay. Anybody online to testify? Are any other further clarifications from board members? Do you guys have the information you need? The only question I had is, when is the deliberative session just to gauge the timing? Sure, the board has 45 days to issue their decision. They do try and do it much faster than that. Typically, we try and have a draft decision ready in two weeks. The less issues that are up in the air, the smoother it will go. Given that we are still working with the, well, no, because the attorney will be after. So yeah, I think that's a realistic timeline. So probably signed decision in three weeks is our objective, but they do have 45 days. Right, okay, thanks. And then there's a 30-day appeal period. Thank you. Great, all right, thank you applicants. Thanks guys on the screen there, appreciate it. All right, can we get a motion to close the hearing? Make a motion to close site plan application 22003 of 1795 Shelburne Road. Motion's been made in second to close the hearing on this application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Stensions, okay, great. Thanks guys, thanks everybody. All right, last item here before the minutes. Sketch plan application SD-22-06 of South Burlington City Center, LLC, to subdivide a 5.86 acre parkour into three lots, ranging in size from 0.36 to 3.62 acres. For the purpose of subdividing the lands of a storm pond, a future city street, and a development lot, zero market street. So it's a sketch plan, but I'm not gonna swear you in, but just introduce yourselves for the record. I'm Tim McKenzie with South Burlington Realty, the owner of South Burlington City Center, LLC. Great. Andy Rowe, Trudell Consulting Engineers. Thanks, take it away guys. Here, seeking subdivision to create a project lot or a building lot, we are simply trying to isolate the stormwater pond in wetlands so that it can eventually come under common ownership. I'll start over. We're not seeking a subdivision to create a project lot or a building lot. We're simply trying to isolate the non-developable land, which is the stormwater pond and the wetlands, so that it can eventually be placed under common ownership. I'd also add that although the drawings that you receive have an additional lot for a future street, we would prefer not to create that lot and we'll address that when we get to point number five. So we were referring to new lot SW1, is that what we're talking about for here? Yes, we want to create SW1 for the eventuality that it will be placed in an association where the stormwater is managed by the properties within city center. And just for clarification, the stormwater pond exists now, has been constructed. Yes, we just want to draw a lot line around it. And you would also create the stormwater pond at this point? The stormwater pond exists, it exists, we will... And you're going to delineate it. We want to delineate it so that it can come under common ownership along with other common ownership features and be managed by an association. I understand. All right, let's go to the staff comments here. The first one is at the top of page six regarding curb cuts. The applicant made the choice to place the curb cut on the south side of Garden Street. The location is shown on a potential future development plan. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to modify the Garden Street cross section to include a curb cut opposite the approved curb cut on lot M. Such a curb cut will result in improved safety as well. Having the side benefit of a more consistent block length. Historically, the applicants were reluctant to modify curb cuts on the partially constructed segment of Garden Street. Staff reminds the board and the applicant curb cuts are modified throughout the city on an as needed basis at the relative age of the street should not trump safety. Applying any thoughts on that? Yeah, so the city approved the street and the curb cut location in site plan SB 20-009. It approved the construction of the street and the curb cut with a zoning permit ZP 20-076. And it, of course, approved the subdivision for where the street is. We built what was approved. The layout that you're looking at for the, what we call the central block. You can see the large stormwater plant. The layout of that block is merely a schematic design at this time. We are not coming forward with a project. We may come forward with that, but we're not bringing forward a project at that time. We would respectfully suggest that now isn't necessarily the time to force a relocation of that curb cut. And to expand upon it a little bit, it's like putting a puzzle together with building frontage requirements, building footprints that would allow for parking underneath the buildings, the amount of parking that's required, the ramps that have to get down to put parking underneath the building, a space for the open or civic space requirement. Putting all those pieces together make a dense development like this challenging. If we have to move that curb cut at this point, it could have an impact on how much density we could get at that location on that lot. So we would just respectfully ask that the decision not be made for the simple purpose of we want to isolate the stormwater pond to allow it for ownership under an association. What if there was a more general condition, such as at such time as the applicant shall modify its curb cut in order to, what's our objective here in order to? In order to achieve safety consistent with the regulations? Can you help me out? Where is lot M? Did I see like M one and four? We call it the lot M or the block M is on the south side. So the buildings, yes, those are all in block M. So the whole thing, okay, I got you. Yeah. And where's the curb cut we're talking about? Is this one just to the west of lot? Yeah. Let me try to draw on this. What's the configuration? So this is the curb cut that exists and is being used for the buildings that are approved here and here. And then this is the curb cut that's been constructed on the other side of the street. So the subdivision regulations include provisions. You know, all the things that are in here are relevant to subdivision. And one of them is the arrangement of lots must be consistent with the intended use street type, plan unit developments, and locations of blocks and streets. And so that's where this is coming from is that the subdivision regulations, I guess we've been through this, been over this before, but the subdivision regulations intend to create lots that can be developed successfully. And so that's where the suggestion is coming from that this curb cut be relocated because a subdivision includes the creation of streets whereas a site plan does not. Well, we could decide this. I think we've probably heard enough we can decide this is a deliberation. Well, it's a sketch. It's a sketch, we're just going to go ahead. It's just a sketch. All right. I guess I'm confused after that explanation though because we're not creating a street we're creating a private drive here. So how is it relevant to subdivision? My alternate question was going to be is it the city's position that that is an unsafe curb cut and that prior approvals for that curb cut were in error? Well, I think the position is that given the way the M block, I appreciate that correction that makes much more sense. The M block has been developed an alternate curb location would better serve the block that we're talking about today. But it was the same approval that approved the curb cut into block M and the curb cut into block N which is the block that we're referring to. It was the same approval for the construction of the street itself in the construction of the street. So is that the case, mom? And all I'm saying is if you want to address that issue it could be addressed when a project is being brought forward. We're merely looking to isolate the stormwater pond. I think that's Tim's most recent statement is sort of gonna be a theme of this conversation. And so I think it's sort of the board's responsibility to decide how much they want to recommend because this is sketch that this subdivision when it comes forward for an actual approval propose lots that can be successfully developed because if the proposal does not create lots that there's a demonstration that they can be successfully developed, then it should be. Was this general configuration in the way the curb cut? Oh, I don't recall. It was previously approved, yes or no? I don't recall. I don't recall if they were approved as part of the same application or if they were approved as separate thoughts. I know that there's been some, there's been a lot of evolution and so my supposition is that there was one thinking when it was designed and now there's specific approvals and now the thinking has changed but my recollection of that is fuzzy. So it's staff's guidance that based on proper development, land development regulations for block layouts and all that, that the curb cut that currently has the arrow with Delilah Hall pointed to it should be adjusted so that it's directly opposite the curb cut between the buildings on lot M1 and M4. Right, and that's something we talk about not just in city center but in all other developments as well, it's better to align curb cuts than to not align curb cuts. For the purposes of what the applicant's doing right now he doesn't have to do this, figure out this issue right now. We're just flagging it as a potential, I'm sorry. Also, I don't know that we have to defer it as far as Tim wants to defer. We could say, that's right, this is just a sketch plan. We're not, I appreciate the correction. We can say you've heard the staff's recommendation and we can address what we're actually gonna do about it when we see the preliminary application. I would like to hear your guidance on what you would recommend. I mean, I think you've heard what, I mean, I think if we're, I'm supportive of the staff's position that curb cuts should align opposite each other. So, I mean, I know this is just sketch, but my advice- Is that a requirement in the LDRs or is, because these are not, it's not two streets so we're not trying to create a grid, it's just purely a driveway. It's a should in the LDR, not a shall. Okay, it's a should, all right, thanks. Let's move on then. Okay. The other things here gets feedback on the other items. Next item regarding building lots to sufficient development space. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant how their proposed development plan can incorporate the required civic spaces while still meeting the frontage building buildouts and parking needs of the development program. So giving a little background on open space or what used to be called open space is now civic space. It roughly amounts to about 6% of the square footage of a project. I believe staff's calculations of 10 to 16,000 square feet calculated the entire end block and at about 6% and came up with that number. The T5 area, everything to the right side of the dotted line, that can be located offsite. When I do the calculation of what's required in the T4, which is a little bit of that building and the two buildings below, I come up with a requirement of about 48 to 5,000 square feet when you apply our 50% open space credit for granting the city the use of the 1.3 acres of land on Market Street for their stormwater park. The requirement gets down to about 2,400 to 2,500 square feet within that block and we think there's ample space between the stormwater pond and that building on the lower side. Just, I know it's sketched, but what attributes will the civic space have? We're talking about benches or a little plaza to sit at. Yeah, so the civic space has to be one of the civic space types. And so there are, the thing that you're mentioning, like little benches and a plaza, that can only be a civic space, I think up to 2,000 square feet and then larger civic spaces have to be of a different type and have different features. So they'd have to be choosing amongst the types. There's a full matrix in the LDRs which has a number of different types in the various requirements to qualify for that type. I mean, where do you envision, I'm just, I'm only good at this, there's just a lot, where do you envision amongst these buildings? If you look in the upper left building, squeeze the little, the sliver of land between the stormwater pond and the potential future building down a little bit lower to Lila. You can see where the parking lot ends and there's space to my left, yeah, in there. I believe that would be adequate space to have some type of feature. There may be other spaces in between buildings that have a hardscape with some benches, some place for dining seats. All right, is it intended to be sort of like a single cohesive 2400 square feet or can it be an amalgamation of an 800, a 300, a thousand? Yeah, it can be an amalgamation. We have seen that be successful in certain projects. Corey Hill, that's been particularly successful. We've also seen it be not very successful at all when you have four or 500 square foot spaces. So the objective with the staff comment here is to plan for your open space with equal priority as your buildings and parkings and stormwater. I'm sorry, Tim, but looking at what you're calling it is simply a mathematical exercise and seems to me to violate the... I think it wasn't not on. I understand your mathematical exercise, but it seems to me to violate the concept, the aesthetic concept of a civic space you're going to squeeze out what you can between the parking lot and the stormwater pond. Who wants to sit there? You know, I mean, maybe Stephanie who understands Shelburne Road better than I do can also help me with that one. I mean, do you want your picnic table between the end of the parking lot and the stormwater pond? Well, I mean, I can speak of a stormwater pond not far from our respective houses that, you know, has some nice amenities around it and stuff. So, okay, so... I mean, I just, you know, it's not, especially now stormwater ponds are much nicer and, you know, they're bio-retentioned with bull rushes coming out of the building. Well, but they're not, right? This is an existing storm pond. Okay, it is an existing storm pond, yeah. Again, we're not proposing any project at this time. We merely wanted to isolate the stormwater pond so we could come on the conversation. I think the guidance is, you know, as something to think about down the road. Right, when a project comes in. We want to come, besides just slapping a picnic table there. And the question would be when we come in for one building, will it identify enough open space for the entire block or for that one building? Okay. But that will be something that Andy works on as that block gets developed. I mean, that block likely won't be developed for a number of years now. And we don't know with specificity what that development will look like. Yeah, all right. All right, let's keep that in mind as this project moves along. Let's keep moving along here. Top of page seven regarding a through lot. The proposed subdivision of land does not comply with this requirements. It requires lots to be generally rectangular in shape of a certain limit. The frontage buildup requirements of the T5 zoning district require 85% of the street frontage to be occupied by a building. Did we miss point number three? Yeah, we're getting there. Yeah, okay. So given that CU18-01 approved the construction of stormwater pond, staff considers the board may exempt the frontage of the stormwater pond from the minimum frontage buildout requirements. That would seem to make sense. However, in doing so, staff recommends, that was an editorial comment for the record. However, in doing so, staff recommends the board consider as compensation for the lost buildout of the stormwater pond to increase the required frontage buildout of the remaining lot. That sounds a lot like a PUD provision to me. Marla, you want to help me out here? This might be a little more required. And I guess, on behalf of the applicant, we'd like to know. I think the board's just a little confused about what the comment is, and then we can hear some discussion of it. But the comment here is that, what Delilah has up on the screen on the left is what they're proposing as a storm pond lot, and on the right is what they're proposing as a development lot. The regulations do not specifically allow for exemption of anything from frontage buildout requirements. So, the recommendation here is that, maybe we can find some room to exempt this, but it will be to exempt the frontage along Garden Street there from frontage buildout requirements, but it will be a stretch of the regulations. So, if the applicant is asking for a stretch of the regulations, it seems reasonable for the board to ask the applicant for a stretch on the remainder of Garden Street to exceed the regulations if they're being exempted from the other portion. So, I'm a little confused by that because it was my understanding that the building envelope standards apply to the frontage of a project lot and not a full street length. So, it was when we would come in after we subdivided again for a project lot, and then the building would have to represent a certain percentage of that project lot and not the full street length. Yeah, I understand your question, Tim, and I think that's an interesting point for the board to consider because the extreme example that comes to mind is if you chose to subdivide each lot such that each driveway was its own lot and then each building was its own lot, and then you could only build out 70% of the buildings and 0% of the driveways. So, I feel like what you're saying is not a malicious intent, but I feel like if we take that example to the extreme, we end up with not meeting the purpose of 70% build out at all because it's only considered after subdivision. You could just never build on those lots and have big vacant spaces between the buildings. I guess one other thing for the board to consider here in the applicant will need to know as well as far as future planning is whether the applicant's gonna be directed to increase frontage build out on Market Street to accommodate for the city stormwater park which takes up a fair amount of frontage along Market Street. Any board members with a history of familiarity with this project? I guess I would also point out to the board that there's a stormwater pond on Lot E roughly across from the city stormwater park and that, again, that could be taken into account when figuring the overall frontage build out from Market Street. There was no discussion of this topic when garden apartments was constructed at the intersection of Garden Street and Market Street on Lot C. So I have a question for staff. So these various stormwater pond lots, are they considered building lots or no? What's the definition of a building lot? That's not a word in the LDR. Great. Yeah, and... But a common, there's almost like, it doesn't say a lot. It says a building lot, which seems to apply that it has a building on it. So how would it even apply? A building lot generally must be rectangular in shape. Right. And then the BES table, which governs 80%, let me just check what that specifically says. Andy, I think just to put your mind at ease, those lots are already subdivided. So I think that ship has sailed, right? Lot E is subdivided. I don't know, has it? They are now. They weren't at the time. Right. So checking the BES. But I guess in regard? Lot or building lot. Frontage build out, primary street. So it doesn't refer, it's just frontage build out for the application. It doesn't specifically say lot or building lot or anything like that. But it is a building envelope standard, which would seem to imply that it is within the project lot. Right. And were the other stormwater pond lots that have been approved, did they run into this, were they approved for subdivision, even though they may not have been rectangular in shape? Well, the rectangular in shape is a new requirement. The, they were approved and have been not required to meet frontage build out. It has always made me somewhat uncomfortable that there has not been a strong hope to hang our hats on in making those decisions. But they were made. They were made. I mean, it's, we, there's the regulations, but those are also, there's the corpus, there's probably a better word for it, the precedent, whatever, of decisions that help guide how we interpret these things. That being the case, I don't think this is the stormwater pond is a building lot, which is based upon prior history. That's my opinion. Board members? On the other hand, let's go back to this rectangular. Let's go back to this rectangular lot stuff. I understand what Tim said. He liked that just to be a delineated lot and then whatever else is built around it holds it in common ownership with common responsibility. Is that the idea? Correct. But you could achieve the same objective with easements. You don't have to have a distinct lot in order to get that result. There are other ways to do it. So that leads me again to the rectangular lot question. What we're being asked to accept here is something that very, very precisely it looks like follows the outline of the stormwater pond and gets a squiggly line that guarantees that if and when lot N is further subdivided, well right now obviously lot N is far from rectangular if this is allowed, the remaining lot. And anything subdivided out of that is gonna have something that is also at least one lot that is far from rectangular. So the question is whether we should allow this configuration at all having in mind that the regulation wants to see rectangular lots. Why do you want, Tim, why do we want or why do you want a separate, is that with the easement language still work? Because I see Frank's point if we approve this that lot N is necessarily on rectangular. So eventually there'll be an association that owns the common land. And the association will pay the management of the stormwater system and the taxes for the land that the stormwater system sits on. And that will include the SW lot and lot L. And I don't know how we would isolate the tax burden if SW is just an easement on lot N. So that seems... It's a little, I will concede to you that your proposal is the most legally efficient way to do it, but it's not the only way. You could build into the deeds that you grant for the building lots, certain obligations subject to the obligation because all those lots are gonna be benefiting from, whether an association owns it or not, all those lots are gonna be benefiting from the stormwater pond, correct? As a physical matter. Correct. Okay. And therefore in the deeds to those lots, you could build in the obligation to pay an equal share. It doesn't have to be precise. Let's say there's three lots. Okay, so everybody's deeds says you're responsible for a third of the upkeep and the expense of the stormwater pond that you're getting the benefit of. The stormwater pond does not service only lot N. The stormwater pond in fact services this building, this lot, which has already been sold without that feature on the deed. Well then how is that lot gonna be part of an association? That the one that's been sold. Is that gonna be part of the association? It will be. How's that gonna happen after the fact? It's been, it was already, there is language in the association agreement that says that the association will be modified. I guess I need to see it. You know Frank, I'm out of my league in talking legal issues with you, but it has been contemplated. Yeah, but I'm wondering whether the rectangularity issue was also contemplated. So in other words, I'm relating this back simply to what I'm being told about rectangularity and this patent violation, patent, it's a little harsh, this patent inconsistency with that expectation. And I guess if that's what the regulation says that I'd like to see something more consistent with that. For example, you know, I mean, I say there's a little bit tongue in cheek. You could say, well, let's make a more rectangular lot now and just give up some development area, but you're not gonna do that. I mean, the block is no more developable. With how we draw, you know, it's no more or no less developable on where we carve out that. That's not the issue. The issue is what conforms to the regulation. Sorry, Martin. No, I just, this feels like the right time to jump in because Paul accused me of wanting, trying to say two contradictory things at once when I wrote this. So if the board feels like staff comment number three that they can exempt the stormwater pond from the frontage buildout requirements, is the next step then to exempt a little bit more, expand the dimensions of the stormwater lot so that the lots can be somewhat rectangular? So basically give them more than they're asking for or request that they subdivide slightly more land to create compliance with the rectangular lots provision. But he doesn't, I don't think, I think these guys have gone to a lot of trouble not to put any more land within their delineated lot that they have to. Our goal is to maximize density, maximize development. I think that's in keeping with the city's goals. Right, the challenge though, and I never even thought of it, is that if we create that whole separate stormwater lot then lot ends is a mess. I understand, but the schematic design that we had up shows a series of rectangular building lots around the perimeter of the lot and then an odd shaped, probably commonly owned parking area. Okay, so it's the building, is a building lot separate from a property lot? Can you pull up the potential schematic development plan again, Delilah? You're talking about, what you're really talking about is a building envelope, not a separate lot for sale. On end, on end. So if you look closely, you can see there are various lot lines. Now, Andy can probably speak to the... But you're not creating lot lines now, right? Oh, I see what you're saying. So, down the road you'd subdivide lot in and one and two and three or whatever. Exactly, exactly. Okay. Right, and then to Dan's point, that creates this crazy lot that's like this, which would be a shared parking. So your building lots are relatively rectalinear and then your funky lots are the stormwater and the parking. Which are not building lots, by definition. Okay. All right. Is a building lot, is a parking lot not a building lot? What is it, is there a building? I guess building in the LDR is defined, right? It's defined as a structure that's enclosed with walls. So I guess if we take building as building, not a synonym with construction, then yes. Yeah. To exclude it doesn't make, wait a minute, let me see if there's a definition. Building line, there's no definition of building lot per se. But to me it's inherent though, the city's been trying to create a whole grid system which is why this draconian lot provision, I'll say it. I'll say it. It works, as long as everything's nice and square and it's New York City and all that and all of a sudden you get these funky little lots and we have most of it looking nice and grid-like and whatnot, but then yeah. So we're doing our best to create the frontage. Yeah. Oh wait a minute, it is defined, lot, comma, building. Oh. Not containing a lot, containing or intended to contain a principal building. So will you be delineating your building lots with a property line? You're gonna have to. In all likelihood yes. Each building needs to get financed separately. There'll probably be a separate ownership entity for each of the buildings. Yeah. But the lot is defined as a flat piece, parcel of land, there was assemblage of recorded contiguous parcels of land, the latter all in common ownership and designated as a single parcel. So you need rectangular property conveyances. Are you gonna have those? Is that the plan? Religious. Not just building envelopes, but those things need to, in order to satisfy the definition, those things need to be conveyances. Right. So the intent would be, the intent would be to continue in the same fashion as they have done to this point in that each building would be on its own separate building lot. And that. Separate parcel of land. Correct, okay. Separate parcel of land. That's clear, okay. And that those separate parcels of land that would contain a principal building would be much closer to meeting the rectangular requirement than the stormwater pond. There will be some irregularities because of the fact that garden tree has a curve in it. And if the stormwater pond is approved, it would create some irregularities where that parcel of land with a principal building would abut it. Okay, so and then as to Marla's question, a lot, a building lot is not a parking lot because it's defined as lot, common building, a lot containing or intended to contain a principal building. And the parking lot is not, maybe a structure that I would always argue, but it's not a building. How did the LDRs deal with L shaped buildings at the corner? For example, the green one there and then the other one. Is that, is that allowed? Because it's not quite a rectangle. So in the staff report is the full section about rectangular lots. It talks about flag lots being prohibited, but that's not really a flag lot. Side lot lines that are perpendicular or radial to the abutting street. Rear lot lines that parallel to the street. Incidentally, this is a new regulation. So I guess it's how the board would like to interpret it. All right, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get, you guys get further down. So, okay, we've done the civic spaces. I think we've talked enough about this whole lot thing. Number four is kind of moot because it doesn't have to be rectangular, right? Well, so this is where I was kind of saying, like if three, then why not four? You know, why not square off those corners? So there aren't weird little wedges that prevent future compliance with rectangular lots in the future. And, you know, we're not talking about like squaring off that entire corner where Tim had said the civic space could go, but like the little hanging jad there maybe should be squared off. Yeah, that's entirely reasonable. I mean, we obviously want to fill up as much as that street front as we can, but yes, moving that lot line a little more perpendicular to garden street, that that's probably doable. Great, all right, let's move along here. Next one, parking access to off-dead striking. It appears the applicant's potential future site development plan accommodates this criteria being met. However, the applicant's provided curb good on the future street on the west side of the site, which then results in the frontage build-out of requirements not being met along the future street frontage. 70% frontage build-out is required, but only, well, only 63% frontage build-out is provided within the T-4. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant how they propose to simultaneously meet this requirement and the frontage build-out requirement and require a feasible demonstration prior to final plot. Comment? I guess a question for staff. It dawned on me as I was reading through this again this evening, where you have a building that spans both the T-5 and the T-4, does the LDRs, do the LDRs provide guidance on how to calculate that? I think staff is looking at T-4 and T-5, where you have a building that spans that line and encompasses both transects. Why can't it be calculated as an average? In this case, the applicant would be penalized for having a continuous building throughout the T-5 district by not allowing to move some of that frontage build-out to count in the T-4, basically take an average between the two. And that's how it was calculated, and again, based upon the applicant's calculation, where right there at the minimum, obviously staff calculated it a different way, and in that fashion, we come up short. Love some, love some. Well, I guess, well, I'll put this to it. Do the LDRs allow for, does it have a, is there anything in the LDRs that talk about a lot, or a building that spans T-4 and T-5? No. And I'm only suggesting that if it's one continuous building, not if you've got, well, you would only have one principal building to lot, so. Well, and this is sort of where squaring up the edges works to your benefit, right? Because if this edge kind of gets squared up, then. Yeah, right, yeah, that one there, and also like you said, down below, that can get squared off to be run parallel with the edge of that building. That certainly helps, but I think Andy's question's a good one, I would love the board's feedback on this too, because we work on, once we get a site plan application, staff works on this in our office, and I don't have the benefit of six other minds looking at it, so I would appreciate the feedback as well. What do you guys think? Do you understand the question? No. So in the T-5, yeah, this side of the line, 80% build out of street frontage in the T-4, this side of the line, 70% frontage build out. If you calculate the frontage build out, as shown along this portion, they're less than 70%. If you calculate it along this portion, they're at 100%. So Andy. Quite a 100% these days. Yeah, look at the yellow line. In the yellow line, the T-5. Yeah, the whole entire building is all in there. Right, so the way we had interpreted it is you must meet 80% in the T-5, the yellow, and then you must meet 70% in the T-4. Andy is asking, when there's a building that crosses both, should we interpret it as an average? These are the conversations we have in our office without the benefit of you guys, so I'd love to hear your thoughts. And these are shouts? Yes, but as you mentioned, it doesn't mention. Anything about splitting? Right. Well, so that invites the question, where's the lot line? Yeah, that's a great point. And they have put the lot, it looks like... But if they moved that lot line slightly to the east, that might reduce the overall length, right, of the lot? Except if aren't you creating a building lot with that's transacting T-4 and T-5 with that potential future building? Yes. So that building lot's gonna have probably 90% of a way to remember it's self. Are they creating a building lot? I mean, I don't see it, is there a property, is there a border around there, or is there a property line around? Yeah, and so that's where we get back to staff comment number three about exempting things, right? So if the board agrees to exempt the stormwater lot from the calculation and building frontage, I think it would be irresponsible to exempt the driveway lot from the calculation of frontage because then you might as well just say, build your lot lines to be the same size as your building and have your driveways and your parks as big as you want. Are we really exempting the stormwater pond? It's not a building lot. There's no frontage requirement at all for a building because it's not a building lot. We're not giving them anything. There is, so the building lot language only applies to the rectangular stuff that doesn't use the word building lot when it talks about build out requirements. It just says the project. Well, if it says the project, what's the project? Well, the project is often the building and the parking and driveway that go with it, right? We don't rarely see a project that's just a parking lot or just a building. But if that, so if you're squared also, but the problem goes away if you, Take the average of the two. Or if you slice that parallel ground little triangle or that trapezoid or whatever that is and stick it in, move the boundary so it borders the, it creates the border for the stormwater lot rather than follow its outline so sharp, right? You guys, the applicants, you got a solution there. I mean, we're looking at a little funny little triangle where the entrance comes in. Right. You square that off to the north and then the lot, then the building it practically fills the whole thing. Right. So you're saying that. Yeah, do something like that, yeah. Or do north, right? We're just gonna straight across. Yeah, right. Go straight north like that. Yeah, something like that. And then it's gonna come out at 95, 90%. But then your driveway is gonna be in the stormwater you spent, stormwater pond. Yeah, and then you get into the like objective. If we're gonna start doing that, why not start making lots for driveways? It just feels like it's. The bridge comes in here. The bridge too far. Well, since this is just sketch and we're trying to get some input here, I think we're giving feedback on this as a complicated issue, so let's just keep moving. Okay, is that all right, board members? Can I bring up another issue, which is the future street lot. It's being required to create a separate lot. And I'm wondering if there's an alternative to that. Because, I mean, if the city wants us to build a street and they'll commit to taking the street, no problem. But what if they don't take the street? Who wants to own a street that, who's gonna own it, who's gonna maintain it? I mean, unlike other streets, unlike Garden Street, this street goes into, it cuts through the Poon property and then goes into the back of the Blue Mall. So what's the question? My question is, what's the probability that the city will accept that street after we build it? Wait a minute. Don't you need that street for your building regardless? If you're gonna build that building. We can build a driveway. That's the question. The question is, we create a separate lot for it. Who's gonna own that lot? When will the city accept ownership of that? Well, you can talk to city council about that, but it is an official map street and there are specific reasons that it is an official map street. My understanding, just so I don't completely ignore your question, is that that street will be required to be connected to Dorset Street at such time as the Blue Mall is redeveloped. Okay, I'm okay with creating a lot and building a street if I have some degree of certainty that the city will accept the street. But if they don't accept the street, then who, I mean, once we've sold all of our lots off, who would own that street? Who would own that lot? It's not sellable. It's a street. Excuse me? Private road. Who's gonna own the private road? I mean, if it's not a separate lot, it would get sold as part of the block that gets developed. Right, and potentially maybe the first building owner that needs to use that street. But that's not the board's obligation. Right, what I'm saying is I hear your concern. It's not something we can satisfy right now to anybody's satisfaction because it's happening in the future. I hear you, we hear you, but it's a city council issue. I would argue just as a resident of the city for a long time and seeing how the city operates, how it's taken over stormwater ponds where not a rural town with all those, excuse me, inadequate private roads all over the place to dump stormwater into the miscible right away. This city takes over management of roads and stormwater systems that other needed public infrastructure. So I don't think it's gonna be a problem. Unlike most of what he's had to say, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Tim on this point, which is that the question is, and I don't know the answer, the question may have a legal answer that I don't know. And it's a fair question to put, I think, to the city attorney's office. To what extent does the inclusion of this street on an official map, which you say it is, obligate the city to take it over, does it obligate the city to take it over when it's built? In other words, is there some implied or express obligation involved? I hear you, Frank, and these are great questions. What I'm saying is, let him go to the city council, get it on the agenda, let him say, hi, I wanna talk about this. And that way you get things on the record as this start to move down two tracks, the development review track, and dealing with the city council and public works and all that stuff. But it also all might already have a legal answer. I just don't know what it is. It could, but city attorney and city development planning, planning staff have their hands full with many things. We don't need to send them on this, answering this question now when there are many other pressing matters. Fair enough. So, I'm sorry, I just wanna move it along here. All right, staff comment number six on the bottom of middle of page eight. So where were we? I guess we acknowledged for staff comment number five that it's a thorny issue and yes. Okay. I mean, I've heard lots of feedback, I think, to figure out ways to. All right, I was really hoping for a solid answer. Geez, Marla. Okay, the applicant is proposing a block length from the southwest corner of the lot to the northwestern corner, more than nine hundred feet. Purpose of the city center is running in the shoe. Creation of pedestrian oriented development pattern. 15.8, 0.15A3 requires a subdivision on the lake or incorporate pedestrian passage and walking. Staff recommends the board directly applicant to provide two permanent pedestrian easing in the proposed subdivision. First staff recommends be located along the stormwater pond maintenance access drive and berms second be a commitment to a future easement located through the proposed development lot with accompanying language, any kind of easement shall be along a safe and dedicated to minimal vehicle interactions. Staff recommends the board directly to provide the draft language for these as part of final plan comments. Well, I would ask that this requirement be waived until such time that there is a project that's being proposed. I don't think it's prudent to locate a pedestrian path on a narrow strip of land between a stormwater pond with standing water and wetlands with standing water. Who would own that liability? Secondly, I think that pedestrian access through the block would be better designed if it was in conjunction with the development of that block as opposed to predetermining where an easement would go or committing, encumbering the lot prior to any development of it. So I think that the recommendation for the second easement through the site is consistent with what Tim is saying. We have several, several many parcels throughout the city that have sort of this vague easement that says it is a 10 foot wide easement through the property at such location to be determined in the future as is appropriate when the parcel is developed. So that's the second suggestion. I think that's consistent with what Tim's saying. Okay. And the first one, do you as staff feel that's a deal breaker now, that there must be some pedestrian easement on the stormwater pond maintenance or can they deal with it later when they actually get to a development proposal? Because right now they just want to subdivide. He doesn't want to agree to the staffer a lot. I think locating, precisely locating, I think again, Tim's on a roll here. You know, his point about locating it precisely is well taken, you know? So the suggestion here, if you could pull up the development plan, we're not talking about impacting the development area with the first easement. I guess why are two easements being required? If it's a 600, excuse me, a 900 foot block and there needs to be 600 foot maximum block length between pedestrian easements or access points, why aren't we talking about one pedestrian easement instead of two? Sure. So this is the first one that we're talking about. And so that's entirely outside of the development area. And the second one is sort of a ambiguous somewhere through here, there should be an easement at such time as it is developed and an appropriate route is selected. The reason the first one is being asked for is because there is no intention to develop this lot. And so there would be no other time to create such an easement. But here question, is the stormwater lot more than 600 feet? So this guy is something like 900 feet. So I mean, if they were to put one in the middle, that would satisfy, right? But because their theoretical configuration doesn't support meeting the 600 feet from where they have their curb cut and argued vehemently against putting a curb cut here. So this to the next location would be more than 600 feet. So there would need to be a second one. Right, it's more than 600 feet along that sort of hangled yellow line you drew. Is that what you're saying? No, it's along the road. So I think the staff comment says... Which road? So measuring along Garden Street. But won't Garden Street have sidewalks? Isn't that the easement, the pedestrian easement? No. So any block that is 600 feet or more in length needs to have a pedestrian easement may be required to facilitate pedestrian bicycle circulation within the subdivision. If they were only to put one where... Sorry about that. If they were only to put one here, they would still have more than 600 feet without any internal circulation. So the suggestion is to have one at each of these locations so that the total distance between any two points is less than 600 feet. I'd like to make a comment and I know it's probably not gonna change any minds, but I would suggest that the form-based code was predicated on activating the streets, the building envelope standards, building frontage, building breaks, build-to-lines, glazing, door frequency. I wonder why we wanna create a bypass of Market Street. And I would think that we want to send traffic down Market Street. Now we will honor whatever is required, but I would think that we would want traffic, pedestrian traffic, even bike traffic, to go down Market Street. I mean, to me, if there's... Will there be sidewalks on Garden Street, yes or no, both sides? Yes. Okay. There'll be sidewalks on both sides and a cycle track down one of the sides. Okay. I mean, especially as this is a May, I don't see the need for anything on the stormwater lot. And then as far as pedestrian and bicycle circulation, I mean, it's in the spirit of the bylaws, we want good safety and people feeling like they can go from building to building or whatever in a safe manner that I just don't think this is something we fall on our sword over, especially because it's a May. I would add, and this is a little bit off regulation, but as someone who works on Market Street, that yellow line, there's a desire path there today. Yes. Say again, Marl, please. There's a desire path along that yellow line today. People already walked there. I would agree and I would say that based on sort of more urban traffic patterns that that would be more desirable than the green one. I'm in agreement that the green one is more wanting to be pushed to say on the Market Street, but when you have the opportunity to go off the beaten path, you're gonna want to take it. Are there any safety concerns with standing water on both sides? I mean, it is kind of a narrow strip of land. All right, well, let's be mindful of time and that this is just sketch and we're gathering information. If you have anyone, you've got the quote, desire path or people creating paths, which you're supposed to do as a planner, you build it and you lay it flat for a while and you watch where all the traffic goes and you know, instead of social engineering and forcing them into it. Right, but I think requesting, especially since the, I understand the green one being more sort of guidance direction at sketch, but since the purpose of this sketch one is the subdivision of SW1, I think sort of giving a more clear direction about requiring that pedestrian easement is sort of a needed step. Yeah, I'll put it this way. It's a May. You've heard a lot of the board members say, hey, try to make it work, because that's what people are doing. That's where people are walking when you come back, think of, you know, take some photos, get some, see what you can fit in there. It's just an easement. It's not requirement to build anything or there's the ADA compliant or anything like that. It's just, it's the proverbial split rail fence, so the kid doesn't fall on the pond. Yeah, I have no problem with the easement. My concern is who owns the liability if there is a problem with someone in the water. Well, yeah, and there's other examples, even in the city center of people being allowed to walk along open water. Yeah. All right, sounds good. Wait a minute, this is the same, this is the same water that is an amenity, right, for civic spaces. Damn straight. So, moving right along. Wait, wait, Frank, did you finish your thought on that? Well, I think, I mean, I think it speaks for itself, you know, you got, so you have liability on both sides of the pond, that's it. Great. Hey, all right, moving right along. Well, does that, I don't want to get off topic here, does that path count as a site amenity for site development on one of the building lots? I think that. I'm not sure that it would. No, I think that a pedestrian pass is an amenity. It's one of the available options. Keep in mind that, you know, there's certain limits on what these offsite things can be, so. Right, they're quite prescriptive, and I'm wondering whether that one, I guess, if you could take a look at that and let us know so that we can plan going forward. I think that it, I think the regulations are pretty clear if you were to look at them. I just don't know them off the top of my head. I don't either, but I'll take a look at them if you could take a look at them as well, because I'd be curious to know whether that in staff's opinion fits that matrix. So. All right, moving right along. Pottable water supply. It's getting longer. This is quite the bottom of page eight. Since this criterion requires compliance with our own standards, the city ordinance is 1580. Required liquid water supply. Staff recommends the board discuss what happened. They were required to provide necessary easing for construction necessary water line prior to final plan approval. That's what you guys can do. Yeah, I have an agreement with Alana. We, we, we will. Okay, great. All right, that is it. Board members, any more questions for the applicant? Do you have any more questions for us, the applicants? No. Marlon, you got what you need. Well, any, any further clarification? Any other things you want to say before they come to us with a preliminary plat or preliminary, excuse me, preliminary? Yeah. All right, great. Thanks guys. Thank you. Thank you. Good. All right, it's only 934 minutes of May 17th. Members have had a chance to review them. Can I add that I was at that meeting? You were, you were at the meeting? Or you were absent? I think I was there. Okay. Yeah, I'm missing. Okay. I've been missing a lot. Okay, let's get that corrected then. I've been here a lot, so I don't know. All right, would you make, so would you like to make the motion to approve the minutes for the correction that you were there? Yeah, so I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of May 17th as corrected. All right, is there a second? Second. All right, thank you. Motion's made in second to approve the minutes of May 17th as corrected. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All right, any opposition? Stetson, no, great. Other business? How do we feel about the times on the agenda? I know that there was some discussion that we can't just do it by putting times on the agenda. There needs to be some degree of self-policing. Is this, are we heading in the right direction with the easier items first and the harder items last and some times? Yeah. I like it. You know, I think we should, if we didn't have Nagli and Chase continue, we would have been pushing the envelope, but we would have at least gotten to them. Yeah. I don't know how we would have gotten everyone with all the other continuances on the agenda, but. No, but that was known. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, and then the other's going to be the time-minder. Right, so there needs to be one of you who's elbowing whoever and says we're getting off cracks. A mildly comment would be to just crack the whip on some of these other things. I mean, that's just, I mean. Well, we did great till the last item. Right. But we intentionally put the most complicated item last. And I thought it worked well and I liked having the times right on the agenda. Yeah, because I was keeping track when we were running right on time, then we were eight minutes ahead of schedule before we got to South Burlington Realty. Yeah. Okay, so in the future, there are going to be some things that are bigger applications. Well, in my only comment, I think regarding us, was it the appeal or was it the, what was it called? The long appeal. I mean, that one, you know, we probably could have been a little bit more aggressive about like new information, please. Yeah. What is new beyond what you've already submitted? Yeah. Yeah. And I think we need to keep mindful of that and not be, and back the chair if we need to. Well, Delilah's been half the meeting arguing with us. So. So for the next meeting, I'm going to stick to the same format, easiest to hardest, you know, a bunch of things have been continued. But I think that it's, we planned for that when we scheduled that hearing. And then when things get complicated, we're going to try to limit them, even if it's incredibly complicated, we're going to limit it to an hour unless we plan ahead for that. Yes, I agree with that. Because we need to make sure. After an hour, your eyes start to glaze. Yeah. And you stop listening. And I'm speaking anecdotally here. Thanks. It's 937 a motion to adjourn somebody. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thanks for helping me back. Recording stopped. Great. I got a post adjournment question. So we have that special meeting.