 Are they coming to her or to... I'm not involved in anything. It's just enormous. That's amazing. Yes. All set? So welcome to the DRB meeting of Tuesday, September 17th, 2019. I'm Brian Sullivan. I'm the acting chair in Matt Coda's absence. This is the first time for me chairing this meeting, so forgive me if I'm a little bit pedantic and read from the script. Along those lines, thank you to those in attendance and those watching online. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the sign-in sheet, aptly named, and provide their contact information. In order to be considered a participant, you can fill out the sign-in sheet or speak during the public comment portion of the hearing or submit comments in writing. You should do one of these things if you want to obtain party status should you decide in the future to appeal a decision by the DRB. And with that said, I will move to the agenda. The first item on the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from this room. I think most of you have been here before, but again, we tried to leave through the doors marked exit. We tried to, in case of an emergency, assemble in the southern parking lot that would be the one facing 189. And I think that's pretty much what we got for emergency procedures. Second item is additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items. We do have some changes. It appears that the items that are marked 8, 9, and 10 are going to be continued. So I would, do we have to move this? I would note that we're going to, for purposes of stating that they're continued on the record, we are going to move them between what is now numbered 6 and what is now numbered 7. And we'll blitz through all of those continuances quickly. Item number 3, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Do we have any? Hearing none, I move to number 4. Announcements, do we have any of those? Board, staff, anyone? No announcements. Okay, so item number 5, continued final plaid application number SD1921 of Various Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four four-unit multifamily dwellings, and three commercial buildings. The amendment consists of an after-the-fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for lot 7, containing seven single family dwelling units on Fall Street from 20 feet to 13 feet, this at 1075 Hinesburg Road. The applicant has failed to comply with public notice requirements, therefore the staff has recommended continuing the item to our October 1st meeting. Do we need to move that? Okay, do I have a motion? So moved. So we have a motion and a second to continue SD1921 to October 1st. Any discussion? No discussion. Any abstentions? No abstentions. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any saying nay? No. The motion has carried. The next item is going to be read by Marla Keene. Application SD1927 of Dorset Meadow Associates, LLC for a plan unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The plan unit development is to consist of 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.8 acres on site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off site through the purchase of 68 transfer development rights, 1505 Dorset Street. I understand Brian is recused from this item. This item is staff requesting this item be continued without being heard to October 15th, 2019. I'm recused from this item as well, leaving only three people here to vote. I think that means by default we have to continue it. Since the applicant isn't here and none of the opponents appear to be here, I think if it's within the board's authority, I think it should be continued. The staff's recommending being continued to October 15th. If anyone would like to make a motion. So moved. Second. Well, can we vote, or has it just happened? You know, that's an interesting comment. Oh, we can't. Well, being a recused member, I would just put in my two cents. I'm not going to be here on October 15th and I'd love to see this. So I'd rather have went to a later date. But you don't have anything to say about it. But I have nothing to say. Yeah, I can't say a thing. Without, I mean, we're getting hyper technical here, I guess. Does it automatically continue if we don't have a quorum? Honestly, not sure, Frank. I can check the public noticing requirements really quickly. It'll be a few minutes. Do we lose the quorum? We need a parliamentarian at the moment. Do we lose the quorum if we started with one, but two people recuse? Anybody know what's up their head? I'm in chapter 24, or article 24. Anybody know what's chapter? The one about public, something, something. All right. I suggest something to save time. I'm going to second whatever the motion was to continue it. The people can vote on it validly or invalidly between now and soon staff will decide whether it automatically continues and do the right thing. How about that for a plan? I can't say anything. Totally recused. So I have a question. So you're recusing yourself. He's been recused. Do you have to recuse yourself from voting to continue it? I'm recused on this matter. Okay. So I can't imagine that I can. Brian, you are too. Yes. Our firm represents one of the parties to the case. We're out. Is anybody available? Yeah, well, I don't know the answer. Well, the worst thing that happens if we vote is that we're wrong. Yeah. No, I think we do both. So I'm in chapter 117 of article 24. Sub chapter 10, appropriate municipal panels. Paragraph 4464 or subsection 4464 hearing and notice requirements, decisions and conditions, administrative review of advisory commission. So let me see if there's anything about continuation in this subsection. That word does not even make it into that section. No, I don't think I can find it on short order guys. Let's go with Frank's plan. Did you move it already? Yes. You will. So it's second. All in favor. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. of 6.9 acres, 43.8 acres, 6.7 acres and 6.6 acres and eliminate the previously approved city street community way for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center at 635 community drive. That's the first. The second is continued site plan application number SP 1928 of Suncap property group to construct 144,000 square foot 34 foot high warehouse building paved equipment storage in parking areas and associated site improvements on a proposed 43.8 acre lot and widen and signalize the east intersection of community drive in Kimble Avenue at 635 community drive and the third conditional app conditional use application number CU 1906 of Suncap property group to allow a fence approximately 16 feet in height for the purpose of supporting a gate for a warehouse and distribution center 635 community drive. These are all well so the first two are continued and the conditional use looks like it's new is that correct Marla okay so I should ask is does anyone on the board need to recuse themselves from the conditional use application no okay so do we need separate motions for each three items okay so would someone like to move the continuance of those three items to what date October 1st which is our next preliminary and final plan application SD 1922 continued site plan application SP 1928 additional use application CU 1906 all of Suncap property group to October 1st moved and seconded any discussion hearing none any reconno there were no recusals any abstentions no abstentions all in favor say aye any opposed say no motion carries thank you for your patience we're now ready for sketch plan application number SD 1925 of negligent chase construction to create a three lot plan unit development for the purpose of a two building commercial industrial campus including the construction of a 21,570 square foot light manufacturing facility 39 is it Bowdoin or boy don't Bowdoin Bowdoin Street very good before we have the applicant speak is there anyone on the board that needs to disclose a potential or actual conflict of interest I I serve on a board with Roland and I've met seen before so I bring that up I don't think I need to recuse myself unless you wish to okay and we have an email from Mark Bear saying that while he doesn't believe that he is conflicted out he wanted to disclose that he was the architect for the homeland I believe that's homeland security facility directly to the north of the property it was 10 years ago and he has no financial interest or contact with his former client any objections to mark no no no great so because it's a sketch plan I do not need to swear the witnesses I just asked each of you who are going to speak to identify yourselves please very good good evening I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates I'm Roland Grunavelle from logic supply Roland I'm seeing Larkin from logic supply steam so we have staff comments on your application and the way we usually do this is to just proceed through the comments so for sketch if they want to kind of describe in general terms the project first and then go through the comments okay so if you could give us a quick overview of the project that would be great and then we'll move on to staff comments very good Marla I think we can start with that sheet and this is an overview of the Meadowland business park to orient you north is straight up on this particular plan and this is route 116 Hinesburg Road this is the intersection of Meadowland Drive and if you were coming down Meadowland Drive and taking it left you'd go out to Lane Press and Dynapower but if you continue on you go into the heart of the Meadowland business park where there are a number of existing businesses located within this particular park including our office right there but putting that aside this particular application seeks an approval as a planned unit development which encompasses three lots this is the original logic supply building that's had two phases of construction and in this particular case the application before you covers a proposed building on the eastern edge or leg of the planned unit development and ultimately there will be a future application for some supporting parking on this particular parcel the representatives from logic supply and working with staff on all both the existing application before you as well as one in the future we won't tease you that much more on that one without additional information but nonetheless with regard to this application before the board Marla if we can move to the next page or Delilah this represents the existing conditions this represents the intersection of Bowdoin Street and Meadowland Drive Meadowland Drive actually ends right at this point dead-end roadway and then there's Thompson Street just left off of this particular sheet is the existing logic supply light manufacturing facility this is a very large stormwater pond that it that encumbers a number of lots the blue represents the limits of lot seven and in this particular case there was a previous approval for some placement of fill in this particular area and the highlighted portion of the property represents the wetlands that currently encumber the property when the Meadowland Business Park was originally approved the wet limits were back here they've grown over time to actually reduce the amount of upland area within this particular lot so next page so in this particular case what is proposed is a approximately 21,000 square foot facility with circulation that basically will allow for movements both for interior interior parking and loading and unloading but also for fire access 360 degrees around the proposed building you can see again the wetland and in this particular case highlighted in the darker green is the 50 foot buffer that accompanies this particular class to wetland the remaining areas represent concepts as far as combination grass as well as landscaped areas a final design for the landscaping obviously needs to be done these are just conceptual infill for the moment and that being the background I think there is another sheet that provides a little bit closer view of the project with regard to the components that are associated with the proposal in this particular case you can see there's basically a loading and loading unloading area for large trucks there's basically a secondary access for circulation of parking that then comes back out on the Meadowland Drive now may be a time to start into the staff comments unless there are some questions from the board before we go there just graphically the the gray section that was at the top of that that says top of stone over chambers that grayed out area up at the top not yeah I'm sorry this area right here oh I'm sorry yes I was going to leave that for staff comments but nonetheless this represents a subsurface stormwater management facility that is intended to provide both treatment and peak flow mitigation coming from the proposed impervious surfaces can't use the I guess you're pretty far from the wetland I mean it would seem to me you have well Frank you bring up a good question this particular middle and business park was designed when the stormwater rules were much different than they are today and the state of Vermont when this particular park was repermitted required that any few new future development fully comply with the current stormwater rules and in this particular case the only way for us to do that is to not rely upon the existing stormwater infrastructure but basically to take care of stormwater on each lot based on the proposed development of each lot I accept that but just out of curiosity would it in fact be feasible and just for my information would it be feasible and more efficient to use that great big wetland or most people you would think that would be the case but unfortunately based on the characteristics of that particular stormwater pond it does not meet today's stormwater rules does not have the capacity to be modified to meet the rules and as such were required to basically manage stormwater on property well there's a difference between the wetland and the existing storm pond I'm sorry there's a difference between the wetland which is shown in brown and then on the more zoomed out plan there's a storm pond right it's shown in blue so I think what you're responding to is using the existing blue storm pond and what Frank is asking is about using the wetland itself that would be even more wonderful but that's really a taboo with regard to stormwater management unfortunately no even though mother nature does stormwater management with wetlands we're not allowed to send stormwater to the wetlands as part of a treatment practice so that's just off limits one other question to the north you can see the stormwater pond for the property above it and it's obviously in the 50 foot setback are we are you not allowed to use the 50 foot setback so what has happened over time is that when this particular property was originally permitted and this is the project Mr. Bear worked on the wetlands were back over here over that particular timeframe the wetlands have grown to the point where what used to be everybody thought was usable land including at the time this was permittable use of land the buffer wasn't there the buffer it was was further back but under today's conditions just because of the nature of these particular wetlands they have basically recovered and expanded in the easterly direction here and now have reduced the usable size of this particular lot I'm sorry to beat it to death but it's a short agenda so if you would continue my education just a little bit with that I keep looking at that enormous wetland and what is the rationale behind the prohibition do you understand it I think it's generally been these there were scientific rationale that basically any Barley you might be able to jump in any time but my understanding is basically any use that can be accomplished outside of a wetland needs to be handled in that particular way and wetland treatment while as Dave said it provides some stormwater management in terms of both attenuation and filtration it's less effective than other methods of stormwater treatment such as full infiltration into dry soils the same reason you can't build a septic in the water table you can't infiltrate your infiltrating your septic into the water table cleans it less before it enters the water table infiltrating your stormwater into the wetland cleans it less than if you infiltrate it into dry soil thank you that's all here you go thank you mother anything else okay I think we're ready to move to staff comments so Dave if you want to start with comment number one on page three in red so in this comment the applicant is requesting consideration as a PUD the comment isn't meant to be damning in any way just a reminder that the applicant is not obligated to grant relief from dimensional standards so in order to be eligible for relief from the dimensional standards that the applicant is requesting they should comply with the purpose of PUDs to encourage innovation and design and layout efficient use of land and the viability of infill development and redevelopment the staff comment was to discuss how that is done and the blue text there sort of provides an excerpt from Dave's cover letter on how they did that so I don't know if you want to talk about a little bit yes if we can go to the benefit of the last plan sheet it'll help us describe a little bit of what this particular layout requests of the board and a little bit about the reasons for that so currently there is a 50 foot setback that basically encumbers this particular part of the property you can see that with a dashed line and in this particular case the applicants requesting a waiver that would allow the building to be closer to the street at one point in time metal and drive was intended to be a commercial connector roadway to go all the way to Williston and in this particular case the Corps of Engineers said I don't think that's going to happen primarily because right there are a lot of wetlands in between here and Williston so the city has acknowledged that the original intent of metal and drive is is no longer going to be as pronounced as the original intention and and as such has allowed for curb cuts onto the roadway where originally when you have connector roadways the intent is always to come off of the side roads and gain access when you actually go back to the logic supply site plan that was approved by the board that particular one again with the intent of basically improving circulation around the building allowed for a curb cut out on the metal and drive again because of the change character of metal and drive over time in this particular case to answer the question with regard to the waiver request one of the things that we're trying to achieve with this particular planned unit development is to provide the growing needs of logic supply they've been very successful with regard to their micro processing manufacturing business and they would like to grow in place and in this particular case the lot that is that hopes the existing facility is built out and what they're looking to do is is lease this particular facility and to basically meet the program programming needs of the of the near future is the this particular footprint is what the architects have come up with as far as what's necessary to meet that program needs now we would have wonderfully like to have spread this out but one of the challenges of this lot over time as we had mentioned is that the wetlands have encroached which is basically pushed this together we really feel that this is going to be a a nice infill component in regards to the other businesses that are immediately around this particular site but in order to basically meet the program requirements we are requesting a waiver that basically would bring this particular building closer to the street based on the character of the area and then the reduced need of metal and drive being a connector street we felt that this was a balanced request of the board and but we are obviously at the whim of the board with regard to their particular desires with regard to the overall requests or needs of mother's supply and the intent of the industrial open space district by when I assume you mean consider judgment I'm sorry Frank I'll take that how close how much what's what's the the prescribed setback 50 50 feet and what are you asking for 35 how do you line up I can't see the stuff to the size how do you line up with anything else can we get a bigger view what else is around there so there is the CBA this is an office building with a process a lot of insurance claims this is Naglian Chase this is a contractor yard here this is the homeland security facility and this is super temp wiring cable this is an undeveloped lot 3 located across the street what's the setback on the one immediately to the east that would be 50 feet also that but yet there's nothing else there I mean it's not like there's a line of 50 foot setbacks there's one building on the corner so to speak one building next to what I mean is there anything beyond that further to the east this way yeah no in fact this is where metal and drive terminates today and you can see this hatched area these represent some of the wetlands that actually become even more robust as you move in the east to leave so going from the extreme east or for the extreme right and I don't know if that's even the extreme right nothing here it's somebody else's building your building big wetland and then another building on the other side of the wetland that's it I think that's a fair representation just to bring everybody's last of the land uses in the area this is the quarry for sd Ireland so one o'clock every day we get a little bit of reminder that there are neighbor it's very subtle it's not a problem but nonetheless that is the activity that's immediately to the east of the the metal and business park itself and it looks like the building to the left to the left of the wet land is already something short of 50 feet that's right on the 50 foot number yep so this is the logic supply manufacturing facility and that particular corner right there is right on the 50 foot number looks less though doesn't it so the new proposed building for logic supply is not connected to the existing building that is great is that desirable or is it just a function of the reality of the land maybe I'll let Roland and scene talk a little bit about the logistics of the operations and what the intentions are thank you yes so it would be desirable to connect a new building to our current building unfortunately there are more wetlands in this picture the lots the triangle so to say on the left there is a lot we own and when we bought it there were no wetlands we were hoping to build an extension to our building on that land but as we were in the process of coming up with the plans and working with Dave and others it turned out that there were in fact wetlands much more than we than we anticipated which wouldn't give us enough space to build on it really wouldn't be anything sizable so this is our sort of second best alternative thanks what you really say in here is this is a request driven by one might say the unique next to the uniqueness of the overall site which is that you're crowded in every direction you're squeezed in this is what you're left with to make a reasonable commercial accommodation to what you need to do correct and you know it's it is a business park and the hope would be that you can actually build in the business park as intended but it wasn't quite in the cards unfortunately yeah just to bring a little bit real reinforcement to that when logic supply purchased this particular lot their understanding was that the wetlands basically followed along this particular stream those were the delineated wetlands at the time in 1996 when the original park was was presented before the planning commission back in the day and what has happened over time is that not only this area but also all of this area has morphed from upland into wetland areas so you can see a significant portion of the site that Roland and scene originally thought were going to be a beautiful place to basically do an expansion of their existing facility really just unfortunately was found to be handicapped by mother nature's recovery of the site in conversion of that in to a well and if I'm right is that landscaping between the road and the building also was that are that are they trees I can't see very well so right now the existing infrastructure has trees along the rights of way along the middle land rights of way and that what these particular ones represent Frank is in civil engineers idea on supplemental landscaping so we know that the land development regulations don't like civil engineers drawing things that we will have an appropriate professional prepare a landscaping plan that would depict how to better provide screening between the street and the building in a more tasteful way with appropriate types of landscaping materials and and the like it's a one-story structure as planned or there's no second level there's a mezzanine where and this is a mezzanine can you kind of draw me a concentrated line or something to show where the mezzanine and where where's the mezzanine this is one of the entrances here honestly I don't know exactly where that mezzanine would be right there it is all right I'm going to go with that one-thirds the bottom of the left side it would be mezzanine area and this is basically overflow storage area the the building function is production and warehouse we currently have production warehouse in our current building and all of office space removing production warehouse to this location we need to expand that piece so how what's the interior height of the building I don't know the exact number but I think it is the intent is to go for the maximum height that we can 35 35 feet and that's because the warehouse we have forklifts that need to go up and down and you need the height is that right to operate so I don't know about anybody else feels to me like this is a reasonably innovative adaptation to unique circumstances let me just on that point let me just read mark bears comments he says that he likes the infill development of the expansion of a successful south burlington business entity he agrees with staff comments about the setback waiver request and does not have an issue with it that said the facility is meant to be a satellite building to the main building which we discussed which while the industrial what which while industrial and commercial in design and appearance is a nicely designed building and mark says he would like to see this structure this new structure complement the main facility so I will just provide my own soapbox comments the original logic supply building was was pretty much a box it was it was not the prettiest building but we also as I look out my window and to the park it was an industrial park but the second phase really did a wonderful job of basically upgrading the building and it's very attractive in regards to when you drive down metal and drive so that appears I can't speak directly but at least for the laypersons on the outside shows the commitment that logic supply is put into their commitment to the community in this particular neighborhood so if you could snap your fingers and have this approved and built done would the new structure become your main building would the new structure become your main building or would you still refer to the smaller original structure as the main building I would say the original building is about the same size actually in total different the intent is for the original building to largely remain office space some of the production space we currently have would be converted into office space is already effectively ready for that and will probably keep initially somebody the current warehouse space as warehouse overflow but in the future we may want to use it as well so the primary primary use is to sort of unfortunately we have to sort of split up the building that is not the most desirable approach but it is that is kind of the best approach so my understanding is that the main the existing main building would basically become the engineering and administration component of the business and then production and and storage and distribution would be handled out of the easterly building anything else on the overview it looks like the other buildings are using the 50-foot setback and correct me from wrong for storm water retention that's correct I assume you're you're doing what you're planning to do with this underground retention is a much more expensive method to do this than on the surface so that's one of the staff comments with regard to the type of stormwater management so the next comment so maybe we could say we want to use it as a segue let's do that okay so Marla has brought out the requirements of the state stormwater rules with regard to the type of facilities that an applicant is required to step through to ultimately provide an application to the state for approval and there's basically three different tiers of stormwater management facilities there's the ideal the tier one facilities and then there's tier two which is kind of the middle ground in this particular case tier two are primarily what we call gravel wetlands or bio retention facilities and then the third practice is a number of other techniques that aren't as ideal but depending on what the site constraints are are acceptable practices for the state so in this particular case the because of the proposed development density on the site the ability to basically provide the tier two the gravel wetland or the bio retention facility in a size that is meets the requirements of the stormwater rules there's just not enough area to do that so that's why we're looking at going with the tier three practice this is the type of thing though that ultimately we also need to convince the state of Vermont so it's that being the background we have our homework to do and that's the type of thing that I think we need to report back to the board as far as again the findings of the state as it relates to this proposed tier three practice as far as stormwater management on the property to get back to my question you've got you've got a fair amount of room if you come all the way around the corner on this to be able to put a long right long swale open type of retention so one of the challenges is topography where these particular areas actually represent the high point of the property and everything flows downhill in this particular direction so the ability for us to basically get these particular drops of water back to the uphill section just without pumps is a challenge I haven't figured out how to do that yet so that being that that's one of the physical challenges of trying to utilize this particular area nothing says that we couldn't take some of the roof runoff and basically run it through a system but the roof runoff usually doesn't need the treatment as much as the pavement surfaces so that's why we tried to present the building as being the communication with the street and tried to put the back of the housework in the back of the house as far as both the parking as well as loading area so that's why these lower elevation areas represent our ultimately being tied back into a subsurface facility being subsurface it actually allows us to take the gravity use gravity from even this most remote point and and put and go underground into a deeper installation to manage the storm water from this particular site I don't think the city has any staff has any opposition to an underground treatment facility our point was that if the state could potentially tell you know it's going to require a major redesign and so the idea was you know what think about that and if you know you may have to come back for a new sketch of the site significantly different so I think it's a as Marla points out it's an important benchmark component of discussions with the state to make sure that this particular tier 3 practice that's proposed on this sketch plan is indeed going to be viable for the project so we feel comfortable with that but nonetheless the more important thing is to get somebody to at the state put their name on that same determination so that's incumbent upon us to basically get to that particular point again from my education are these are these tier categories one two three and whatever requirements go with them are they our categories of the state's categories the state's categories and have they been are you just concerned about them or they are actually incorporated into our LDR the comments about the tears came from our storm water department it was basically a hey guys are you sure you've thought about this okay doing your design so we don't have to actually make an independent judgment about that stuck with whatever they decide with the state that's who they have to persuade and you know that so it's basically from staff a shot across the bow that says hey make sure that you're good to go here so that we don't have a major redesign that's going to waste the board's time Dave correct me if I'm wrong but I think we've had properties in other states my management company has that had underground filtration practices that were not simple that were tanked and and cleaned and so forth so does the state allow that here I know it's much more expensive but adjusting they are more expensive you know and bottom lines like the only time you usually see these particular types of systems utilizes when the land is so valuable that you don't have the space to dedicate for an open land type of of tier use so from that standpoint not only are they more expensive to install but also they're more expensive to maintain because you want to basically make sure that well I should say that the maintenance practices are not common in the someday when we get we when we come with the appropriate sign off from the state and come back to you with a preliminary plan that shows these particular chambers they're designed in such a way that there's one particular section that's designed just for settling the solids out of the stormwater and those also need to be cleaned out occasionally but there's special equipment that basically is is available that flushes these particular chambers and you sit at the one end of this particular facility and you use a vector truck to suck all of that particular sediment out as part of that maintenance activity so is it is it ideal not ideal but is it uncommon not anymore even the city of Burlington has these particular types of attachments because the city of Burlington has these particular facilities that the city owns and maintains so they're already fully committed to the ability not only to accept these as a stormwater management practice but also to maintain them how big is something when you talk about stormwater management I guess we're looking at the parking lots but also what kind of do you have a roof design in mind what are you going to do about about the roof all the peak flows from the roof you know this particular facility needs to demonstrate that not only is treatment of the parking lot being achieved but also that the peak flows from this entire new impervious area is being held and controlled and released in a controlled way so that when it reaches the pre the undeveloped area that it's going to be no different than what comes off the property today in the undeveloped character so that's why this is large is to basically deal with all of the runoff here to basically collect it hold it in a in a manner that basically then allows it to discharge in a controlled way so that the peak flows coming out of this particular area no worse than what they are under pre-existing conditions anything else on stormwater let's move on to the next comment which is about the retaining wall so site plan so right now the project site has proposed retaining wall that not only along the north boundary but also along the west boundary and this is what we call a segmental retaining wall this is basically one that's designed to be flexible unlike a cast-in-place concrete wall that has to withstand frost movements and will have typically be installed five to six feet deep in the ground these particular walls are designed to only be excavated and placed maybe a foot or a foot and a half below the ground surface and your regulations require that along property lines that they be located at least five feet away that's what this particular plan will provide and then along the western limit we're not allowed to disturb anything within the buffer whether you be through the city's rules or through the state of Vermont's wetland rules unless we go and get a permit from them and they're going to say Dave Marshall nice try but we don't think you need to disturb this buffer we need you need to construct the wall outside of it so in this particular case all of those things are going to be a component of the final design to enable this particular system to be constructed without impacting the buffer and also being and respecting the five foot requirement to the property line I was just going to say it looks like and I don't want to put words in your mouth Marla but it looks like the staff comment was focusing on the visual impact of the retaining wall maybe I jumped the gun because I think we do eventually talk about its location but as far as visual impact we have no problem meeting the land development regulations requirements as it comes to retaining walls other things that we can be thinking about as far as again how to mitigate the presence of that particular retaining wall is perhaps through some type of vine installation that will basically help break up the mass of that particular wall with some sort of green component what's it retaining soil so if we go back to the site plan Frank I can basically show you that in order because the the land falls off this way we have built it up with some fill and basically this wall is holding the fill back from falling into the buffer area and similarly over on this particular side we this is being built up and is going to hold the soil back from falling on to the homeland security property now in the bigger picture the homeland security property has a a retaining wall that actually out excuse me operates in a manner very similar to this one along its edge along its west lee edge west side of the building that's quite a long wall it is but the critical question is will it keep the Mexicans out oh no no no no can't go there that's outside our jurisdiction Mark also got a comment about the retaining wall yes Mark's comment was that he agrees with staff with regard to the retaining wall it is on the corner so coming down metal on middle and drive it isn't going to be it isn't going to be minor in appearance especially at 7 to 8 feet high with parking right above it there will probably need to be fencing and landscaping to buffer the parking lot from street view and there's a question mark at the end of that will there need to be fencing and landscaping to buffer the parking lot from the street view I think that's that's something that's inconsistent with how the rest of the business park has been reviewed by the development review board with regard to the retaining wall it basically goes from a full height at this particular location to zero at the southerly end so as we get closer to the street it has lesser and lesser of a prominence as far as its vertical nature so I think that's again one thing that we'll come back with to the board in regards to the aesthetics of this particular area again our job is to basically demonstrate compliance with land development regulations as we come back with the with an application with more flesh to the bone I have a question for staff so in the comment you say that the board should advise the applicant to review alternatives to the retaining wall prior to the next stage of review do you mean something other than a retaining wall or a different type of retaining wall it was challenging to phrase diplomatically and I'm not known for my tact so I might just go ahead and say it out there Marla retaining walls are really expensive and if you find that the retaining wall isn't going to work it'd be good to think about that sooner rather than later retaining walls are expensive but at the same time they also create land that otherwise would not be available if you needed to simply create a slope from the plateau of use down to the existing conditions it's a balancing act with regard to creating value versus the cost of creating value and in this particular case in order to basically allow for the program of logic supply to come to fruition here that is a necessary evil of what's necessary to make the site work concrete I assume it would be more than likely a precast concrete product which come in a lot of different types of shape sizes colors there's a lot of different options to basically minimize the visual impacts of this particular type of wall on on the landscape loud to plant a ground cover that would creep across retaining wall a vine a whatever when you're that close to a wetland as far as them any type of vine system creating an impact on the structural integrity of the system there's no issues there with regard to the ability to plant in the wetland buffer we have had permission from the state to do that in the past and we're going to basically vet that one also again I would think that somehow you can probably soften this right no I think there's a lot of different ways to skin the cat as they say the visual impact of the wall and I may be mixing and matching here you'll correct me if I am I've run into I'm not sure if we're talking about the same stuff but I dealt with a an elevated road that had a quote what we called a retaining wall we had a big argument over whether it was going to be waste block which is what the developer wanted so-called waste block or architectural block right are we talking about the same kind of stuff here we're talking about architectural block not not waste block not waste that is correct and will you will you designate that when you come with a more complete plan when we see that absolutely anything else on the retaining wall one thing just to mention it to you guys I'm sure Dave is aware of this but the board may not be there are certain types of retaining wall that have a little bit of a step back to them that allow planting right within the sort of cells of the retaining wall as well so what Marla is making reference to is that there are a segmental products that where you can introduce a step back component and sometimes in that step back component you can actually plant things so opportunities to again break up the mass depending on where you are height-wise and again whether you've got a foot and a half or two feet to lose as far as the step back component so those are all I'm sorry almost a terracing kind of yeah that's the word I was looking for yes thank you I'm misreading the site the only visual impact on anybody really other than the user is toward Meadowland Drive right I think this is really going to be the primary area when you are driving in the east of the direction and seeing this particular facade that's going to be the area that's going to be that'll be exposed yes so I think this will be the focus point I'm sorry Marla this would be the focus point this one here is really going to be in Meadowland excuse me the Homeland Security people as far as as far as their complaints and I'll leave it at that is it at the bottom of the hill or sort of lower than things all the things to the west I'm sorry Marla I couldn't hear you is it at the bottom of the hill like lower than all the things west of it so this is the topography as you come down the hill and it kind of flattens out in this particular location as you get into the valley and then you come slightly back up the hill to as you come back up the hill it's not a hill it's very modest as far as the slope but nonetheless this is the because there are no buildings here this is basically you know the potential view line that is going to just catch somebody's eye as you basically come through this particular area within the industrial park covered it well and the last words you used were industrial park next comment is really just a reminder from the fire department about hydrant spacing do you have any response to that number four yes the fire department will come back with the turning moments to identify how their particular equipment can move sorry number four was the hydrant spacing number five was the turning movements yeah I got them backwards again getting ahead of myself but as far as the fire hydrants this is specifically a request or requirement anytime you have a sprinkler system there's going to be a place on the building that's called the fire department connection that allows the fire department to basically add water to this particular sprinkler system and you need to have a hydrant within 100 feet of that particular connection point so based on where you are in the city sometimes there's a hydrant conveniently nearby that can basically meet that particular requirement and sometimes they're not so wherever this particular fire department connection ends up we will have to demonstrate to the fire department that there is a hydrant whether it be an existing one or a new one within 100 feet of that and and the only practical way to be within 100 feet of hydrant is to have it on the same side of the street so we're all headed in the same direction on that I think I think the chief likes it not only on the same side of the street but he likes it on the same side of the parking lot he doesn't like to drive across his yep no just pointing it out that's all. Chief Horwin is here he was here he on the original logic supply building he specifically asked for a hydrant on the same side of the building so that vehicles weren't running over the hoses so that's the intent that basically allows traffic to still move without losing the the value of the equipment during an emergency. Turning movement. Same thing we'll come back with auto-turned movements that basically depict how the fire fire department's equipment can move through the site. Comment number six kind of a puzzle staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant why they anticipate requesting a waiver when they're providing more than the minimum required parking. Well that's because there is at least one or more typos in the request that went to the board. Sometimes the simple answer. We thought that we had less spaces but we found 10 extra spaces and in the meantime jumping ahead staff has also reminded the applicant that we need to meet a 10% green space standard within the parking lots themselves and I think by the time we've done all that we're going to basically be much closer to the directly required number of parking spaces for this particular. You may not need a waiver at all. I don't think it's going to be a waiver request in the end. That's right. So let's just extract retract that for today. Okay. We're on that subject. Is there street parking? I'm sorry. Is street parking allowed on both? It is and Roland I don't know if you want to talk a little bit about that. I know that if we go back to the big picture of the metal and business park. The one that shows the overall. Let's go back one more. There you go. So there have been times when on street parking was required. The logic supply administration has tried to work with employees to make sure they don't park in locations that create safety issues as far as sight lines for people leaving or accessing the site. And again, being on a corner, it's even more critical and as far as those particular sight lines. So what they're trying to do is manage parking on their own property as much as possible. But there is obviously the opportunity for on street parking in this area. It is a 32 foot wide roadway. Again, the original intent was it was going to be a commercial connector roadway. So the good news is it's a big linear parking lot. But it's not not to the point where it can satisfy the needs of logic supply in the bigger pictures without creating challenges for the other tenants of the park as far as their movement through the through the area. When this is built out, what do you anticipate? The number of human users of the total facility will be number of our facility. Yes. Right now, we don't actually know exactly, but we anticipate minimum of 50 people at the facility, lightly more at the new facility at the new facility. Yes. Our current facility has about 100 parking spots. And it is already overflowing and we are overflowing. I was asking how many people altogether for the whole operation, the whole business? Yeah. Um, well, we grow by about 20 to 25% of the year. And that's kind of hard to, you know, plan out today. Today. Today. What is there? Uh, today, it's 120 people or so. And you expect this facility you will accommodate another 50 employees. Correct. The new one. The new one. Yes. So something 175 to 200 people in the next year or two. And I gather this is your there's no there's no real customer traffic here. Is there a year going out, inviting people in? Yeah, we will. We do get some customers come over to our office, but not selling all to the production facility. There's no we're not a retail. Right. I mean, it's not people aren't coming in the buy stuff. They're coming in to make deals and look things over. And finally, get an education. What are you making? We make industrial computers highly specialized systems for very difficult environments. So there's automation. A lot of it is mining factory automation, those sorts of things. Do you have a waste product that comes out of your manufacturing process? We have some, you know, the usual, uh, let's say car, cardboard, plastic, uh, some, some how about how about chemical residues? No, no, no. We are computers. The main components are produced at partner facilities. We do final assembly in our location. So it's really just motorboards, hard drives, pro storage, the processor, those sorts of things that we put together in the as a final product. What you're asking us here to do is give you kind of a little encouragement for a center line over home plate expansion of a clean revenue producing tax producing piece of infill in an appropriate place. Is that your request? That's what's known as the leading question. That is not a question Frank usually asks. That's really interesting. We're trying to be good. We don't always get something. We don't always get 90 miles an hour right over the center. I gotta tell you, if you get a chance, if Roland and scene invites you over sometime, it's a really eye opening. Interesting little product after this hearing process. But no waste block fellas. Next comment is about the dumpster enclosure. Absolutely. So we cur 100% that it's not ideal. In fact, every one of our engineering plans, we try to design a location that allows the truck to simply just drive up, pick up and drop the dumpster enclosures back on the ground. This particular one basically is going to require that a driver come out and pull these particular bins out to a place where the truck and then pick them up. It's not uncommon. But if I'm a truck driver, I don't like it. But nonetheless, it is something that is does happen. And it happens, especially in a lot of urban areas where you just don't have the ideal situation where you can drive up. But you know, if we could basically create a driveway where they could come around and simply just come open up and pick this up and dump it in the top of the truck, that's exactly what we do. But as far as the program here, it just hasn't laid itself out the way we had hoped. And this is an unfortunate byproduct of just that particular aspect. So sometimes you pay a little bit extra to have the driver get out of the truck and basically move these particular rigs around. But that's not a that's it, it happens. Dave, I would argue that it's happening more and more. We've moved a bunch of our things from six yard and eight yard down to four yard rollers, because you there's so many different types of recycling and that you got composting coming and you want to use the same space. And it's happening everywhere. Yeah, so I mean, that's that's the other nice thing about the recycling requirements is that our volumes haven't changed. We've just now segregated them into smaller piles. So to John's point is that the containers have gotten smaller and also more manageable as far as moving anything more on comment seven. A comment eight has to do with landscaping and staff notes that it appears as though it may not meet the minimum required landscaping depending on the cost of the building. And we should discuss with the applicant how the applicant proposes to provide the minimum landscaping budget while still accommodating stormwater conveyance. Can you address that please? Mm hmm. I don't think it's a I don't know if it's an answer that that really is an issue right now. I mean, right now, as far as stormwater conveyance, we've basically shown a grassline swale running through this particular part of the property. So a much more intensive landscaping plan, I don't think is going to be an issue as far as the ability for those drops of water to basically migrate their way around the structure. I think what we do need to do is take a look at the parking requirements more specifically as far as how to basically meet the standard of one tree for every five parking spaces. So those are all going to be components of basically moving forward as far as demonstrating compliance. So we we meet the least the screening component for parking. And then we'll take a look at how the value of that particular landscaping program complies with land development regulations, which in turn is again a byproduct of the cost of the building. So you know, many times if you really wanted to, you know, for example, if a site is totally built out, you simply just put in larger trees and you can get to the value that way. So there's there's different ways of basically complying with the land development regulations. But more specifically, once the character of the building has been vetted, what we want to do is create, have a professional create a landscaping plan that basically augments the features rather than simply trying to hide them. So those are all the goals. I'm not going to try to pretend to know all the answers. Because again, I'm just one of those dumps of engineers and I don't know landscaping. But that being the background, we will have a professional that it basically is involved in coming up with a program that complies with the with the rules. Can you plant in the buffer in the wetland buffer? So that was one of my brief comments earlier is that in the past, the state wetlands office has allowed for tree planting in the buffers. But but administrations and policies change over time. And I haven't asked that question lately. So that'll be one of the first ones I'll be asking when we talk about how to create screening and breaking up the mass of the retaining wall along this particular edge. So those those those are all part of the equation moving forward. You can farm it. So we should be able to plant in it. Mother Nature does plants in it. So we'll see. So Mark Bearer says in regard to landscaping, I think some additional landscaping needs to be worked into the site to create more of a visual separation slash buffer between the parking lot and views coming down metal and drive, which I think you touched on before. Right. Yep. No, I think those are all good comments. Maybe add one thing. We are very committed to making it a very nice layout and a nice site. Just like our current building, we feel it's very important to make the place look professional and highly appealing. So landscaping goes with that as well. I guess I have one more question because I was taking it back. If you're growing to 25% a year and that continues, how long will this facility suffice? You're doing the math. We don't quite know. You know, it's hard to say. There's other piece I got that we haven't been talking about that looks like it's not really developable. Developable. Correct. And so our our goal is or our hope is to put a additional parking lot on that area. So because we will achieve more office space once we move our production facility out of the current building, we can add more office space for engineers, salespeople and those sorts of things. And that should give us another good amount of hopefully 80 more parking spots or something like that. That's a kind of a next step in this in this approach. The not hopefully will hold us over for and that we do. Do you have potential if you need to house more people of building vertically? There's the 35 foot limit. You get a waiver. Yaldo to thank you. In in the current building, that's hard to do because it's already built in it. Yeah, it's hard to put on top of it. I don't want to take everybody's time. That's not what you're here about tonight. We looked at all of these things as well. But in short, we are hoping to hold us over for the next five to seven years. And then at a point we might have to add more space or maybe other places not not fully located right close to this building. And there's a property owner right there that I'm sure would really enjoy having you build a third building. As a matter of fact, he tried to convince me to build over there. So have we covered all the staff notes now? Any more board comments? Thank you for your time. Have you gotten enough from us to go to the next step? Yes, this is really sketch review. It's true. It is sketch, but nonetheless, it helps build an understanding of what the expectations are when a preliminary plat application comes back before you. Yes, so we're good. Thank you. Any comments from the public? On this application? David Crawford, Chair of the Natural Resource Committee. We like to commend the approach that the developer has taken as far as landscaping and manage one of the things that we've noticed in a PUD management plan for into the future. I think that was mentioned, but just to underline that something that we, you know, landscaping plans are real great to begin with, but they have to be maintained or should be maintained. We want to express that the Natural Resource Committee is available to chat with the client, you know, you folks. That is not that's up to you folks to decide that. We'll try to figure out the best way to do it. If you approach us, we're looking trying to figure out our own best way to right now. We probably there's a good chance we'd have a subcommittee, a working group of the full committee to meet rather than trying to schedule one in the once a month. So again, we're there to try to help, you know, the landscaping of the wall and all that kind of stuff is really good to hear how you handle all the problems that you have as far as fitting things onto the site. But you're working on it. We appreciate that. You want to get a hold of me on this. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Hearing none. So this is sketch plan. I assume we do not need a motion to close. That's not how we do things here. Do we need a motion to conclude or do we just say it's concluded? So the sketch plan review on application number SD 1925 is concluded. Thank you gentlemen for your time. Thank you for your time. Good luck with the state. Sounds ominous. So the next item in the agenda was going to be the minutes, but we don't have the minutes. So I think we move to other business, and we do have a substantive item on other business, which is that the board is considering a motion to reopen application number SD 1924. It's not a Braverman Development Company. Thank you, Marla. LLC. So I would entertain a motion to that effect. Second Frank, I think John just beat you by a hair. Any discussion? Abstentions? Okay, all in favor of the motion. I should have done that in the earlier ones. Any opposed? Motion carries. And I believe that's all we got. I would like to thank you and Frank for your work with the city council this week. I don't know where that will come out, but I appreciate your efforts and all the emails I'm seeing and flying about that. And that was on the news, did you? It was on the news and it was on CX. They were just interviewing him. I don't frankly remember what he said, but he seems to find job. You got interviewed? No, Matt. Oh, I missed that. I have a question about that. I mean, I'm pretty lit up about that. And I think I think our position is as things stand now is not going to carry. They decided to defer for two weeks in a way that is just kicking the can down the road for a couple of weeks till things cool off. And they quote, they want to improve the quote wording. And I wrote back to one of the council members and said, well, you know, this is you're writing the law wording usually has something to do with substance. Can you give us a hint? Maybe the idea was maybe we could help. I said, for example, are you suggesting he said, Well, you know, we want to have a little room right now. It's complete silence from the board. We want to have the room for the for the board to make some recommendations. Back again, said you mean with some power phrasing with some authority or no, just no, I don't necessarily something a little stronger than a recommendation. No, nothing stronger, just better wording. I guess the best I can do. So that was the where it was left in two weeks, they may or may not come back with some decoration on what they're planning to do. But I don't see the prospect of our point of view prevailing being very high. I continue contend to continue making a fuss. Do you want me to be careful to make it only in my own name? I mean, some sense of the board, you're ready to quit. I think the board was determined that it would not be the board that was making the recommendations, but that individuals did happen to be all of us. I think I have no problem with you. I love your writing. So you're welcome to use my me me as a continue at least please continue to copy me. I'm impressed with what I saw. I mean, I think each of us may have no different reasons for having supported the coming to the same conclusion on it. And so I'm trying to stay away from substance. In other words, that letter was written from the standpoint of essentially as a procedural procedure. And that's where I'm trying to stay. Definitely not trying to speak because I know, for example, John and I actually, when you get down the road, once some substantive things are going to differ about parking. We already know that. So I'm staying away from that. All right. I think Dave has something to add. Private citizen, private citizen, and I voice my youth from practicing their administrator to have some regulation. Having said that as a thing, in viewing what the board was trying to do, they were trying to, the question came up is if a developer comes to us and we see that the parking is off, just screwing, and we raise that as an issue. And without having something in the basic chain in New York that they're talking about, that would not be permitted by the board. We can't speak to what it is and the regulations. So they basically said, take time and hopefully the community planning commission and they can come up with some language, which will allow the development of the board to have some control over the parking situation. Anyway, are you sure you're being accurate? Because that's what I was trying to draw out of the people I was corresponding today with both Tim Robbins and Dave Kaufman in particular. And they came back with nothing close to that. It was all mushy, better language, not more authority, not any authority. No suggestion of that. I'll let you finish. I learned something that I've adopted in the last couple of years. Listen with the same passion you want to be heard. Sorry, I'm trying to interrupt. The point that they is very different among, as I perceive, listening to some of the planning commission members. They had made their decision. They had submitted to the council. They were standing by that. The council, however, is split two to three, depending on which moment in time you were talking about. They worked very hard. The planning came up with they were going to hold off. So what you're talking with is to have language to the council. Now, whether the planning commission can happen to agree with that, that's up to however the contact is made. Somebody needs to take the lead and say, this is an opportunity to still have what you folks as individuals. And that was an important distinction as individuals. And somebody steps forward and says, you know, I'll help draft it, whatever, and makes that overture or draft language. And you get six or seven different versions of that. Your point, Dave, is that the DRV should be communicating with planning commission? They asked that that happens. But really, who has to make the decision is the if the planning commission doesn't choose to move in their position, which is entirely possible, I can see where Frank's coming from from listening to some of the members. That may not be that doesn't exclude you folks or individuals on this board or other members of the public saying, this is what the draft could look like. This is what the statement could be that would give the board limited that is the DRV limited authority to regulate so they would you the DRV would not be caught in this trap of not being able to do anything. Now, maybe the regulation is only that you can you have you the amount of requirement is much less than what is now being talked about or you know, whatever's in the regulation right now as far as amount of parking. It's much less. But if it's something that says you still have the ability to regulate, that's what the search was from some of the council. Now they're split three to two. That's the way that there's an important issue. I encourage somebody to step forward and start working on some language, making overtures to the Planning Commission. If they don't want to talk, then it can be one member of the Planning Commission and one member of this board or one member of the public. And that's it. Coming forward and saying, here's some language to the Planning Commission, or it can be several people saying, here's some language, you could do what you're trying to do. But they need something to work on, something to say, yes, that looks like a realistic. I'm saying they being the council. There is hope. But it's got to be I would hope it would be collaboration with the Planning Commission myself. But if it's not going to be that way, then I wouldn't say I would say it's a real tragedy for my personal citizens. Comment not have some control over parking. And that's what you folks have been saying. And just to say it's lost. It's not lost. I've been thinking about what that might I'm sorry. Thinking about what that might be. There is one ready, ready. Frankly, I'm just an energy standpoint on this thing getting a little worn out. I don't want to reinvent the wheel for futile purposes. But the one thing that would be fairly easy to replicate is I did look up when when they put forth Buffalo, as an example, I found out that there's a section of the Buffalo zoning ordinance that requires substantial developments. I forget how that's defined. To produce, I think it's called a top traffic management plan that would address things such as parking, you know, all those site related things that we are typically concerned with and that our regulations address. And you have to get approval from the review body of your traffic management plan, which includes parking. Now that there is already written language that I could lift and try to how do people feel about that kind of approach as opposed to trying to argue for, you know, retaining the minimums? I think a much simpler approach is right now we have the ability we have the opportunity to allow up to 25% credit off of parking. That could be 100%. It won't do it. It would it would give it would give the I hear you, but that but that would make the most sense. When when a a potential applicant comes in and says I want 100%, maybe that doesn't make any sense. And you and you come back to something in between, but it would it would make sense in terms of the language and it would be the fastest, easiest, most appropriate way. So you don't think they would. I mean, so I haven't not been at the meeting. I just I don't understand why the city would want to get rid of their discretion to be able to protect, you know, existing businesses or protect neighborhoods. I don't know why you from sort of inappropriate parking. I don't understand. I think the way they look at it and I'll be very careful when I say they the planning commission and at least two members of the city council look at it as what they're doing is trying to move south Burlington from being a car centric municipality to being a pedestrian and bike centric municipality with the like the stroke of that pen does not do that. These are these arguments were made. Yeah. Okay. I don't want to. They don't what I could pick up. All I could pick up is they just simply don't want us to retain discretion. They want the power somewhere else to make make those determinations. Now that might be an over read. I don't know. I think what what they were saying is that they want the developer to be able to determine that. They somewhat surprisingly given the assumed political bent of some of these folks, they're saying that the market should determine this, which if you think about it, John's laughing. It's a little bit odd. Well, I mean, we've had enough things in front of us of late that had parking on the street. Currently, that you that you have to say to yourself, you know, what is what is appropriate and and will will a will all developers be respectful of their neighbors and and the needs and and we all know that there is no generic developer. We can hypothesize the ideal developer and some of the guys who come in are exactly that. Yeah. But there isn't one of us who doesn't know that we're going to get the guy who doesn't want to build the parking who's done his own bottom line calculation and figures if I can get away with it. I don't want to do it. We just know that. Sure. And they're leaving us with no power to address it. Sure, it is. Recommendations or suggestions to council. I would encourage members to think about the implication on the process. One of the things I love about South Burlington is we have a great reputation has a time to do business and you know, we're relatively nimble, adding process to tracks from that. So just think about the impact on duration of getting a permit complication of getting a permit, the amount of money you have to spend to get a permit on any recommendations you might make. Right. That's why my suggestion was basically don't change anything except for the ability to go from 25% to 100%. That would not change anything except for somebody's ability to walk in and say, the perfect example was the renal dialysis group. I don't know if any of you were here at the time, but UVMMC came in on Joy Drive and they, and I think they were required even after the 25% to have about 25 parking spaces and what they needed was five or seven or eight. And we had no ability to shrink it. And I agree, we should have that ability. But make your case. Not you make your case. I'm saying the applicant should be able to make their case and say, and we should be able to judge on it. Anyway, we've killed this one. Okay. I think we're done. Thank you all.