 Okay folks today is Tuesday December 6th. Yep. Sound okay back there? All right. Hey Tuesday December 6th. This is the meeting of the City of South Burlington Development Review Board. So a couple things. We've got first item here. Anybody's attending virtually? We have anybody yet? But if you, we do. Okay. They're not showing the cameras. Okay great. Please anybody for virtual attendance, you will have the opportunity both to listen and to speak. Please keep your microphones muted and cameras off unless you are actively participating in the item before the board. If you wish to participate during public comment period please turn on your camera and raise your hand and you may unmute when I recognize you. The chat function is for administrative matters only. So comments submitted in the chat will not be recognized as part of the meeting record. It helps also if you are here for a certain agenda item put your name in the chat and what agenda item for you here is a standing is that the phrase I'm looking for? Yes for what agenda item you're here for. In case you wish to establish standing. For those of you here be sure to in the room be sure to sign the list in the back there. Please sign in on the back there and the agenda item. So we're warned to begin at seven and we're underway here. So emergency evacuation procedures are two exits back there in the back room and then the closest door to the parking lot is out that way to the north side of the building. Let's see. I'm Dan Albrecht vice chair here filling in for Dawn is not feeling well. We have board members John Stern. Stephanie is she attending virtually or is she not? Yeah okay great Stephanie Wyman's here and Frank Cokman and Quinn Mann and Mark Bear is virtual as well. Okay so first item any additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items there? Yes so not really a change in the order but agenda item number eight site plan application sp-22055 of Wellington International Airport has requested continuation to the next meeting date so if you're here for that you might not want to stick around until nine o'clock okay great thanks board members any everybody okay with the agenda all right any announcements from staff or otherwise okay any comments and questions from the public on items not related to the agenda okay first item up is site plan application sp-22-057 of South Brunton School District to amend a previously approved site plan for an educational facility the amendment consists of constructing a 6,300 square foot expansion including four modular classrooms and an adjoining concrete walkway to Baldwin Avenue here is who is here for the applicant all right come on up and go ahead have a seat in the front seats there and people can hop in also if you've got others on the podium there be sure the mics are on the little the green button will get greener if you'd like to introduce yourself and then this is the first time we've heard you so I will anybody's involved in the application I will swear you in so go ahead okay Ronnie I don't think your microphones on is the green green green it it turns like breaking oh yeah Ronnie Philip with your architects Jeff Hansen with Wagner Hansen landscape architecture okay anybody online any others who might be Julia Julia there I am here sorry I raise my hand so raise your hand and those of you here raise your hand do you swear that the testimony you are about to give on this matter is the truth under the panes and penalties of perjury yes okay great well if you'd like to introduce you know broadly speaking the the project and then we'll go through the staff comments sure we've been working with the South Burlington School District regarding the oh sure you just move the mic yeah there we go so during what are architects we've been working with the South Burlington School District regarding their increase in enrollment over the last few years and the projected increase that they've been experiencing at their schools and so this application is in regards to Orchard School District or the Orchard School and we are looking to seek approval for the addition of temporary modular units at the school to address the need for classroom spaces our proposal includes four classroom spaces on the South side of the building and it would be connected to the building with a connector and it's you know meant to serve the population and like I said it is a intended to be a temporary structure to alleviate the the enrollment increase until a you know larger kind of project can take place and this is what we consider phase one of potentially you know larger master plan at some point for the school district and for my own edification and others what's the timeline on this is it like January semester is that the idea or is it like next September for the installation yeah so right now because the modulars will be constructed we wanted to give time for this process to happen and then you know obviously getting into the ground in the middle of winter is not ideal so we have decided to push that forward and we will have a bond vote that's projected to happen in March for this project to approve the funds and then once that's approved production can happen and installation would happen in the summer okay thank you thank you board members any general questions first before we get into the staff comments bring those up staff comments okay number one staff recommends the board asked the applicant to determine to demonstrate how the existing school building the proposed expansion is being proposed to create a harmonious relationship with the joining structures and sites do you want to stand well direct me to pull up any of the plans that you've submitted I have them all available oh sure I think we know it's a trailer but like in terms of the context of the design it's not a steel tube right no no it's not a black obelisk so what is it you know so we are working it's a zero energy modular we're working with a company called KBS to put together this modular unit you know it's intended to be you know highly efficient and we haven't selected say colors or anything like that but you know we are sorry I'm sorry I'm just gonna speed things along so I know it's an architect's dream here but can we have a is there a plan view showing how it sort of looks visually or not a plan view about elevations that shows what it kind of looks like so it faces south right the most proximate street is yes so this will be the side facing the street but but it's really isn't it the backyards of I think if we look at one of the sites you can see where it's oriented long ways on the south if you're facing the building is tough to the right side and back yeah why don't we start with this plan and you can orient us as to or nope this one so there we go okay and so where I mean because this is too zoomed in where the streets is there a different map should I show this map cover page actually maybe if we pull up the landscape plan that shows more of the site can I ask a question or waiting yeah sure how many students do you anticipate housing or I think the max would be about 25 students in a classroom so 100 100 and from a practically and just looking at one of the pre the elevations there these are this is slightly lower than the existing building yes it's about 13 feet okay alright how long will this support the hundred students or is there a projection by which time the hundred student you would have more than a hundred students in this require further expansion so the intent is this would house the overflow of students that they're experiencing right now and part of phase two is actually looking at potentially moving fifth grade students to the middle school you know obviously that's a larger discussion for the community but if that happened that would actually create you know one grade moving out of the building and accommodate the students within the building and so you know approximately five this years you know but there obviously a lot of steps to happen in between them thank you all right so there's some good discussion there at the middle of page four below this you know the staff comments it does minimize the visual impact this is number 3a in the middle of page four there seems to me somewhat consistent I'm just let me board members stop me if there's something that jumps out at you here staff does have concerns about the architectural features the structure is somewhat of an industrial shipping container but however there is existing vegetation and and the form of the building behind it does eliminate some of the visual impact so there it is but we recognize it somewhat of a temporary solution obviously and then the privacy issue it does meet the setbacks there are backyards there just to the south of the property but it's ten feet beyond the minimum setback and there is existing vegetation so there is it seems to adequately address the privacy issues so board members any further discussion or you just do you agree with everything staff says let's put it that way yes the correct answer is yes so okay I just want to be sure you didn't jump out of the gate on this one so I know it's a fuzzy standard so but alright here we go let's move on down to board members going to go to number two so we're writing the site amenity requirement you know staff staff notes that you know we when determined whether the existing playgrounds meet the applicable site amenity requirements personally I think it's adequate in the function of a school building it's not a subdivision that we're building or you know the people will come and go from it and then be quieter in the in the summertime when the kids aren't around so everybody okay with that applicant okay all right all right mark Stephanie you're good with these one and two yeah okay yeah no I am I mean I I'm in agreement that the shipping container is transient I would be concerned if they're you know they have a way of becoming permanent but you know can't really plan around that so but the playground I'm fine with okay great all right so moving down to the middle of page seven under the issue of bicycle parking and storage staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide the planning capacity of the school to facilitate computation of required bicycle parking to modify the plans to provide the required number of bicycle parking spaces in a location in a form meeting the requirements of LDR 13.03 B parentheses 2 and per end so we actually provided an updated civil plan which includes a location for permanent bicycle storage based on our calculation of 454 students we calculate about 12 bike spaces that would be needed the site currently has bike parking on site it's just not permanently installed because it's technically on the grass it can be staked into the ground but we have talked to the client and they're in agreement of adding some permanent structures we just haven't fully designed it but it is noted on the plans so the requirement is actually only 12 bicycle bicycle accommodate 12 bicycles or 454 students or how the requirement is one bicycle parking space for 20 students you're required to meet half of that standard if it's your first site plan amendment since the adoption of that so this is orchard schools first so they only have to get half of the required minimum bike parking so I guess they would be at 24 parking spaces for the whole school is the I'm curious if the school if the school is satisfied with it only because they've been trying to promote bike to bike and then that is a pro relatively dense neighborhood and a lot of kids can walk there and bike there and I think a lot of kids do bike it's just that they park parking like the traditional schoolyard rack which doesn't meet our standards right so what they currently has just doesn't meet the car the newest standards so they have a school if it meets the standards in the school district it's satisfied okay all right sounds good board members be on that okay number four so this is the existing non-conformity regarding the trees to modify the plans to provide planning details to the satisfaction of the city arborist the 14 so that was the comment above was that addressed we not yet but we will be submitting the normal planting details okay great the existing parking areas lacking shade trees in several locations which are not proposed to be remedied as part of this landscaping the plan the plan includes 11 trees that are supposed to be located outside of the perimeter of the parking lot so number four staff recommends the board consider whether required applicant to improve this existing non-conformity as part of this application so there the plan that we submitted with the application has actually what hadn't been reviewed by the client so we got feedback and we made a change to the plan do you have that yeah and so what's hard to see on the air photos there's actually kind of scrub trees to the west and to the north of the parking lot and so we would have to remove trees to plant trees in that area and then on the other side of the parking lot there's an overhead power line that runs kind of parallel with the curb and also some existing trees so we we just put two trees to the east of the parking lot and then two trees to the south and then there's snow storage to the north and kind of access to the soccer field so are the playfield so it's it's a little tricky to add more trees around the parking lot and also the week before we had trees along the north side of the gym that would provide shade for the track but the school decided they didn't want trees that close and they thought the kids would destroy them potentially because they run back and forth all the time so so the other trees are just off the screen to the north they wanted them moved up to that side it's actually fairly tight site and just are there right now in that little red hatched area underneath where it says plant schedule are there trees on the north side of the parking lot there and that little there are there's some shapes let there yeah there's kind of big scrubby trees on the I see him on the west side but what about the north edge go up yeah that little slot there yeah there's trees there yeah okay yeah and there's some pictures that show the use of that parking lot okay see the trees to the north and then the next ones to the west pretty recent photos right yeah this fall okay I guess as much board members what do you think about the there would be two trees in that island that is in the foreground okay yeah board members how do you what do you feel about this revised planting they just submitted can you bring that click on that one great thank you the other thing we had to keep in mind is which benefited moving the trees away from the schools if they ever expanded the school and displace these trees they'd have to replace them at whatever size they were you know down the road so I think the school was looking to keep them as kind of out of the way as possible okay board members you satisfied with this here's what you're thinking Dan no it's I talked too much already as it is so I mean it seems like to put the trees where they where they where they could it was also tricky because we didn't want to put shrubs around the temporary classroom because when it goes away yeah it would just be it wouldn't make sense yep I see a little tricky would you explain again why you can't put trees on having directional trouble here as we look at it on the left side of the parking lot there's kind of a row of existing trees there they're kind of scrubby but they do provide shade in the afternoon are they all living yes viable I mean you know everything looks forlorn this type of years yeah all right I'm okay with it board members anyone else Quinn yeah I'm in agreement I think it's a tricky site as the applicant has explained and I think on first glance it doesn't look ideal but it makes sense for for what is happening here I'm okay I'm all right with it yeah I'm okay I mean like like Quinn said on first glance it's not ideal it feels kind of sparse but I think you know it's functionally sparse and I while I would love to see more trees and more shade I think it does then start to impact the usability of the playfields in the track yeah I'm okay with it as submitted yeah okay moving along to staff comment number five snow storage areas are not specified in the plans staff recommends for the applicant to specify snow storage areas prior to closing here and modify the plans as a condition of approval do you have updated yeah on that new plan we added where they currently snow or a store snow so kind of aquamarina the one is that basically they push it into the playfield okay the children love that being someone who has a elementary school at the window it's like the most amazing thing okay sliding down all those nice once a word break pad filings the metals and all that stuff so okay never mind okay number six staff recommends the board determine whether they will allow the proposed grasses to count towards the minimum required landscaping budget we haven't we not like we don't usually count the grasses unless they're sort of like taller and rain gardening like correct right I think that's what this was I'm not sure if that's in that most recent landscaping plan I didn't see that the grasses are actually one of the only plants that's over by the modular and they're really tall they get three to four feet tall okay and those are still proposed they are even though they're not in that most recent plan no they should be or maybe we shouldn't go far enough on yeah it's more like up an up view and we've counted grasses before correct yeah these ornamental types yes oh yeah I'm sorry it did but the original right so we'd have to do if they were if the board would approve them we'd have to have a condition that says you know the applicant shall provide you know a sheet L202 that shows the rest of the yeah they're they're still there and there's actually some some shrubs on that side okay board members how do you feel about that sounds okay to me sorry this is the first time I've heard grasses for plants since I've been a member here so it's compliant yeah historically it's been trees and shrubs but if a if a lot is pretty thoroughly landscaped the board is allowed to grant credit for things like ornamental grasses or perennials or rain gardens or things like that that don't fit the traditional criteria grass long grass it's yeah it's more substantially we should come up with a inch standard let's put that tell that to the planning commission board members Frank okay okay be nice to see I mean grasses is a broad term you know you nice to see what they look like I can pull it up okay thank you yeah these are you have an illustration of what what they're gonna they're gonna be over there that's yeah that's nice that's a good so it's kind of filling in around so the classrooms to the left look out at something other than is that is that sort of a modular hallway as it were that north south thing okay yeah and then the hallway goes east-west thing is fronts the okay thank you the modular thank you yeah so those grasses along the line you know the idea is that in the winter they have a lot of presents they're three to four feet tall and look kind of nice in the winter as well as the summer thank you you have is that good Frank yeah all right number seven you okay with the condition regularly maintain all stormwater treatment advanced infrastructure okay thank you the standard section there all right can you confirm that no building mountain lighting is proposed yep correct we are just using the existing lighting that's at the site okay since they have the interior connection to the building and no changes to existing interior lighting yeah existing downcast okay board members any further questions the applicant okay is there anybody who wants to testify on this item online okay anybody else here in the room want to testify okay staff do you have do you have enough information to be able to make a decision if we get there please yeah okay all right so that being the case no further testimony we've got the information we need to hear a motion to close the hearing on this so move thank you Frank is there a second John or Quinn either one let's give it to quit all right so there's been a motion made and second to close the hearing for site plan application sp-22-057 board members all those in favor say aye aye aye any nay votes any abstentions all right motion carries thanks very much thank you yeah and then an exclamation point any spaces okay next item up excuse me site plan application sp-22-039 of 039 of David hockey yeah to Amanda previously approved site plan for a 21,420 square foot excuse building the amendment consists of constructing a 3550 square foot third story addition which will be combined with 4,600 square feet of existing building and used as six residential units with 16,605 square feet commercial space to remain 370 Shelburne Road who's here for the applicant I'm David hockey yeah great Brian courier O'Leary Burke civil associates okay okay you any colleagues online no okay let me swear you in do you swear the testimony about to give with regards to this application is the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury I do okay I just want to make a quick disclosure I live at 51 Proctor Avenue just up the street so I'm feeling familiar with the property but I do not feel it will affect my ability to assess this application and be objective so you want to describe it generally and then we'll go into the staff comments sure this building originally was a supermarket way back in the 50s 60s and then the retail portion on the front was added on the portion in the rear on the east side there's an old loading dock not a very functional space we just have been involved with the property for five years basically been vacant we decided to try to proceed forward with some housing options and as part of that the footprint of the main building would remain the same we'd raise one story above in the rear of the building where the loading dock is and create six housing units for two bedrooms and two one bedrooms one being handicap accessible and that is why the parking for the one space is on the east side the building just and from the new units are they being placed on top of some vacant space correct so yes that the space that is there's a certain photo that helps that yeah let me see what we have here I think it's in place of some vacant space and we're also adding some additional space okay correct okay so the oh I see so I see the proposed addition there and the cross that's you have you can zoom in that'd be great so we're looking here at the plan yes on the west north and proposed addition is on the east edge of the property and the and that's digs the tanish space there is is it occupied or is it storage or well it's vacant storage it's you know the uses that we've tried to yeah I've never walked by all I walk by it all the time and I never really know uses because of the parking and other things and it's two stories up from the main parking lot on the on the north side so and just a broad question only cuz you know this is the zoning that I believe support more units and then from a planning standpoint like if we were if this was to be a brand-new development we'd have and you know we'd have retail on the first floor just like you have and we'd have two or three four or five stories on top of the housing if there consideration to that or is it just too disruptive to the existing tenant it is disrupt disruptive the leases you know some go ten years out okay office etc. besides the running this yes so to have all those line up to to start a brand-new project is it's complicated so the post office is in South Burlington but it's 05401 at that one correct always bothers me north end of the property is Burlington oh yeah split municipal boundary my let's got a cursor over okay there we go just think it's the northwest corner of South yeah I always I always explain to people that you think I'm in Burlington right so okay well that helps that helps explain it any other yeah you're running within just a couple of feet of the property line to the east is that right correct the existing building is just a few feet off the property line so it's an existing non-conforming structure off the rear setback and you're staying within the footprint of the existing structure that's correct but you're building above it yes correct not in the space that comes closest to the property line correct you want to pull up there's a good architecture let's show this where Union Jackson correct and the bond me place and MCI gone yeah sorry didn't mean no no no it's this is great that I love that place okay so you're gonna raise it up so the portion on the right side of the page money I don't know if you can put your cursor over it there's sort of a white section that's existing and the and that's only on it's only one story there correct stories there one story there one story there they're not proposing any addition so that's a roof in the right hand purple and pink is the third story addition so the first floor which is all the way on the left is about half a story underground at that point the access is actually off the truck dock you have to go down a few stairs in order to get to the entrance there and then on what is called the second floor that will be fully remodeled into the residential apartments then the only addition is this third floor which is you know just the rectangular not the edge that you know juts out towards the setback that you were talking about so just visually speaking if you were to step out of the two-bedroom flat in the northeast corner of the new construction is the roof at your feet or is the roof of to a whole story below you that existing membrane roof like visually like what's the it's a you have to walk up about four feet to get to that roof so it's probably half it's halfway I guess so it's not gonna be accessible by the okay I just want to yeah because it would like you'd almost be looking in the neighbor's window there if you if that's why I asked trying to get a sense of the relationship between the roof and that flat that's all yeah yeah and the garage is on that side of the existence okay you want to pull up some of the elevations here too because I just this is a but yeah very close to some residential properties okay so the south elevation that shows it a little better as the street goes up yeah and then wait that's south where's that little sorry scroll back so I can see that that little covered porches is that on the on the south side or the oh that west side the west side okay facing Shulban Road that's off the third how can that be west if that's the south elevation it's cut on the south side so the porch would be facing west but the porch actually can't be seen from Shelburne Road because there's a big pitched on the yellow portion of the building the big pitched roof so what's that covered porch gonna look at well you actually could see the lake from up there you can see it's gonna be a higher oh I see very top yeah let me know what it becomes available my little cape it's getting tiny all right and then scroll down just so we can see the other elevation so okay so that okay so yeah this is the this is what the neighbor would see that's what the neighbor would see yeah alright alright is do you have any neighbors whose view will now be blocked no I I don't think so because there is no it's pretty high up there and there's no view and and we have a roof that I was just speaking of the roof yeah okay and then is there some are any photos in this a packet I believe there are towards the end maybe existing conditions potentially it's a nice perspective that okay that that helps a little bit southeast corner of yeah yeah so that's where the existing truck dock is now you know you can kind of right and then and then you can bear it you can faintly see yeah okay there that's how that helps capture it right so that yeah the corner is the op the ophthalmology person correct optometrist I can't remember which and the expansion is what's there in the back yeah just that yeah yeah it goes uphill as you walk up proctor out yeah I this is a little confusing to me how does this get a Shelburne Road address when it's because the building is 370 Shelburne Road that's why but are you connected to the ophthalmology complex and all that yes it's all one building oh I see all one building one lot yeah it's brick now right correct brick in the wood that kind of expansion yellow part it's a fun mix yeah I think the only real concern is the extent and I still haven't grasped it yet the extent to which there's any impingement on the easterly neighbors and I don't have a real sense of that from what I'm looking at is there is there another view that's more about another I think the one you were previously on had a pretty good look at it Mike can jump in yeah Google yeah if you have Google Street view might help too but if they're but is there something in the packet yeah and I think that's a butting unit is you can't see the house a butting it but you know the adjoining lot yeah Marty's gonna pull up Google Street view Marla did the neighbors still get a male notice do they get a personal notice yeah so the butter notices go out to all adjoining property owners at the property owner mailing address which is not necessarily the street address if it's a rental try a nine actually Marla the last existing condition I think Marty's gonna pull up this review pretty much that's what it is so but you'll see the garages on the shared line put the little put the little man there right where that white car is a little Google man so theoretically right now the neighbor can look over the top of that of a current elevation and presumably see the sunset and now they can't once the ones that the next I mean they'll see the other if we go forward if you go towards Shelvern Road you'll see that big roof right there yeah yeah I don't I don't think they're seeing the sunset because you're right that the pitched roof on the addition yeah that's pretty high I have to climb I mean I've climbed up to the top of that roof and it's well above the portion of the building in the back they're not well but at least three or four feet higher than okay well I think we've done some of the general discussion let's be sure we get through the staff comments here and then we can circle back to some of these bigger issues or there may be testimony or whatever so let's let's do that so number on page two the applicant has not correctly calculated height they have been said and provided heights for the building in three sections the board require the board board require the applicant to provide a correct calculation prior to closing the hearing height shall be calculated based on the average grade of the outer perimeter of the building and the difference between that and the proposed height of the floor at the building addition do you have any answer on that one our architect who unfortunately isn't here this evening sense some correspondence I believe tomorrow lot to that answer your question tomorrow or so anything I got today I don't look at no this through the packet so I can speak to the finish floor along Shelburne Road all the entrances of the same elevation so there's about 10 feet from the front of the building to the back of the building so the average grade around the building is approximately five feet higher than the front of the building so if you look at the building elevations that were provided I believe it was labeled as an average plane but that's where average grade plane if you look on the so that's the five feet which is the difference of you know the story the 10 feet that is the difference in elevation from in front of that building to the back of the building the five feet was used to calculate a 34 foot peak to the third story addition that we're doing so we believe 34 feet is correct and then the height requirements based on stories anyway and we're up to five feet five stories we're only proposing three so it's really relevant also okay yeah it's mostly a notation on the right what's the correct it is that do you find that correct Marla the using that average grade plane yeah and that wasn't clear from the application so that's now great thank you let's move on and then when you get into the next paragraph or next two paragraphs down it talks about the number of stories no building shall be more than one story higher than the shortest building on an adjacent lot in the r4 except if it's more than 75 feet away so the Jason building we just saw as a two-story building so this building could be up to three stories which is what they're proposing so it could not be fine okay unless it was more than 75 feet away so I guess the front of the building could be five maybe yeah okay all right all right let's move on and thank you for that clarification moving along bottom of page four can you address the trip generation issue yeah so this project is as or this property has had a few amendments over the years I was trying to dig back into the earlier decisions to determine what it categories were used to determine the peak p.m. trips so a little bit of background we're in the traffic overlay district zone 3 there's a lot of the amount of trips that are associated with the zone 3 property if you do the calculation the baseline should be 75 trips staff does the note that a earlier amendment allowed 81 trips and our application had 108 existing trips so like I said I was trying to find out what ITE categories were used in order to determine the 82 trip number and what I was able to find is that it was used off an old edition of ITE it was the 7th edition and the ITE category doesn't exist anymore they're up to the 11th edition and it's called a it was determined that the entire building was categorized as a specialty retail center so when I did the calculation to come up with 108 ITE trips I picked every use that was in the building and the square footage associated with that use picked an ITE category I felt was relevant and then I added them all up and got 108 trips so what was done previously was that the whole building was deemed a specialty retail center basically shopping center meaning that as long as the uses were similar to what's allowed within a shopping center that if the use has changed from a dental office to a restaurant or something that would change the peak PM trips if you were to look at it per use individually but if you look at it as a whole property the fact that it was already determined to be essentially a shopping center and the square footage hasn't changed then it's really just a change in the methodology of determining the amount of trips it's it's not that you know we didn't add trips obviously since I think the most recent amendment was 2014 when they added the connection to to Hickok and Bartman Brian can I jump in for one second you said 120 trips is what your calculating is existing but I think the staff report says 180 yeah I think it was 180 I think you said 108 oh I mean no I believe I heard him say 108 but okay yeah so so if you use that one category it shouldn't matter the use that we're redeveloping like I said the specialty retail center is from an old version of ITE that is no longer new so if you use a similar shopping center ITE category from the 11th edition we're removing I believe 4600 square feet of commercial space it's 16 thousand includes it that's what we're left with right yeah so the the facilities currently approved for 21,420 square feet of commercial space the part that's being redeveloped into a residential component is 4600 square feet that leaves the remaining commercial square footage at 16,605 square feet so the important part is 4600 square feet that's being redeveloped the shopping ITE category in a peak PM hour is 6.59 trips per thousand square feet so that correlates the 30 trips worth of commercial space that's being redeveloped now we're proposing six multifamily residential units that equate to four peak PM trips that are being proposed so looking at past decisions from the DRB past you know precedent that's been set via ITE category out there I think an argument can be made that we're reducing the amount of trips on the property by 26 peak PM trips Marla you had the how's this sounding to you you also have the question above there about the cross-light connection is not sufficient mitigation so I'm a little unsure about the argument that you're removing 4600 square feet of shopping use because I thought you were just saying it's warehouse use and shopping isn't is no longer a category right the specialty realtor center which is what it was approved under is no longer an ITE category so what I used was a shopping center ITE categories essentially equivalent in the new version of ITE what if you use shopping center for the whole thing rather than individual uses we can that we did that also that still gives you a hundred something trips given that makes more sense because if you're saying if you're itemizing the front of the building and lumping the back of the building you're using inconsistent methodology but if you lump the whole thing and then you take off some of the existing exactly from lumped and then you add in the residential then I think that's a fair calculation that's what we're doing the other thing with the shopping center uses it does assume some amount of internal capture which I think in this case is realistic you go to the post office and then you get you know a bond me or whatever yeah you go to the eye doctor and you get a fish and chips I don't know yeah you know so you know the other thing that you know we talked about was you know the the traffic overlay gives you you know allows the board to give credits for proposed projects you know there's very little of the regulations about what's existing on the site you know we have a signalized intersection along Shelburne Road we have a secondary access to a secondary street we have interconnection with the neighboring property we have a ccta bus stop right in front of our buildings we have sidewalks on both sides of our corner lot we can't do anything more to be pedestrian and vehicle safety you know given the uses on the building so you know we could propose you know something we kicked around was you know to ask credit for you know turning the truck dock that obviously uses Proctor Road as a turn around in order to back into that space turning that to an ADA now compliant space I mean there's no question that that's you know traffic improvement though minor we understand I didn't look at the plane closely but the south side of the building there's sort of a funny asphalt swale that you walk up is that going to be a sidewalk there on that if you're gonna give you're gonna walk on the south side of the building how you gonna how you gonna let's say you walk out the front door of your apartment you go and you want to go get upon me like is there what's gonna happen to that sure can you bring up can you bring up the plan for having a problem fitting both a sidewalk and trees in there with a power line there's a couple power poles in there that service our building you know I understand that is there and the front door for five of the units besides the handicap one is on the north side so what about people come out the south I mean you know what I'm getting at I mean it's kind of a weird little funky thing and I get you that you had the trees is that my life is that how do you feel about the lack of an official sidewalk there because it's what is that between the trees in the built existing building it's basically asphalt it's basically a drainage it's a drainage ditch to test it's not a sidewalk yeah I stepped on the other side of the street yeah yeah so I mean the city standard for a neighborhood street we talk about this in the in the in the staff comments is that there be a sidewalk on one side so if this were a new project and there were a sidewalk on one side we would say it's adequate I think that this is an interesting case because it's adding residential use that has potential access to transit and it could improve connectivity but like I said if this were a totally new development only sidewalk on one side would be required so I don't know that it's others trees required on the south side of the building well we'll get to a landscape budget keep in mind the property line is that thick black line between the building and the trees oh that's so that's so they're proposing street trees right okay but that's city right away right there it is we're back to the issue of a sidewalk here so I mean the city standard is that streets adjacent to a development project should be brought up to current standards and that's why we looked at you know what the standard would be for sidewalk if you could just zoom out a bit so we can see both sides of Proctor Ave so Proctor Ave has the necessary sidewalk it doesn't have the necessary street trees so street trees if this were a new project would be required there and I think that that's the best use of all right well let's let's move on let's get through more of these issues and we'll circle back to this so I'm traffic before we finish so I think that it sounds like the board's okay with you know doing the shopping center and then a smaller shopping center with residential units can you give me the numbers so I can write that into a draft decision what was the for the whole existing what was the total trips as a shopping center so actually strip Plaza retail is what it's on their IT category 822 is 6.59 trips per thousand square feet I mean it's not necessarily linear there should be a regression would you get for the answer what's the existing trip generation using that category well there would be to regression equation so it's not necessarily linear are you saying that there's not a regression equation for strip Plaza are you using the 11th edition I am I think it's 112 and then what would it be reduced to without the 4600 and then what it would be back up to with the six units so we're we were at 112 the 4600 trips equates to 30 being taken off as 30 puts us at 82 and then we're adding four with the residential component so we'd be at 86 information board members any further question on just this issue of the parking of the trips okay great next comment on bottom of page 6 this is regarding I'll just read the comments staff recommends the board required demonstration of the post combination of a multifamily residential use and use and the location of a site agenda amenity adjacent to the residential zoning district provides equivalent screening to that which we provided by a 65 foot buffer or a 15 foot densely vegetated buffer between a residential zoning district any three story non-residential use in other words at the structure about the 65 foot buffer or 15 foot densely vegetated buffer and we're a three-story non residential use would the impact be the same as the proposed impact of a three-story multifamily residential use four feet from the property line staff considers a factor in this determination in addition to the setback in use is the height and proximity of the adjoining signal family home so I recommend reminds the board the authority granted waiver is limited to dimensional criteria not achievable due to physical site limitations or other legal or developmental constraint development constraints all pointed out to me that he doesn't think it's necessarily a waiver who doesn't think it's a waiver because the DRB has the authority to reduce the required setback in above in three above and so just just to be clear the the side setback is is what in the regs 15 10 side setback here we are it's a rear setback no it's a side it's 10 here and they're at four today with the that a four with the existing non-conformity yes and then the what's the just for purposes of discussion the what's the setback of the new construction from the property line though the stuff that's on top essentially it's gonna be 25 probably it's 30 30 is it 30 it's in the staff report 30 okay all right and then the amenity is that some of that within the setback yes so the amenities would be everything to the south like where you see the switchback ramps yeah tables chairs landscaping and those are not considered structures the bench the the bench would not be the ramp in the porch I think would be but it's outside it so you can see the thin dashed line on the right-hand side of the page outside the setback but it's within the buffer right I just want to you know you know you can't put a shed within five feet so that's why that is a handicap ramp that the reason for that is is to me the yeah I get that yeah so but the and the patio and landscaping is all at ground level the oh there's the baller there okay and then that handicap ramp is bigger than it needs to be not that I'm saying you should make it smaller I think it's nice that there is three types of amenities here and they're only asking for credit for the ground level one but effectively they have a big open porch and then to the north sort of above where Marty's cursor is they have an indoor common space that has big windows facing out onto the patio and is there an illustration of what this looked not a plan but an elevation of what this looks like visually and yes I see a little bit of it okay I won is also there in the landscape set I'm believes probably the illustrative yeah six or seven there oh Marla you're you're basically looking to see if we find that that the that the that there's adequate that this that the proposed combination of a multifamily residential use and the location of a site in many provides equivalent screening to either a 65 foot buffer or 15 foot buffer fairly big existing trees that are see this sort of the large semicircles but just just right on the property line and they form a pretty nice boundary line between the neighbor and this property okay and then moving north is there any room to squeeze anything between the existing building and the prop and the yeah yeah like yeah literally like that little the neighbor has an eight-foot fence yeah he's installed in the last couple years Google Street view we were looking at is going all the length of that building okay those trees are shoot low locusts no box elder that's the word so those tend to drop limbs as they get bigger and don't have a very long life sand right yeah I took mine out of my house I think if you you know if you take care of them I think you could you can manage them but yeah board members how do you feel about this I'm just trying to think of this are you thinking a different tree well I know I'm just so the question is is that what they have proposed combined with changing from a loading dock to a residential use equivalent of the to the required 15-foot densely vegetated buffer between a residential zoning district and a commercial use and the word densely is defined somewhere it's in one and two above where we're talking about in the staff report you have to provide either a 65 foot setback between residential zoning districts and a principal building in a non-residential zoning district or a if it was residents to residents it's 15 right no it's actually all principal structures regardless of their use in a commercial zoning district has to be 65 feet away from the adjoining residential zoning district or 15 feet away and dense and landscaped with dense evergreens fencing and or other plantings as a screen yeah that's pretty much it the side picture looked pretty nice to me it looked like there was nice kind of owners here so that's kind of a like visually like the bottom one yeah the bottom one is what you'd see from the neighbors in Marla in the explanation you just gave you it spoke to the fact that they're removing the loading dock as kind of being able to be part of our thought process would you in addition to just how it looks like can that be part of the calculation because obviously that being removed is yeah so the standard for the board is the board can modify the 15 slash 65 foot buffer if the board finds the proposed lighting landscaping owner and or fencing will provide equivalent screening of the noise light and visual impacts of the new non residential use so these standards are a little weird because they require the setback for any principal structure but then the board can modify the standard in a way where it talks about new non-residential use so this is almost improving that improving improving the situation by actually putting in residential use building right where technically we're a commercial zoning district that allows residential right C1R 15 you know you look forward it's under the commercial rags well you wouldn't think that the residential is there either I mean really it's a mixed use district so okay and then the the thing where it says new window they're on the right-hand side there's this new window and existing opening is that going to be like into the quote the lobby of the building or something or is that somebody's apartment or what is that that's an ups it's a higher window may be at a six foot elevation but we have a storage area laundry that's tenant storage so it'll be an up high window that you won't actually be able to see in it it's a place for them to store winter and then the first one the larger one just to your left that's the community area okay right when you walk into the enter into the thing okay gotcha that's the deal so and then the existing how high up does the is it a is it a stockade fence and how high does it screen there already I think it goes six it might be an eight-foot fence I believe it's an eight-foot fence really an eight-foot yeah it doesn't go all the way to the front of his property yeah no I know over but got the picket fence look at the split rail look yeah so that that average grade line the five feet that's half of the 10 feet we were talking about before so you add another five feet and that basically is existing grade there you know so now the difference between the bottom of that window is four and a half yeah roughly Boardman Mark what do you think on this Stephanie you know I like the project I think it's a great infill project I think it's really I'm sort of like I don't want to say minimally invasive to the adjacent neighbor because you know that's obviously a perception and I don't want to be minimizing it but the reality is you know you're adding a bunch of residential uses you're improving this building immensely and you know that little loading bay area is a complete blight and an eyesore and you're really making it a pleasant space and so you know I think that they're achieving you know that the that you're improving the buffer and you're adding buffer where right now it's a blight so I don't have any issues with what I've seen so far yeah yeah that is garage there correct this garage there yeah I mean I think part of me would the shrubs as it were that are on the east edge of your new amenity area I guess sort of like visually if you step out of the front door of 20 Proctor Ave you know you're essentially looking right into that area and I personally I don't know can you have a good sense of how high those would be along that right along that ridge of the property line and stuff because 20 the immediate neighbor yeah that's 20 show 20 Proctor Ave you can kind of see those trees that Mike was talking about they're very faint the existing trees he scaled them back a lot but they are on there oh I see yeah okay right and it's more just to the north of that that I'm curious just visually as you walk out of that property you're essentially like boom looking right into the entry way which is not the worst thing in the world but to a standpoint of I mean vegetation you know we could easily put a cedar hedge there that would be yeah no no I really dividing up a property and you could put up a big fence there too and just screen it completely yeah I'm not I think the fence does project actually projects out beyond the coming out of the doorway I think when you first look immediately to see the stockade fence you want to bring up the street for you again sorry I just and neighbor we're here I don't know if you guys have Google Earth access but the 3d view of Google access Google Earth gives a lot of good sort of like neighboring impacts and views I want you to share your screen you got it so that was before the fence wasn't yeah that's definitely an older photo trees are really tiny that's 2014 yeah there's there's yeah all right so I've allowed Mark to share Marty you're gonna have to stop sharing first otherwise he can't overrule you and then I'm gonna have to remember to turn it off when he's done so is that shut coming up it's working on it sorry this is what happens when you let me drive but you see like right now it's a blight and I think anything you do and you're doing a really nice job of what you are adding yeah it's gonna create a nice little infill landscapes pocket park essentially yeah well and to some extent there's nothing to prevent the the owner of 20 proctor have to continue add more fence or their own shrubs to some sure yeah or take it down yeah right that's true I mean I think it it truly does enhance that the 370 Shelburne Road property and then enhances you know what the perception that 20 proctor right now I think it's clear why you put up the fence yeah yeah exactly yeah yeah yeah all right no this also gives you a good idea of the fact that the pitched roof over 370 Shelburne you know is kind of like blocking any kind of view that you did have so you really do have to get up one more story to get any kind of view of the lake well it's not just a view of the lake it's like I mean and like the reality is there's a blockage of light and the policy question is I mean I don't I don't know that the adjoining neighbor has an entitlement it's not in the view protection zone right pardon it's not in the view protection zone that other parts of the city have and as a policy matter for us is I mean on the one you know I feel for the for the neighbor who's going to lose some light on the other hand I agree with Mark that this is generally speaking a substantial improvement over what's there is the proposed addition more than 65 feet from the property line I doubt it no no 30 30 30 okay all right let's move on how describe how the element how residents of the proposed units will travel between their parking spaces and their front doors it appears their front doors are accessed via the south side of the building while the parking is on the north there is going to be an entrance on the north side and that you said that five of the nine apartments five of the six five of the six just the handicap one will have access from the current loading dock area the stairwells are shown on sheet or page of the hand sorry so now I'm trapping you guys here because it means that the handicap is that a dedicated handicap unit building like it's only going to be sold to somebody who's handicapped that you know it may be a rental that's always tricky to see we try to if it's a rental right so the handicapped person I'm just being a jerk here but the handicapped person has no way no sidewalk to get to mail a letter sorry I just can't it was a hanging curveball I had to hit it so the doors though to the units are where they'll maybe they'll come inside they'll pop outside for a quick second a two sorry about that they're in a parking okay I see that common laundry yeah so the access on the northern door is obviously all the way on your left that first floor if your cursor on top left there left yep so you going on the first floor and then you go up that set of stairs yeah and that puts you in a stairwell then on the second floor where the residential units are and that takes you to the common area yep and that gives you access to four of the units three of them from the indoors I believe one of them from the outdoor yes patio and the ADA unit and the other view the one two three ones on the southerly side of the second floor you get you go on the other stairs near where this the hand is where the cursor is no you would just walk down that deck you'd have to go inside and then out oh there's a deck there oh yeah yeah okay basically at grade of where the truck dock is okay a little hard to see okay thanks and then the third floor ones you have to keep just going up the stairs or within the unit yeah within the you okay so the only flat is the most southern the rest of the town okay gotcha gotcha so the standard here is about safe access for pedestrians yes you'd be able to access on the north or the south of the property yeah okay thanks for describing that water and waste water allocation prior to the issuance of a zoning permit you okay with that bottom of page 10 yeah they asked for us to upgrade our service or a new sir put in a new service also in world will work with the water water district yep yeah okay and then number 11 so regarding landscaping staff recommends or board require the applicant to the following prepare a list or planning current value previously approved landscaping that is not present on the site or proposed to be removed applicant stated the value of planning is on the 2000 plan not an existence to be 6 1 1 0 but no supporting information is provided have you got you have a response to that first bullet yeah I sent that today okay yeah so there was we went out to the site and most of what wasn't there are perennials in between actually they're on the Burlington side of the municipal line but shrubs in between the Hickok boardroom parking lot and our parking lot there should be some shrubs on one of the the curved islands at the I guess it's the northwest corner yeah and then interestingly there should be two trees where the new city pump station is so I'll leave you yeah those two on the yep I believe they were there yep and one's D there I think those may be on the neighbor's property but then on the E two of the trees we've talked about the two box elders out of there they were supposed to be five or six it looks like and then in between the two parking lots is a that's what I was talking about the one on the curved island that was discussing as B and then see there are planter boxes in front of the the uses but obviously not as many as what's shown there so this plan excuse me green is showing what's there today and the block is showing the previously approved plan is that correct we're a little confused because there were a number of plans this was not the original landscape plan right this is the 2014 plan yeah this was kind of reflecting what was there but we couldn't trace what had been specified originally so the things that aren't there we weren't sure what they were so interesting so what I did today I went back and went through ABC and D and made what I thought were educated guesses at what those plants could have been to assign the value to them but it looks to me for instance in C there's a tremendous amount of rainwater that must come off the roof into those those roof those niches in the roof up in in front you know that that roof and it looked to me like they planted they probably planted this stuff and then and then when it started raining like crazy a lot of things washed out so they replaced a lot of that with gravel and they put in planters and I think they've they stabilized everything so I was not not crazy about digging it all up and putting in a lot of new stuff to get washed out again so in that case and we can talk about specifics but I put in some very narrow columnar trees which I think will actually enhance that facade really really nicely and also grow in the conditions that are there so and what I'm going to propose is that we go through all the staff comments about landscaping like they said this is stuff that was submitted today like we always tell applicants when we send out the packet stuff that's submitted between the time the packets published and the board's review doesn't get a chance for thorough review so what I'm going to recommend is that if the board thinks it generally looks good we'll continue the hearing to the next meeting take a really thorough look at everything and then be ready to close at the next meeting sounds good to me so let's keep going yeah sounds good the same thing number seven is all about the budget so that's gonna need some further work based so I'd like to hear I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to hear their presentation on all of this stuff so that we understand what these materials are okay and then we can review them okay so the next staff comment is about the switching from perennials to a higher proportion of trees and shrubs yep is there a revised landscaping plan in here only the additional plan that I had provided with which did have a lot of the grasses on it which the comment was placement trees appear to be outside of the zones where these exist where these trees were shown and again the if I just go through at the a it seemed like that that area was kind of quiet and okay that that it it looks like a place where there's gonna be snow storage so the sense was that's probably okay over there there was actually a tree in place that was not specified which we didn't I just realized today we didn't take credit for it there's a I think it's a six inch pinnoke that wasn't on the original plan and there are three crab apples there I think come over towards Shelburne Road and just really really in that corner between the driveway and Shelburne Road up in that northwest corner there's really there are hardly any places for trees there so so as far as trees we put one in that area that's labeled B and then a plan that shows this sorry yeah it's on the it's on the landscape plan okay so let Marty flip through to get that I think the one that came in today though so the package that you're in just go to a different sheet which is the one that came in today I believe okay so actually the reason I was just describing or actually off the property line because I see the property lines got that curve in it so the we talked about the area and the corner of Proctor and Shelburne Road where they're installed a bunch of pump stations and took some trees out that doesn't look like you could plant a tree there so the idea with these tall grasses ornamental grasses just going around the perimeter of the parking lot is they can they can take snow getting piled on them and they but they get high enough that I think they'll actually do some nice screening for the parking lot so it just seemed inappropriate for woody plants in those areas because of all the snow I already kind of touched on the facade of the of the existing building just those one two three four five kind of there I think they're ginkgo trees are columnar ginkgo trees yeah the kind of fit in the niches of the roof and I just didn't seem right to try to get into that stone fill there we do have across the north facade of the existing building we're putting a sidewalk so you can walk out of the post office and the shops you can walk along that north face and then we've striped the parking area over to the front door and I think we've got a row of hydrangeas which are fairly smooth there's not a whole lot of room left once once the sidewalks there I think there's only by three feet left so we are filling that up but I think it's it's a matter of a lot of people walking really not a whole lot of room left to plan so the perennials in the grasses fit the bill with snow heaped on them in the winter and popped back in the summertime right so and we Marla are you okay with that because we have when we were allowing the you know ornamental grasses and also the standard is that they can be allowed when the standards of the other landscaping standards are met so if you guys feel like they've done the best they can with trees and shrubs then we can allow this the City Arborist did send me an email yesterday today saying oh crap I didn't notice but there's perennials proposed in the right of way and the city won't maintain those so while you're welcome to plant them you shouldn't get credit for them so that's just the ones on the bottom of the page the street trees on Proctor Avenue what would those be the city will maintain street trees I know that it just says he asked for what the species would be I think there was a comment on though that they weren't labeled but I look they are labeled on okay one of the plans there are eight of them what's the standard for how many need to be along that frontage Marla it's every 40 feet I think we're much tighter yeah and there's their small trees because they're they're right under a major overhead wires there yeah okay all right so moving along the board's okay with the perennials and doesn't feel that no more what do you vegetation is needed then yeah that okay board members what we're seeing here yeah and make sense to me given the site yeah I'm good with that the constraints are there definitely snow storage is not shown did the new plans to show that or and make sure the snow storage is not coincident with stormwater treatment conveyance practices yeah we can add that to the site plan basically the 2014 plan had a few locations picked out one near the curb cut on Sheldon Road and access drive to Hickok Boardman the other one in the back by the dumpster pad so we can add those to the plan sorry Brian I was writing can you tell me again yep they're on the 2014 amendment they're perfect I didn't go with that yeah yeah I think the sheets made it in here a couple times now so all right and then the next comment number 10 about providing a rosin prevention sediment control plan subject to review by the stormwater section to do that yes we can provide that yeah yeah we were showing one inlet drop they asked for I believe two more they asked for a construction entrance but there's really nowhere to put one it's all paved you know usually that's for building new infrastructure yeah and then as far as salt fence goes we are showing some construction fence along the neighbor's property on the site plan but you know it's mostly an infill redevelopment project so very little in regards to EPS okay top of page 14 do you can you show where light fixtures are proposed and a lighting cut sheet we did send a cut sheet in today okay and where where the light fixtures be they're shown on the building elevations they're all underneath overhang can piece on both the north side and the south side of the yep I believe so and then there's one on the interior of the building yep ceiling mounted light fixtures at indoor outdoor space so that's the kind of vestibule area that's the canopy over the ADA unit I believe so they're just they're downcast LED yeah meant to direct down just just so that ramp it just access is one single unit I know there's a common area okay also that yeah so you go there and that common area and then that brings you into the rest of or the units our access through there all technically all all the unit success through there off all sex you can get through there okay all right so Marley so that's continues are you guys what you need on the lighting okay let's see just double check if there's any public comms any members of the public online okay any folks here members of the public in the building that want to testify on this okay and you say we need to continue this to have a little more discussions just to review what they've submitted and make sure that we're meeting the landscaping math and all right okay and then I want to circle back and this is just like any well board members you got anything else you want bring up as I have a be in my bonnet and I want to I got I got one problem I like to just and I'm a little uncertain but I like to alert the applicant to it as well as the board we we have a project with a severe non existing nonconformity and the applicant makes the point they're not expanding the footprint of the nonconformity but they are increasing the vertical the volume of the nonconformity and I believe this needs to be checked but I believe this case law that says yeah well that's increasing the degree of nonconformance and that is something that needs to be looked at I strongly recommend to the applicant that it get a little legal advice on that very point Frank I don't think that they are increasing I agree with you they can't increase the volume of the nonconformity that would be increasing the degree of nonconformity whether it's height or width or whatever they are meeting the setback what they're not meeting is the buffer 65 which the board has the authority to modify it's not even a waiver okay well we can look at that further but that's the residual concern I have about what they're doing so yeah I'm gonna address that issue related to that I think related to an observation from Frank is it would be great to know what the height of the existing and proposed you know the existing roof line what's that height relative to the abutting structure and relative to their whatever window they have on the west side of the building and their roof line I just because I think we're you know I it I don't think it's a huge issue but it'd be great to just have the record and we don't quite have that here you know so it's sure I think they only have one second floor I assume it's probably a bedroom window yeah I'm not sure but it would just help it's sure it's hard to tell visually for the Google but I want to play around with Google Earth and it's like what is that because if and then we'll get a better sense of what's the change between the existing as they look now from that window what do they see and versus what the new thing is gonna look like to to them and mind though that the building is permitted to be one story taller than its neighbor okay that's good to know but I know I know Frank you know we're just so doesn't have to be a super scientific thing but just even if it's just lines on a drawing to get a sense of things but I really want to get back to the be-in-my-monet about the south side of the building and I know you've got to plant the street trees but and I get it that people some of the people will be accessing out of the north side of the building to get to their cars that assumes we're completely car driven culture and we're trying to discourage that but I really just don't like and I don't know what whether we have a standard Marlon help me out here but I really don't want to see just an asphalt swale staying there I don't know if you can put in some long decking or something something that improves the the ability of somebody to walk out of that building and go down the south side of that building walking east to west to go mail a letter sure and maybe it just stays asphalt but it can't be like this little it's not great for me as an owner having people walk across that kind of sloped asphalt yeah exactly I've walked on it many times you know I'm not sure if it was just put in there by I imagine one of the owners of the building previously put that in there or maybe they had to get the drainage they probably yeah I guess his rooftop runoff probably chewed up any vegetation that was there so yeah so I don't know if it's like some some like a like a long long decking and it goes in steadily and then steps up goes up but something and I don't know if you can if you can squeeze in a sidewalk that'd be greater or I mean it's your sidewalk but it just it needs to be so it's it's tight there yeah and there's gas meters on that yeah yeah we can look at it and we did look at it and the and the requirement on the street trees is you don't necessarily need that they need that many because it potentially you could walk up and then it and then it widens out a little bit where the gas meters are so people aren't walking around and you got a little fence you know I got a little cage around the gas meters or something like that you know so I'm improving my in the property line yeah and they can certainly improve you know in the public right-of-way but they'd have to have a conversation with public works about it I can't just bless it without yeah no I know why that's why well since we have another meeting that's I'm trying to encourage some sort of dialogue there about something to make it better we require a five-foot green strip between how why does it from how why does that landscape strip it looks like it's got to be 10 feet right I mean you could put it in the right-of-way and put the street trees closer to the right of closer to the street well the problem is David said was there's big and they're not you know they're not they're not equal distant as you go up the street they're kind of jogging and out fun yeah I'll put it the put it this way if if you were designing a building and you were just doing internal circulation as people walking around a building you wouldn't want a sloped piece of asphalt so what would be better so I mean no one's gonna do this but you could make a connection so they go across the street you know you put a sidewalk at the end of our right there yeah I mean that's a that's a good little yeah all right you got one power pole right yeah yeah yeah yeah there's I'm just talking about like yeah right now it's just basically just a water conveyance system and somebody's gonna stumble on it so yeah I mean I guess maybe you could if you start a sidewalk right where the grass starts get rid of the asphalt I don't know if it would be a five-foot one that you could you know run a plow down and you know if it would be what is sacred about the continued existence of the asphalt why can't you replace the asphalt with cement it's just right up to the building I mean maybe we can fit it with it we could we could put some bollards around that we may be able to pull it a foot off the building perhaps I'm thinking of a building I have that has something like a little bit of grass maybe yeah I mean just put some stone up against the building and pick a foot of grass and put foot yeah you know foot of stone next to the building and then some sidewalk and yeah I mean just something that's better than it is now I mean that's that's right and it makes it improve the amount of the whole property in the appearance otherwise just to not to jump around too much but it's possible that those gas meters maybe could be relocated as part of this project so that they're not you know they're right in the area where the utility pole is now yeah so it's possible we could bring those back around the corner where the entrance is to the to the new units yeah sort of in the middle of that wall right yes yeah yeah so there's one master entrance for all the units right well from the parking lot on the north side there's a stairway that will and where that loading dock is sort of where the common area would be right and that's where your deck elevation is basically right there's two master entrances there's one sort of in the middle of the long face yeah there's one at the corner of the L correct and it's really not something that the larger public's going to use it's just more about the internal circulation of the residents in a way right stuff because most everybody would just use the regular sidewalk you know right but there is a standard about internal circulation for the residents aren't there yes yes exactly that's what I'm trying to get at is it not resolved by the other entrance that exists I'm just saying I mean that stuff could be day or somebody could you know you're encouraging a problem with the electricity right there and saying hey come walk by this I don't know maybe it's you know people walk on it I mean put it this way you're changing you're changing it to a residential use right now the loading dock is not used nobody's usually using that back door and I get it I'm just saying it's a it doesn't necessarily have to look like the Taj Mahal but it's something that definitely right now if it were to go as the plans show you're not providing adequate circulation for the users of the property that's my that's my feeling so couple of thoughts one is you know the board members don't have to agree we don't have to be unanimous and the second is we could continue and see what they can come up with that that's what I'm we've raised some concerns and Frank's raised some issues and other things they come up with a solution that everybody likes that's great if they come up with a solution that continues to divide the board then it's just gonna come down to who votes what yeah yeah I mean I guess I would say that you know we do have a lot of limitations in what we're trying to do here and right no I'm just asking you guys to spend an hour there sure do some measuring and see what I mean I can honestly say that I we probably haven't looked at it you know and it's not it's not a public sidewalk really it's more about internal circulation so it's how does the ADA work into that when you put a property that's open to the public it kind of has to be yeah I think you guys should yeah just like we're 15 minutes past beta theoretical start I think these guys should lead generally feeling encouraged that I think we agree that the project in concept and in most of its elements yeah is a big improvement over what's there but there's some nagging details that needs some work that's the I think our overall message yeah not unusual for right okay thank you so can I recommend if I continue you if they if the board continues you to January 4th we would need your revised materials two weeks before that meeting so the 21st which means you're gonna have to get together with DPW and spend some time on the plan does that work for you does that DPW that have to be done before the next I mean it's solvable but you're gonna be doing any work in the right of way yes okay I doubt we'll be able to yeah it's a little bit out of our control maybe go for the meeting after that if you're okay with that yeah so then I would need everything by the by December by January 4th yeah it really doesn't get us any time because everybody's off those but it's worth it it's we'll aim for that better yeah okay thanks okay appreciate it thank you thank you so somebody wants to make a motion to continue yes exactly thank you who wants to make it I'll make a motion to continue SP dash 22-039 to the date certain of January 18th second second that is a Wednesday correct yep okay all right motion to made and seconded all those in favor say hi hi Stephanie you still alive there you go I just want to be sure you didn't I know you're not you're not feeling well so all right thanks very much thanks all right next item SP 22-024 420 Da Vinci derived site plan application SP dash 22 dash 05 6 of beta technologies to amend a previously proved plan for a 3 3 4 4 comma 0 0 0 square foot manufacturing office building the MM exists of adding 261 parking spaces 154 Da Vinci drive who's here for the applicant is this something new that we need to be sworn in for or the recommendation is to continue it without discussion but if you'd like to discuss it then yes okay well do you want to say anything so we'll swear you in there all right we'll swear you in what the hell mark anybody else on the line who's here for you with you or for your project I don't believe so no okay art Clugo beta technologies thank you are do you swear the testimony you're about to give on this matter is the truth to help you under the pains and penalties of perjury I do so we did receive the notice that this was to be continued did not understand that there were not be discussion tonight certainly don't want to step on on the board if you feel like discussion is not warranted happy move on if there is an opportunity then just would offer a couple of thoughts that may be yeah go ahead you would for a while so go ahead so just really quick before we get started this is Stephanie I'm reduced from this okay thanks thank you yeah I'm going in in consideration of the time the board is giving I'm gonna set aside the frustration point about the timing of the continuation and just ask for the board to and staff really to reevaluate whether a continuance here is appropriate we understand that there are procedural issues at hands we receive this notice fairly late in the process especially given the previous guidance that we had received from various bodies about submitting an application only for the parking and not having to go back and modify the master plan which is really the request of the continuation and the date we do respect the process we don't want to again step on anybody's toes but what is happening now is we are looking at at the at the outside a 150 day delay through this continuation and and what is being asked of us we haven't made any changes to the project it is as previously permitted the only change that's being administered to the project here is a regulatory change that the body had previously passed and we were given guidance that we just again needed to submit the application for the parking which is what we did that application was deemed complete back I believe it was November 14th so it feels like it's in good shape it doesn't appear because we have a continuation that there's any feedback that we could be working on right now from staff so we have no comments and it appears that we won't have any comments at this point until February 22nd which is the proposed continuation date we've specifically asked that both the staff in the DRB work to try to find some way to mitigate what's being asked of us you know possibly even pulling forward the continuation to the 4th of January or the 18th of January it seems like there's some time there again it's unclear why the 22nd of February was chosen we certainly if we're required to to move forward with a master plan then we could have that material pulled together in time to make one of those two meetings and then run both those applications in parallel as we did with the master plan and the site plan previously and the site plan was a much bigger project so for those that may be new to the board I don't remember there was between the video conferences not quite familiar with all the faces but the parking application that's being continued is simply to put the parking in the parking surface in the bulk of the work has already been approved we just can't pave and we can't put some of the sub base down so all the trees all the storm water all the infrastructure all of that has been approved under the previous application and zoning permit that was issued this application is simply to put the finishing touches on that parking piece and with that I'll say thank you and turn it back to the board Marla do you want to recap what your memo talked about or why you maybe address the issue of the timing of the continuance or sure so the master plan decision there's an excerpt in the memo from staff that says that the parking cannot be built until one of two conditions is met one neither of those conditions say that the LDR change as one of the options so the master plan holds and so the applicant has to amend the master plan we worked very closely with our legal team and with the applicants legal team in developing the recommendation represented in the memo the recommendation is to continue to February 22nd which allows the applicant ample time to prepare their master plan amendment to update the master plan to the current standards which both would allow them to put the parking between the building which is part of the airport security fence and the street but would also require them to meet the other requirements of a master plan such as a context analysis a build a build-out analysis there's a bunch of new things in the new master plan so if they get their application materials in we were hopeful that they could be heard for the master plan amendment the second meeting in January give the board one meeting to issue their decision on that master plan amendment and then be hearing this parking amendment the second meeting in February to arts comment about whether we can work collaboratively to have a clean hearing when we review this parking Marty is actually already prepared the staff report and so we would be happy to share that with you in a draft format and you can be working on those comments pretty much tomorrow I think they're very minimal if I recall correctly okay and just for clarity because your recommendation is staff recommends the board continue to site plan application until Wednesday February 22nd which will allow sufficient time for the court to remand the master plan application to the DRB is somebody in touch with the court like how do we know is it gonna happen the court has remanded the that has come down already I believe it was issued yesterday we haven't received that yet so that'd be great if you could send that along yeah I'm happy to do you want to read the statement or is it a little it's well what we have here is that the it was an e-notice issued that says that the the matter was remanded the status conference canceled so I would imagine that the the staff would would receive something very similar if not you notice is dated what yesterday this notice is dated Friday actually Friday December 2nd 11 a.m. okay right do you want that for the record or I'm rather digitally yeah okay if you can send them a if you can forward that digitally to our art that would be absolutely okay so it's been remanded great and so we would need their master plan package so the idea just to be clear is with the master plan we try to do it at January meeting and then this right this plan the site plan would be February or yeah the February 22nd okay thank you board members you have any questions so if I may before yeah yeah sure Marla touched on really the crux of the situation right we have not changed the design and yet we're being burdened with the process to go back and add information that doesn't change anything that we've done the board has approved it the project's been approved we're out there building it looks great I would encourage anybody that hasn't been out stop by it's unclear what the benefit is in providing the balance of the information the context report all of that that work which is fundamentally there it's not in the format as currently requested and there probably are some gaps in all honesty but fundamentally it doesn't change what we've done and so to delay the project again seems to be a heavy burden for an issue that has been 95% approved by by continuing the hearing as it's been done we are delaying the project by at least 150 days but you can't get site plan approval until you amend your master plan no and completely understand and that is the basis of the request to find a way to utilize the work the hard work the good work the intense work that's been done by a lot of people including yourselves to get us to where we are and to not have to go back and start at square one and submit a new master plan which is what's being asked I mean I don't know I'm just yeah really good question given the timing of this we have not been able to to come to this hearing with any sort of suggestions I suppose the follow-up to that would be to work with staff outside of the hearing to find possible ways to mitigate Marla is that is what art saying about 150 days correct so just for quick math here's how we get okay great it's roughly 75 days from today to February 22nd the DRB has 45 days to issue a decision and then there's a 30-day appeal period the assumption that we would take the 45 days is really a stretch it before all the reasons that you are arguing that we should just ignore the master plan requirement I mean I would I definitely appreciate that Frank honestly we were a little surprised to get a continuation we thought that was a bit of a stretch we would have thought that the guidance and the requirement since it had changed from the last guidance we had would have been much sooner and we would have been able to mitigate the additional time I so I appreciate what you're saying but it's kind of a two-way street aren't you simply asking us to assert the power to waive a provision of the regulations fundamentally yes but what the guidance we've been given is that doesn't seem to exist I don't know to what degree that's been pulled apart or pushed or tweaked or looked at but it is that's yes at the basis that is the request where was our authority to do that that would be my great question we don't have it we can't do it Marla in and it it appeared it sounds like you wrote this memo and they in the in the interim the court already did the remand so does that potentially move up the February 22nd date the remands in hand and he just needs to prepare the master plan application so there's their way to potentially combine both the site plan and the master plan and do like a late January meeting or we could if they got their master plan application into us by in a week we could put it on the second January meeting I think yeah I think the submission date is December 18th yeah sorry and then the board should issue their decision on the master plan before hearing the site plan because otherwise the site plan isn't ripe for review got you so we could potentially continue it to the first February meeting and then see how it goes but I don't think that it's realistic to hope for anything better than that and yes I'm surprised to hear that the remand happened that quickly so that could potentially push it up two weeks okay every little bit helps I am surprised that we can't run these in parallel we ran the first application in parallel the site plan and the master plan but the master plan decision as it stands prohibits what you're proposing but we're submitting a new master plan as I understand it as long as long as we voted on the master plan or close the hearing on the master plan we just have to approve the master plan before we approve the site plan right that is the guidance I have been given by our legal team okay so I so if they were stacked both at the same meeting on February whatever fourth fifth or whatever that is again going going back to this this delay issue there were two issues the 45 days is not is not going to reflect any reality and forgive me but I don't remember you facing any opposition to this other than us I don't remember you facing any opposition whatsoever your parking plan your original parking plan did you just the right now it was what the reg said it's not well it's in fairness though in in fairness though the there was a provision that could have been applied to avoid the year and a half that we went through to get to this point well that's water under the bridge fair enough my point now is you know once you get your ducks in a row get your applications in and give us a chance to rule on it the likelihood that you know the last 75 days is a mirage and they don't and they don't they're not very practical yet you can take you can take the dramatic risk of going out and stick sticking a shovel in the ground even though the appeal period hasn't run in a circumstance such as this I completely understand the 45 days point taken the other 30 days of statutory and you can't wave that so it's not just you know it doesn't it doesn't get way but you know you can there's such a thing as business risk which you fully understand I don't have to explain yeah fair enough but by opening the master plan the way that it's been reopened and requiring complete resubmission it does allow status to come back into play here and while I completely appreciate the perspective that you offer Frank that though 45 days might be a mirage but this is an open hearing it will be an open hearing all right let's are you arguing that the master plan should not have been reopened in the first place and so just I mean I'm suggesting that that I'd like to work we would like to work with staff to figure out whether this is the only solution available and in parallel to that have the hearings moved up so that we can run them as the chair suggested concurrently review approve this the master plan before reviewing the site plan and proving that I don't think we should be moving the hearing up any further than staff things make sense if you want to petition staff for something that probably doesn't sound like it exists which is you know then that that's your right and staff will give it the time it thinks it's worth but I don't think that moving the hearing up now makes any sense at all it would have to be something that staff endorses for some good reason so is is the meeting in February is it February 7th is it back to the Tuesday then stand by yeah that is the first Tuesday of the month is the 7th of February but we've been hopping around between Wednesdays these days I just wanted if we the master plans reopened so everything in there is now subject to all of this stuff that we've gone through for so typically this will be something you'll guys have to be educated on and I don't know it very well but what I understand is that the things that are changed will be the things that are reviewed and in this case the things that are changed are the regulations so if the regulations now say all buildings must be blue then you're gonna have to include a condition that says all buildings must be blue the first February meeting is February 7th of Tuesday so in light of the remand that's in hand do you think February 7th is doable yeah and you know what if it's not and we'll recommend a continuation of February 22nd and we'll hold that spot we'll know we'll know before February 7th whether we need to hold a spot on February 22nd and is it completely unfeasible to do the 18th of January yes okay because we don't even have the master plan application right and he would have to yeah you'd have to get it to you okay so in order if so do we need a motion on February 7th yes okay motion's been made to continue this to February 7th is there a second thanks or did you have a comment on that I did but I'm not gonna press it it's okay okay mark very second thank you very much yeah mark bear you have something else yeah oh I don't have any comments I mean I think that I don't think anything's gonna be a surprise on this I think whatever we can do to work it through but so it sounds like you know we're moving it up as best we can and you know work continue to work with the applicant so I think that the earlier February 8th is better and let's see what we can do okay so motion has been made in second to continue we're continuing the site plan application yes yes SB 22 oh right is it 05 6 or 2 4 because it says probably 05 6 20 to 05 6 of beta technologies to February 7th on our traditional Tuesday night meeting time okay motions made in second all those in favor say hi hi any opposed John's gonna abstain all right Stephanie is that a yes or no she's recused oh she's recused all right thanks all right we're motions right great we're continued to then okay thank you very much thank you all right the next agenda item you said that one was already they have requested continuation to December 20th the only comments in the staff report or related to stormwater and they wanted an opportunity to work those out with the stormwater section so I would need the board to move to continue to the next meeting on December 20th great so we need a motion on that right yes okay I just want to make a motion to continue that item to December 20th so thank you John is there a second second thank you mark all right motion has been made and second to move that particular item to the 20th of December which is a Wednesday all those in favor say hi it's a Wednesday it's a Tuesday oh it's a Tuesday okay we're sorry we're gonna it's January sorry it's a one Tuesday I'm losing track of everything all right motions been made and seconded you know so visit any Naivots any abstentions on that okay was that a yes I'm accused you're accused on that one too geez there are some of you to hang in there so much so all right good okay let's get these minutes for November 15th already have them look them over any comments corrections get a motion to approve the minutes is it just the November 15th copious minutes I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of November 15th is drafted thank you Quinn all those in favor of approving the minutes say hi any Naivots any abstentions I'm staying I wasn't here okay thank you all right that's let's see did we done the minutes any other business okay all right can I ask board members to hang on for a second after we close the public portion of the meeting yeah we'll turn off the video or whatever are just day I'm gonna