 Okay, sorry. This is the review board for October 1st. We make up items in the board. They are on the agenda. We call on each item. We ask that the applicant come up to the table. When you're up there, it's very important to use microphones and you put them closer than you think they should because we can't hear very well. Also, click board on that table. Anybody who participates wants to be, we should at some point remain silent and we take testimony on those. So when we call an item that's part of the public hearing, we would ask anybody who's going to participate to respond to that thought. The first item is our agenda. Are there any changes in that? Communications, we've had several communications on a few projects that some have been posted and I don't know if that's now, but we've been emailed through the day. We also have minutes from September 17th. I've been reading the comments on that. The item is the consent agenda. The first item on the consent agenda is a 37-page review. It's the applicant here for that. If you want to come up. The consent agenda, which means that if you agree with staff's final use of recommendations, I do just approve it. I do look at staff's recommendations. I read all recommendations. They're just fine and high up here. The board has any objections to this as a consent? There's one more benefit for us on the 37-page screen. Is anybody here to speak on the 37-page screen? There's an 8-6 C.U. that's going to be on the screen. I know a little bit about recommendations. Anyway, it's approved. The second item on the consent agenda is a 180-and-a-half ride. This is an application by the City of Brooklyn. This is to repair and re-stabilize stronger alcohols in the area. You read all the recommendations. Have we seen staff's recommendations on this one? Yes, I have. Here we are. Yes, we are. The board has any objections to this as a consent? Is anybody here to speak on the 180-and-a-half ride? The 1-6 C.A. 1-8-and-a-half ride. Adopt an application that approves staff's recommendations. All in favor? The next item which is not on the consent agenda. This is a change in use from medical office to abuse. It was recommended for consent to get on the agenda. So can I ask that you raise your right hand if you want to speak on this? Raise your right hand if you want to speak. Anybody else? Who's going to tell the truth and vote? Who's going to pay the penalty for a change? Yes. So I want you to lose yourself. I think it was pretty straightforward. It's recommended for approval. If you have any comments on it, if you want to add it, does the board have any questions? Yes. The application is set up to look towards the already approved larger project that's happening. The whole bottom floor is just parking in there. When a project is built out of this project, there's an overall project. Is that it? It's one space waiver. The overall project? The overall project. Yes, as soon as you go on the other one. So I think we're going to push the applicant. I see there's two people, a public, who would like to speak. So maybe the 200-month-old. If you miss being sworn in, which I think it's sworn in, if you're going to speak, if you want to raise your right hand, just sort of tell the truth and vote truth on the payment penalty approach. We can have any questions to the applicant, but there's two people in the public that would like to speak, so I think we're going to hear them. And then if you want to take a seat, then we can come back up. I have no objection to the change from one commercial use to another. My issue really has to do with a plan that incorporates this house into another project that has been approved and the number of parking spaces that go along with those 75 units and then the number of parking spaces that are required for this function, which is the number of parking spaces required for this function, which the medical use only required two parking spaces. This requires four, as I understand, because of the relationship with the bigger project. One space is guaranteed if that project goes forward. That brings you to three. You go two. That one space is three. You go two for waiver of one space. I think I've got that. My question is right now there's enough parking behind the structure that right now that there will never be a problem until it gets redeveloped and then parking could become an issue. And my only point of concern is that I myself go to a person that has her chair cutting business in her home and I agree that when one chair, one client, however, when I looked at the uses, they did say tanning was one of the functions and I can really speak to the fact that you can have overlap of customers so at a minimum three spaces would be needed and I'm not sure if you would actually eventually need all four spaces if the business is successful. And so I don't, I think that really why I'm highlighting this is not so much for tonight's approval but to have it in the minutes when if indeed the big project goes forward, I really think you need to relook at how successful the business is and what the real parking demands are of that business and I don't know if you can do that. If you can change the dedication of spaces to this building since you've already approved a plan with a parking plan. So I'm concerned a little bit about it. So that's the issue for me. I don't want to speak against this. I'd like them to move forward. I think it's a good use. I agree it's on a transportation line. There are a lot of people. I think students might take advantage of this. It's in close proximity to a lot of people who could walk there. But I am a little concerned about ultimately if the business is really successful and the other project moves forward. The waiver of one space. Thank you. Any questions for Councilor Lang? Dr. Lang. Good evening. My name is Dr. Martha Lang and I live at 138 Colchester Avenue. I'm just here to speak that I think it would be nice to have a hair salon on Colchester Avenue. It's better than having a vacant building and certainly a reputable business. I'm not knowledgeable about the parking waiver or the 75 unit development. But I do support these people having a small business in my neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to come back up? Remember the parking count on the overall future project? Is this... It's 75 units, right? 75 units residential. It takes into account the other existing uses within the PUD space. 125 spaces total are proposed. 124 are required. So to take advantage of that extra one that would create their third space required. Okay. And there's no parking waiver requested in that application? Not to my knowledge. No, there's not. Okay. So I think if you have anything you want to add, I personally, I don't think having the one parking space waiver in this, which is a fairly good walkable area would be an issue. I don't know if everybody else on the floor is going to agree or not. Do you have any comments about the parking or anything like that? And pull the microphone forward, please. Can you pull it close, please? We believe that the parking that's there is flexible in that we can make good use of it. And don't feel that the use of adding asking, I'm not sure if we're asking for a waiver or not, to be honest with you at this point, but if we are, I don't believe that one parking space is going to be a problem. We've monitored that parking lot now currently and there are assurance that earlier there's always plenty of parking behind the building there. I don't have permission to and they're still parking, so I think it is a good use of the property and I also think that it's such a small amount of parking we're talking about and I hope that we can improve it. Any other questions for the applicant this time? I think we'll close the public hearing. And we're going to deliberate perhaps at the end of the meeting tonight depends on how late the meeting goes or what we may deliberate, set a time to deliberate. When we do, you can listen in, you can't participate at that point but you're welcome to hear what's going on when we do that, but that's when the approval or whatever the review is going to happen is when we deliberate. Thank you. The next item is 221-223 St. Paul Street. This is an appeal of the administrative zoning approval to regrade and stabilize the slope on 221-223 St. Paul. And if I, Scott, the etiquette here is that the who goes first on this one? When making the appeal? That true? Or is that? Well, the appellant is not here, is he? The appellant is here. The appellee is not here but the appellee's representative is. The appellee is not here? Okay. So, why don't we have them both come up and ask Scott to explain the situation? Okay. Both come up. We'll get going on it. And can I ask anybody who's going to speak on this project to raise your right hand so I can square you in? Want to raise your right hand? Are you going to speak on the project? I don't want to relitigate anything. Well, if you want to participate, do you just want to tell the truth and hold the truth on the pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. So, Chris, you have objected to the approval to regrade and stabilize the slope on adjacent property. Kind of. Can you hear me? And Scott, do you want to give us a little overview of that? Sure. I'll provide an overview. I'll start with the punchline. So, the hearing tonight is simply, and I would underline simply an appeal of the zoning permit issued in June for grading work period. There has been a fair bit of activity between this property and the adjacent property owned by as to retaining wall removal, replacement failure, grading, partial retention of the retaining wall and ongoing issues. In fact, the site today does not reflect what was included in the zoning permit that's under appeal. I would advise the board to stay away from the sideshow relative to work that's been done outside of this permit and even the present site conditions. This is an appeal of a zoning permit issued for grading. One rise to two foot horizontal slope where a failed retaining wall was removed. There's two applicable criteria in the zoning ordinance. Under Article 14 adds to grading and stabilizing the slope. So, Mr. Cammie has the burden of demonstrating that my approval was incorrect. I would advise the board to underline that the site conditions today do not reflect what's in this permit. If I'm correct in understanding what you're suggesting is there may be issues about compliance with other permits, but all we have before us today is an appeal of an issued permit and whether that permit was issued properly doesn't relate to whether or not it's been executed. Thank you, Scott. If you can keep the microphone close it helps. I'm appealing the permit as approved and you will have to ask yourself whether you're allowed to approve a permit that's on my property. I did not apply for a permit to excavate and grade my property. I did not apply for a permit to excavate and grade his property. So that's the bigger issue. And are you offering a site plan that shows where the property line is? I can show pictures. It doesn't show the property line on the pictures. It shows the it shows the markers, the boundary markers of the property. This is a question for the applicant. You have submitted that photo or you will submit that photo? Well, I have submitted the photos and there are additional photos. Can you direct us to where in the photos the boundary line is? If you start with exhibit C the left side Can you keep your voice up just a little bit? Chris, I can't hear you as well. Exhibit C the left side of the picture to the left side of the retaining wall is or the retaining wall is entirely on my property. We don't have any documentation that shows that one way or the other. With respect, I'm in the middle of a sentence. So if you just bear with me until this full sentence is complete, then you will actually see what I'm trying to say. Okay. Exhibit C the whole retaining wall is on my property. That is verified by Norm Baldwin's order that constitutes a legal order and that wall is verified to be on my property. Therefore, that is a boundary. It's actually not what Norm Baldwin says. So we don't have the authority to determine boundary disputes. It's not a boundary dispute. There's an inherent one here. So have you if you're going to interrupt me, if you're going to chastise my chair for interrupting you, don't interrupt me. Fair? So my question for you is have you pursued this in the appropriate venue or are you asking essentially us to make a surrogate determination about the boundary line that appears to be disputed? I'm not asking you to determine the boundary line. So we need to get past this. So I guess I want to step back. So you're disagreeing with the zoning officer's approval based on the location of the property line? No. There's a few factors involved here. As permit applies for it applies for a two to one slope grading from an initial elevation topographical elevation from the boundary. Now if we're going to split hairs about where the boundary is that's not the point. The point is, is it's a topographical elevation two to one slope meaning two run one foot rise. Every two feet you get a one foot rise. And if you start at the boundary and you do a two to one slope from the boundary at the original authentic topographical elevation there's no driveway left for him to access parking. That's actually not I mean it's generous of you but it's not actually your concern. So how can so you're saying that I mean you're saying you're thinking to be a lot of concern for your neighbor's well-being? No, no, no. You're saying that you can approve a permit that creates a zoning violation? I don't think so. So Brett, if I may. So if the board looks at the copy of the zoning permit that was issued and it's on the last page of that particular packet or sorry second to last where option one soil slope is circled I was the approved remedy here. You can see that the toe of the proposed slope all short of the property line there's also a related site plan that demonstrates this but there's a condition that that site plan be revised to accurately reflect this because I think Mr. Cammie has a point that this grade will in fact heat into the site that's not reflected in the site plan. But there's more. May I distribute current pictures? Yeah, you realize that we have a fairly limited If you'd like me to leave, I can leave. If you don't want to hear me, I can leave. Is that what you'd like? What do you want to present? Additional material? That's relevant. If you don't feel it's relevant, I can leave now. Mr. Rabinowitz, it's your call. Would you like me to leave? And while we're doing this I believe you're the next other property owner. I haven't sworn you in. Do you want to raise your right hand? I feel you probably want to say something at some point. And do you swear to tell the truth and hope, truth under pain and penalty of perjury? Yes. A question to... Right now we're going to hear Chris and then we'll hear some more from you. Sorry, and maybe this is just me not because the zoning permit is conditional to those two main things that we're talking about. The site plan and resolving the outstanding building order and stop work order. So the conditioned permit has been released but neither of the conditions have been met. The conditioned permit has not been released because it was appealed. It's been done but the permit hasn't been released and the conditions haven't been met. So some of these are similar to what we have and some of them might be different. Can you tell us in general terms what the intent of distributing this is? You do have a copy right in front of you. Is that what this is? It is. So it just picks up off exhibit and it's an addendum to the appeal. It's current information. So how this relates to the current project is the word on the street is that this project is complete. The work has already been done. That's not the view of the board or anybody else but that's you. Well you can ask the applicant. We will. If it's complete, it's complete. So I just want to quickly go through this. Give me 90 seconds. Is that cool? And then I'll be done. Exhibit ends. It's some type of graded slope. The one slope. The water goes that he's watering the plants that he's planted. The water goes right through my building. Exhibit O. There's a retaining wall that's been installed. There's nothing in the permit of a retaining wall in the slope permit. So that's already been installed and it's there. Exhibit P. There are workers clearly excavating on my property. This again, you will be approving this permit and not monitoring it and not me not speaking up will be approving a site plan that is on my property. So be careful. That's why I'm here. Exhibit Q. Landscaping. Finishing product. A fence being built. Exhibit R. Finished fence. There's a wooden retaining wall retaining dirt. It's already bellowing. Exhibit S. He's chained the top of the retaining blocks. Now the middle of the retaining blocks are bellowing towards my building. Again, it's anchored from the top. This is not engineered and it's very worrisome to my building to the protection of my building. Exhibit T. This is a finished product. We have some kind of landscaping fence. Some kind of permanent wooden fence structure. One to one slope. And you understand that the zoning permit that you're objecting to is intended to rectify the surrounding out. Well, if you give me my 90 seconds I'll make that point. Exhibit T. Picture date September 26. These are current pictures. Landscaping is done. The fence is done. The retaining wall is installed. And Exhibit U. The present status of the interior of my building. Walls are coming down. The entire building has shifted. I have standing water in my building. And the... So what is being approved for grading is there has to be some type of zoning violation. Historically the redstone retaining wall which was on my property and I have evidence that it was my redstone retaining wall 200,000 pounds of stone was removed without my application or my process. A concrete retaining wall was installed on my property without my permission without a zoning application. That was then removed and now a slope is being built. So by approving this it's wiping out my right to a redstone retaining wall that was mine in existence. I didn't justify to have my redstone retaining wall removed. And that's not before us. What is before us is a site plan that staff has approved. I think we all agree that what you've shown in the photos do not represent what has been approved. So if it's inconsistent there are provisions for you to bring a complaint to the city about it not being in compliance with the permit. The last picture exhibitee is a finished product. That's the way it's going to see that. Chris, Chris, we... the permit is all he's authorized to do. He has a site plan to show the slope and then he needs to construct it to the permit or then he is in violation and there are provisions as you well know for enforcing those conditions. So we understand your dispute. I think we all are sympathetic with your condition. We don't have jurisdiction over that. Bigger dispute is you're approving a zoning permit that creates multiple zoning violations. Okay? So the property which I do not believe you have a right to do. Okay, so that's your position. Our understanding of everything we're approving is not on your property. If there are issues that you have with what's been done on your property I suggest that that's a different application than one before us because right now we're only dealing with what's on the adjacent property. And the photographs you show us we agree with you. They are not acceptable the way they are. We also understand this is not going to be so you can't approve a permit that eliminates the driveway and creates a zoning violation. You just can't do it. That's why there's a condition in the permit for a revised site plan to show that it can be done consistent with the other zoning requirements. If it can't be he won't be able to actually obtain the final permit. So that's why it's conditioned. Can I take a break and maybe have Mr. Alor? Is that how you pronounce it? And if you could just introduce yourself and I think the issue is that there's the expectation that you're going to be doing a regrading on your property consistent with the recommended solution of the soil slope as was in the geodesign submittal. As engineered by Geotech out of Middlebury. They've been on the project since the first year. And basically after the block for removing. Can you move the mic a little closer? Just pull it closer to you. It's on. Closer? That's good. What was the question again? When it's all said and done are you going to have somebody develop a site plan because that was one of the requirements so that we see what the property looks like once this project is filed. And it's my last email from Alan at the Geotech which was waiting for the sketch plan and I'm developing a line for so that the driveway because it's under review for a building and back. We're almost there. So once he gets that and there's some issues with Vermont Gas with respect to the eastern portion of whatever we do. Retaining water, no retaining water. I don't think there's any water in the water. I think there's some stakeholders that haven't chimed in yet. I need a little more time. I think the site is stable for now. I can produce documents. I don't think there may be some disagreement about how stable the site is right now. I think there's some disagreement about how stable the site is or is not at the moment. So I guess do you have any idea when the, I think Scott, do you need the site plan? I presented a plan for over a month on what the conditions of going forth are. It's a matter of gaining consent of the stakeholders involved. Going forward with the plan. Do you have the plan, Scott? I don't have a revised site plan. Is it Mr. Alor? I think you were waiting on finalizing some plans for another building on the site before you submitted. Yeah, for two and a half years. Sir, let me just stop you right there. The city is recognizing this is a public hazard that you need to address. We're not going to wait for you to design a new building to benefit yourself to resolve this problem. You need to submit a site plan to correct it so that the solution, we all are clear on what the solution is. We're not going to have any private interests to land in the right spot. You need to submit a site plan soon. What's the question, sir? When will we see a site plan that shows that this can be done consistent with what you've otherwise proposed? What do you mean consistent with what I otherwise proposed? I don't understand the question. Well, the appellant has raised the issue as to whether or not you can actually grade the slope the way you've proposed and still have a driveway and parking. You need to provide an updated site plan to show that you can do that. So when will we see that? What date will we see that? I'm in the process of doing that. I think I'm at meeting with the fire chief and then I can establish a line and then I can have the engineer work on the proposals. That's what happens. Is that a week? Is it 10 days? I can't answer that question, sir. It's the end of that construction season. It's been a long season. Everybody's busy. I don't have any engineers. I live just south of the corner of Maple St. Paul. It seems like you've had time. Excuse me, but could I finish because you've interrupted me now. You've had time to do a lot of work on this site without finishing the site plan. You can't let me finish the sentence. I'm very concerned about the condition of the site. What's the question? I'd like to have a date by which we will see a site plan that we can put into this permit approval. I'll just ask Scott for details. I'm not sure I see a reason to approve this then. I think you're going to continue to be in violation. That is my answer. I can't tell you any more than that. I've presented my defense. Scott, I have a question. There are some variables that I can't control in this project if you'd listened to me but you've cut me off three times. You haven't allowed me to answer your question. I think you've got two separate issues. You've got to actually have one. There's a lot of issues with the order. It's very complex. Is Kimberly here? Is it City Attorney here? It's complex. I think it deserves more than just this board meeting. I really have a PO to an ombudsman, a third party. I've offered up to $30,000, possibly $40,000 to have someone help me mitigate this. Because it's got some complexities and if you've just started studying this case today, sir, with all respect, you're late to the party. Well, if the geo-design... Thank you very much. The geo-design letter that we have that talks about the solution to this is May 29th. Yes, sir. The date of the geo-design letter is May 29th and that was sent to you. I would respectfully like to stop answering questions at this point. You're right. Scott. Y'all can do it. The standard complies. That forum, you're new and late to the party, so I think when you get all the facts, all you'll get all the facts, the city attorney's appraised. I think the city's been very involved in this for quite some time and we're looking for some answers. Mr. Ayler. I'm asking a question. You're welcome to be done. Is that okay? Have I fulfilled my duty to show up? Scott, I'm asking a question. Thanks. The standard for compliance with the permit is one year. Yes. Do we have the authority to talk about this with Kim? But we have previously put more expeditious timelines on these things. Yes. I do need to make a closing comment as well. I don't think so. Very limited. Go ahead. Terse. I think 90 seconds at the last time. It's like the last time. Respectfully. A closing comment is that my building is open to the elements. It's open to theft. I've got hundreds of thousands of dollars of material in there. And the winter is right around the corner. So there is urgency. I've been waiting for six months for some kind of plan and the reason Mr. Ayler cannot answer your question as to when will a site plan be delivered? It cannot be because there are no physical orientation that can be combined to produce a site plan that fits the rules. For better or worse, I've lived in this city and I've lived with these rules and I know them. Thank you. Close the public area. Oh. Okay. The next item on our agenda is 149 Beaumont Avenue. And we have Mary, we have two applications. This and 10 of the other dress. Yes, both addresses are the same applicant. The University of Vermont and it would make sense to hear them together if it's the board's pleasure. I know the applicants here for these two projects, 2049 Beaumont and 10 University Place. I hope I've been successful in explaining in the two staff reports which came in at different times is that they are interrelated. It seems very well connected. Thank you. Stellar job. I try. Who is going to speak on either of these projects on Beaumont Avenue or University Place to raise your right hand and you swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury. I do. Brad, I need to make a disclosure before we start. Our law firm on rare occasion does limited work for UVM. Nothing related to these applications or really to any of their physical property. I don't think it precludes me from ruling objectively on the applications that are in front of us, but I want to disclose that to the public and to the board in case any last questions. Before we also begin, Mary, could you remind us about the scope of our review in the University institutional. I screwed up the name district. You're referring to the state statute which provides a limitation on municipal review. You have quite broad review here where it's designed that we can't we can't touch. Lighting, parking, offsite parking, screening, those are all eligible for your consideration. And as discussed in the staff report, the parking is a significant issue and it seems you've pieced together a way to address this without having the main institutional parking management plan renewed at this point. We've done our best to do that, yes. Okay, so thank you for reviewing this project. I know it's not an introduction. Thank you for reviewing this project. Oh, okay, I'm Lonnie Raven from the University of Vermont Campus Planning Services. I just wanted to introduce myself, Lonnie Raven, and our team from UVM. This is Keith Robinson from Black River Design, Derek Reed from Krebs and Lansing Engineering, the UVM project manager, Kate Coffey, Anthony Rock from the Transportation and Parking Services, Mike Willard from VHB is one of the consulting engineers and architects on this project. Eric Gagnon from the Larner College of Medicine is also here. That's it. So our plan for today, we can give you a full review of this project or we can just answer questions. I think a general overview would be helpful to put up there and then we can ask questions. We'll do that. I just want to say that we have reviewed staff comments. We accept all comments and we've already complied with some of the conditions and if we need to comply with other ones we are perfectly willing to do that. So we've already given new lighting and stormwater plans to conform with the staff conditions. And we're also requesting the UVM's local parking management plan for 149 Beaumont Avenue. This project it's two associated projects. One is in addition a 62,250 square foot addition to the existing health science and research facility on the UVM campus. The second associated application and associated landscape being we're taking out parking and a green plaza with an area for tents and pathways and et cetera. In addition the associated application is for a 69 space parking lot to the east of the left. So that's the general overview and the architect and the other thing that I wanted to do is to tell you a little bit about why this project is important to us. I'm going to start with UVM. So Eric Gagnon from the college of medicine will say a few words about that. I know maybe because I'm a visual person it would be great to see a site plan up there. We can do that. I'm assuming you would have something like that. Make this thing work. If it's immediate that would be great. We have small plans here but I think we're working on it. Go right ahead. Good evening everyone. I'm Eric Gagnon from the Larner College of Medicine representing the future occupants hopefully of this new research building. So as Lonnie mentioned it's a 62,250 square foot structure. It's an addition to the health science research facility. It's major function is lab and lab support. We have a lot of that in the college of medicine but we don't have a lot of open contiguous space to facilitate what we call the team science approach which allows for principal investigators and their teams to collaborate on various interests. Right now the way we're doing that is in segregated space in older buildings. So it's a little harder for those teams to interact and this building will facilitate that process. So it looks like we're still having some technical difficulties. One question. There's something I think in the application that spoke about most of the people occupying this building are already on campus. That's correct. So most of all of the occupants are in the Larner College of Medicine primarily located in the given building and in the health science research facility. So it's a magical swapping from one building to another to facilitate their research. And I'm just asking this for a moment here from the site plan is the main entrance to this building changing with this addition? I was just noticing the circulation patterns and the... We're adding a new addition so there's a new entry for the addition but the existing entry to HSRF is staying the same and you'll be able to access the new addition from both entrances. That's correct. Can I ask a question about the parking? I was going to suggest we talk about that at the site plan off. So I just wanted to clarify the new lot in your building is sort of like uphill of that jug handle where you can see the East Avenue intersects. How do you access that parking? I think I understand it in the site plan but just explain it for everybody. The entrance is from Beaumont Avenue that's off of Main Street that leads to the hospital. So right now there's an entrance on the right to the Jeffords East lot and from that lot there's an entrance to the Jeffords East lower lot. So no entrance off? No additional curb cuts or entrances? No, the entrance will be from an existing parking lot. And the new parking lot is basically screened by the existing trees that are there looks like. There's trees to the east of this spot. Correct, yeah. I mean we haven't done screening and visual studies and everything but it's quite likely that the existing trees which we're not touching will do some kind of screening. It's also not a very obvious place because it's between the parking lot and the trees and when you come up Main Street there's topography in the way so it's not going to be a really glaring anyway. There's no new landscaping being proposed. Yes, there will be trees around there. We're getting closer. Yes, we do have trees screening the lot itself. Next to the lot. And we're also removing the now defunct wind turbine there. Yeah, unfortunately the technology changes and that was put in 15 years ago. So it's not working and we can't fix it. So the trees are along with that bioretention sway. Correct, yes. Can you just talk a little bit about the parking you're losing. Is that used right now by students? I'm told no, it's not used by students. So you're building management planet and it sounds like you need 183 spaces for the new use. You're taking out 120 something plus the 60 additional that you need. According to the comprehensive development ordinance, yes. Correct. And I understand you're building another 60, almost 70 and then you've got a proposal for another 200 offsite. It doesn't seem like those additional 200 are really well positioned to serve people who are currently using that lot. And maybe you could just speak to me a little bit about how that works because I'm struggling with that. So I'm going to give you an overview and Anthony can give you many more details than I, but in general parking is a campus-wide part of infrastructure. So the transportation and parking divides it up but in general we are giving the opportunity for residential students who do not access their parking on a regular basis to go to the offsite, the remote parking. That frees up parking in other places, not where the new building is. So that's what frees up parking all around because when somebody wants to go to building A or building B they don't necessarily park right next to their building. I get that and maybe we can get more details. When I've been up there there are zones and colors and need to have the appropriate pass to be in the appropriate lot. So am I understanding then that you are essentially kicking students out of how many spaces, but to make room for the other faculty and staff spaces that you need to now replace because you are losing those. Again, my name is Anthony Rock, I'm transportation parking University of Vermont and what Mr. Hange has said there is exactly correct is that with this project we've already started the process. Currently we have 100 students that are waiting for the offsite lot to be ready for them which is not quite done yet. So we have them in some of the empty spaces that we have on campus currently and by the end of October 100 students will already be transferred down there to free up space for this project and then the rest will move down there when needed when the project actually starts just that we had the 100 spaces extra on campus for them to let them be on campus while they could and when this project does start the plan is that move and the other students that need to at that time based off from our current average block counts to make it sufficient enough for the space loss to have the displaced faculty staff move into a different area of green spaces or a different zone because as you also mentioned there's many zones on campus, colors, we've even shifted some of those colors to make it easier to have this transition happen. And that you're referring to the 200 spaces that you least saw site in that lot is that what you're referring to? Yes, you're up down on Pine Street. It's in the application if you haven't read that yet. If you've been to the Burlington Farmers Market near where we always are it is the space that's behind that. They have clarity of forest. We're just waiting on proper information from there. If I may, there's a disadvantage in this board review in that the staff report has not provided them that analysis of our of UVM's annual reporting to update the joint institutional parking management plan and that information was something we detailed year by year for the Design Advisory Board. I opted to exclude it because it was heavy in detail that the limited parking management plan that Ms. Raven was providing would be sufficient. I can augment your information tonight that Lonnie and I looked at the last four years annual reporting. It reflects the ongoing construction at the university where some parking lots were taken offline and that included the parking lot for the Chindenbuckam Willis which had 80 to 90 parking spaces and that went offline during construction and now that will become available. It had been identified as residential parking. Mr. Rock I certainly wouldn't put words in your mouth but my understanding is that's one of those locations that may be utilized towards this parking demand while residential student parking is now relocated to that offsite location so I'm incorrect in that understanding. I hope you'll correct me but the synopsis that I gave you didn't involve the annual reporting for where those spaces were and how that was going to change. The other disadvantage of course is the joint institutional parking management plan does not have the five year component from UVM at this point. Typically projects like this would have been incorporated into it. They would have been very narrowly at their parking management where this plan may not encompass everything that's going on in the university and doesn't reflect the ongoing construction that has changed the parking availability. But this application has to maintain sort of a net zero so to speak. The applicant has to resolve those parking issues with this application. Correct. The institutional plan will be updated. What we should expect for that because it is challenging. You've had a number of big projects. I appreciate the detail you've provided and the answers to each individual project. It is hard to get a campus wide field particularly with all the ongoing construction. You have major construction over at the gymnasium as well which I assume has resulted in the loss of some parking spaces because they all fit together as hard in one small application. I can address that a little bit. The joint institutional parking and management plan is due for a five-year update due to issues that are not connected to this project. It got delayed. So Katma usually prepares that with input from the university, and Champlain college. So there were some issues around that and we're hoping to give you a 2020 to 2025 plan in January or February. And so Katma and the institutions are working on that. Meanwhile we have this project. So for example the multi-purpose event center was reviewed in the context of the joint institutional parking and management plan which had taken that project into account. This one is the first time that we've ever had to submit or the first time in my experience that we've had to submit a project without the benefit of the campus-wide parking view. However we still treat parking as a campus-wide amenity. So that's why even for this centralized parking and management plan you know we have components that are campus-wide. I think we've resolved our technical problems. So now Keith will talk about the site plan and circulation and those kind of things. Where the project is and how it sits within the wider campus. So the project site is right here just to locate everybody. Main street is out here. This is the Jeffords building. The water tower that everybody is aware of is right here. So we're building an addition just north of the water tower. And as Lonnie said we are right now this entire area is all parking and we are taking over a portion of that parking area for the building addition and we're also creating some green space for the existing main entrance to HSRF given and the new addition. Just trying to create a better entry experience. Provide some green space for a tent for college medicine events and things like that. So this is looking at it a little bit closer. Again this is the addition here. We are creating some paths. We're maintaining the drive in and turnaround. So we're going to go right through parking access to either come off from Beaumont Avenue or Carrigan Drive over here. So there will be no dead end parking with the ability to have the loop through parking. But we are leaving all the parking that is in this portion of the site here. What else would you like to hear about? Back to Beaumont for the other parking area. The Jeffords Eastlaw? Yes. I have a question for you on that lot. What's the elevation of that new lot relative to the existing lot? We have our engineer on hand who might be able to address that. I'm just approximate. Is it about the same? It's about five foot lower. But the bank of trees that are there, east of that stays where they are. Right here the clouded area is that bank of trees that remains. So we'd be building to the west of that bank of trees. Interesting about the lights in the car is that there? Absolutely. And the question before about whether there's new access onto the road or anything. This is the access to this new parking lot off the existing Jeffords Law. So all traffic to this new parking area would be off the existing Jeffords Law. This is the annual parking area. I just want to note one thing that the stormwater reviewers asked for some additional stormwater onsite treatment. And that's what we didn't have in the out of date plan. And that's what we do have in this new improved plan. Is that what those bio retention areas are? That's a response to that. Yes. I always feel like we should give you a lot of brain power here. This is a rendering looking from the existing given HSRF entrance back towards the addition. So this is the HSRF existing building right here. The new addition here which is much in keeping with the HSRF building. And then the water tower in the background. And this is the new green spaces planned to be created. And the existing parking that remains over along this side here. This is the east elevation of the building. You can see given in the background here the main entrance of the building. The existing HSRF building here and the addition in the foreground. And this would be the south entrance and there was a question about whether we were creating a new entrance to the building. There's an existing entrance on the south end of HSRF now. We're basically just moving that 50 or 60 feet to the south and maintaining that same entrance. Making it a bit more prominent. A site wall here to screen the loading dock area and handicap accessibility of this sloping 1 and 20 slope. But materials are very consistent with the HSRF building. We're actually building a penthouse in this area that will screen the existing penthouse. Is that the reason for the sloped roof? That is. The penthouse goes out to about here. And just to unify that all into one piece we have this sloping roof that takes it down to the top of the fourth floor level. Good. Any other questions from the board that I think we need to see? I think a lot of people sometimes object to the more modulated elevations of the building. But I think it looks quite good and I think it works well on the campus. There's other places to put a spectacular or something. But I imagine you'll find that at some point on campus. And I think other people would want to speak. So maybe we can step away for a minute and we'll have a... Thank you. Councilor Busher. My name is Sharon and I'm a councillor for Ward 1 and this is in my ward. I had separated out my comments for the two applications but I'll try to... So there's overlap obviously. So my experience goes way back with the university and developing on the hill and how the storm water runs off and erodes and impacts Centennial Brook and it's in your packet. All of what I saw from staff was contingent on approval of the storm water plan. It talked about different... and there was a response from DPW regarding the quality of the proposal was and I'm only regurgitating because this is not my world that there are different tiers now. Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3. Tier 3 being the least effective. Tier 1 being the most and UVM's proposal was Tier 3 and they were hoping that they could work towards a higher tier. I don't know where that permit process really is. I don't know if it's finalized or not. In the information I saw online it had not been finalized from DPW so I really can't speak to it but I am concerned about storm water runoff from not only the parking but the added building and I know that that has been a concern and has been a problem with being the impact being under anticipated I guess I don't really know what to say. I also know I didn't see where sewer was part of your purview but it's really important for me because in the past sewer can either go to Main Street, go to the Main Plant or go to the East Plant and if it goes to the East Plant then that has an impact that's on Riverside Avenue and so I think it's contingent to understand that added lab space you need to deal with that and it's really important for the city and I'm sure DPW is looking at that but I would really like to understand that that has been addressed and I did not see that address anywhere. So the quality of the material that's been treated? So it's the size of the pipes actually that take the sewage from one site down to Riverside there are different size capacity pipes and they change in diameter and so I just want to make sure that we have the capacity and the infrastructure so that's all so that really is one of my major concerns really is stormwater runoff and the issue regarding sewage I looked at where the parking lot is going to be and I couldn't figure out how many trees were going to be removed in order to accommodate those additional 69 spaces so I just you know I'm really taking the climate crisis to heart I didn't need a 15 year old girl to make me take it to heart so I think long and hard about removing trees that are of size and replacing them with twigs and I just want to understand what we're doing and if we have to do what we're doing I think there needs to be more creativity and more thought in this job and when we make approvals and understand that we are eliminating some of the very structures that help clean our air so I'm not joking about that I do know let me see let's see sorry I wasn't at the planning commission because I've been following the inclusionary zoning which went from city council to planning and I was there when there was a draft of the 5 year parking plan by the university brought forward but then it was pulled back because apparently there was a realization that there were there was a parking deficit and there needed to be more work on that but there was a draft plan that planning did have not long ago I like you like has been raised are concerned about if you are eliminating 121 spaces and creating 69 yet what is needed for the project what I understood was 183 I may not be right there but that's what I thought was stated I'm really not quite clear I understand the shell game I understood what they said they're moving students to one location to free up spaces and move people around but the people that park on top of the hill park there for a number of different reasons and I don't know ultimately how many spaces on the hill in totality do we have currently and how many spaces that are university not medical center will we have at the end and I'm talking like from the Davis center over because I think that's really germane people park there for ball games people park there for basketball all ball games basketball, baseball you know whatever and I wanted to also understand there were some metered parking spaces there which were for visitors and I don't know if any of those are being touched those metered spaces are remaining for people that want to go to Davis that are visitors that use those metered spaces that don't have a permit it's really important for me that represents that area and also wants people want to be able to make that available to people who are coming as guests to have places to park it's really important that we know that that hasn't been disrupted and that's being retained I think that's it so it's really parking and storm water runoff that really are my main two concerns and they've been concerns in the past when UVM or the medical center have done big scale projects and taken up more of the land that ultimately has been used to absorb the storm water and runoff so thank you Mary in the staff report the review by TPW was not complete is that still the case I had initial comments from the storm water engineering program subsequent to that the university provided some revised plans which I forwarded so I don't have final response and perhaps the applicant would like to address those changes we also had revised lighting that corrected those deficiencies so I have some questions about the storm water sewer and also the parking so the the storm water there's two different sides to it the main building itself we were actually reducing it was about a third of an acre the total project resulted in a loss of impervious and that was our approach to the state level that well there's less runoff from our site after the project than before we were issued a state storm water discharge permit on the parking lot I should back up we rely on both of these project sites they drain to the east campus storm water treatment facility which is near the former Sheridan it's a state permitted practice but as Mr. Buescher said it's a tier 3 practice which means it's a wet pond it provides 80% suspended solid treatment 40% phosphorus treatment which is very good but the storm water rules are moving forward to improve water quality so on this project we were adding impervious and in sort of correspondence with the state we first looked at disconnection this watershed currently flows to the main street pond it is not treated to the current standards we looked at modifying the outlet structure ultimately it wasn't going to work we couldn't meet all the storm water treatment practices so we designed this to capture this storm water which previously went to main street and we're going to bring it to our east campus pond so it's a permitted pond it has a capacity we were still a tier 3 practice and we needed to look for additional efforts so the lower third of the existing parking lot doesn't drain to the east campus facility it drains to the main street facility untreated to Centennial Brook so we've designed this site to capture a greater existing parking lot as well as our new parking lot we're going to treat it to the new standards and the state agreed that that approach was acceptable we've had further conversations with the city public works about let's try to do a little bit more on site with the water quality which is why we added the bioretention so that's our storm water approach and those bioretentions were added after the comments on 925 yes they were can I ask you another question on water quality while we're at it are you storing your plowed snow because we have a new problem coming it will go both north and south ends of the site but oftentimes UVM has to remove it my point is you're not plowing it over on top of the bioretentions Wales well I can't say that for sure on that I don't know what their plan would be to be honest I actually almost would like them to because as it melts it will go through the more infiltrative soil I know it's going to be frozen so it's unfreeze but it would provide the benefit of treatment in this case for snow removal we would probably take the recommendations of our engineers to figure out where is the best what is the best way to plow the snow and where is the best way to store it again that's a campus wide question and each parking lot we have to figure out where is the best place to park snow just like everybody else I just want to understand what you're saying the existing upper lot that's draining something that's capturing it and bringing it to the pond it does it currently just drains over the grass eventually gets to east avenue collection system and then it goes to there's two ponds side by side one of them was built for the main street improvements in 90 a long time ago and it's not really up to the current standards and it currently will go to it goes to that pond there's some water quality benefit of flowing through the trees the channel protection the overbank the other treatment standards were not met through that pond so that's why you're routing you're taking half of the existing lawn and routing it to the 2017 standard so you're actually providing a net benefit we are providing a net benefit can you make any comment on the concern about the sewer we've been in contact with Steve Roy from Public Works about the project we're still talking about allocations and effort to help with the combined sewer system it's still going through a combined sewer well it goes through the sewer so I plan but it's combined with the whole city there's still discussions on that front we need to have that resolved obviously to get our allocation letter and that's still we've been in conversation and we're comfortable that this is fine we're just going to have the conditions of approval that you get that letter and I guess the other question you had to do with the people who are parking at this side of campus who exactly is getting displaced who's parking there now so maybe Anthony can also give more details about that can I really quickly have some trees we're cutting down about three on the lower parking lot we're cutting down three or four trees as the driveway comes in but we're planting additional row we're not cutting any of the trees on the large so I think there's nine new oaks will be planted as well as some additional spring trees at the south so there's a net gain of trees I just wanted to add like that again Anthony rock Keith can you go to the main given lot please so as you can see where the new building addition is and also where the green space is this is on given lot which is a faculty staff only lot visitors need to park in the adjacent Jeffords lot which means that that is why we have displaced the 100 students and we have 16 additional with our current lock counts for this given lot that will need to create 16 spaces which in the counts from the fall of 2018 when we last did the major lock counts we had 488 empty spaces on campus in the middle of October that drops down about 100 less than that in the winter time due to more people driving and snow taking up spaces so that means that we have more than enough empty spaces and out of those 300 and 26 empty spaces if you take out the winter count the difference there was well more than 16 spaces that were empty in the adjacent Jeffords lot we normally have 50 empty spaces in Jeffords on the average day which gets used for either additional visitors for events or other type things so that would just lower the number of visitors that can park in the Jeffords lot by having 16 faculty staff members in there down to about 30 instead of 50 that we have now so the students that are getting displaced to move down to the least lot where are they coming from they we moved some out of the gutters said parking facility we made that a commuter only lot for the first time so residential students are not allowed to park in there this year for the first time in a very long time we used to have residential students that lived on the athletic campus that were parking over there and so that has freed up space in other lots that are closer by to have people shift over into that commuter lot that used to be over full and our parking enforcement officers used to have to push people into other parking lots so those people in a parking where they were supposed to for the first time in a while and that has freed up the empty spaces in the other lots for some of these faculty and staff and then the rest are going to be filling in in other lots around campus as I mentioned in that zone that we have the empty spaces for but that's why we have these hundred students because we knew that's what we needed right away and then based off from lock counts at the time when this project starts we will displace people to other zones as need be based off from seniority is how you get the core the colors that were mentioned the core green permit is for your longevity that has been the longest so we will not be releasing any more green permits knowing that this is coming up for people that should be due for it and that will create a lot more empty spaces also so there's many aspects that we use and we know that this is coming so we started it this fall and I mentioned all of this stuff to ensure knowing by the spring or by next fall that people will know where their parking is and they're not going to be surprised by this upcoming project May I add another couple of points like I said as Mary noted usually we would have a joint institutional parking management plan which would be campus wide and as I've noted we're still even though we don't have that the university has to treat parking campus wide so this localized parking management plan does take that into account that the parking not only is campus wide but it also takes it to account that these the items that we're doing in this parking management plan will also help us with the more campus wide issues when we get to them so for example in addition to the 200 spaces and the new parking lot we're also we have existing TDM strategies to help people make the transition from a single occupancy vehicle to something else that uses up less space and in addition to the existing TDM opportunities which have been very well documented elsewhere I don't even want to talk about them now we're collaborating with Gotcha Bike City of Burlington for a three city region wide e-bike share which has been shown to take cars offline so some people will use the e-bikes to commute to work and I'm told I'm told this because I haven't seen it with my own eyes that this can be a year round phenomenon and even if people don't want to use the e-bike year round they're more likely to choose something other than taking their car to campus in the winter in addition in addition to that we have the motor driven cycles where we're providing parking for what used to be called mopeds and motor bikes so that will additionally free up other spaces on campus and conservatively parking and transportation has estimated that'll take up another 27 spaces at the very least and that's in the area of this parking plan it would be about 27 spaces what's confusing to me I believe everything you say is you've got 100 students that are moving out but there's no students involved in this current area right now so that's what's confusing to me you've got an area where there's no students parking but your solution for this area is that students are moving sort of imagine there's a domino of people from this end of campus moving towards gutterson to displace those students is that sort of conceptually what's happening that's my understanding Anthony can correct me but yes you're moving students out of one area so employees or commuters that are looking for parking in the general area will say oh there's parking here and it's actually closer or at least the same in terms of convenience so everybody finds their own parking space where they look where it's most convenient first and so they will find parking maybe might be a little bit closer so it's a little bit closer so then that'll free up spaces closer to the addition to the HSRF addition one of these spaces are on the athletic campus we have the university heights area which people park in that are currently faculty and staff and the farthest corner of the Jeffords law is equal distance to parking lots that are across the road from the buildings that these people work in which means that it's going to be a first come first serve process for this zone parking where the people that get there the earliest are going to get the spots that are closest later as I guess in the morning of your arrival time you're going to have to get shift farther away from where your current place of work is and that's what the norm is right now with this zone parking is that they're considered the same zone and like I mentioned it's equal distance from the far corner of the Jeffords law to places that are across the street walking wise did I understand you to say that you're going to reduce the visitor parking in that Jeffords law no, it's staying the same these are things for events my position is actually the events coordinator and with our average daily law counts right now we have about 50 empty spaces on the average day in that Jeffords law so like this upcoming Thursday we have the installation of the new president and then Friday kicks off parents family alumni weekend so I am putting 50 people in that Jeffords law that don't park in there that is a faculty staff law that we currently have empty spaces that we left empty knowing about this upcoming project and other projects that were on campus that have needed to utilize the spaces and now that some of these projects being done such as the stem project and others that have already been completed the faculty staff has started to come back into these empty spaces but they know that this project is upcoming they're going to have to go bump back farther out so for now we have the space but I know that my job is not going to get any easier on campus as events coordinator with following the things and that's what I do is I find the empty spaces seems like just my experience I live close so I normally walk but the time or two I've had to drive up there for an event there's not a lot of parking for large events that you have at the student center there hasn't been there is right now because of this upcoming project we've positioned ourselves on the average day we currently have in the main lots we have about 175 to 200 empty spaces I've been coming up in two weeks and I'm parking 175 attendees in an event right on campus between four core lots that I know have empty spaces in it I've just got one more question in the parking so as I understand the local parking management plan it's got all proposed requirements we're going to view those as conditions for the approval so it seems like there are some that might be out of your control I just want to understand that like the e-bikes sounds great we'd all like to see them I'm not sure that it's in your control as to when that actually happens but as I read this the approval of the project is conditioned on that occurring so that if it doesn't you would have to meet us with a revised plan in order to address that we believe you're right we don't have complete control of it we believe that will be resolved within by next spring we would like that to be a condition of getting a certificate of occupancy so that we can start the project and we believe it'll be resolved by the time we're ready for occupancy just another thing that I wanted to add about event parking in the evenings typically that's a different story because then the commuters and faculty staff leave and then it's a different system of parking for events so that also works and I just want to have people understand that transportation and parking services they count I think on a daily basis lots yeah we don't count every lot every day but we count almost all our lots and that's how I know based off from those lot counts which it is not a machine it is our enforcement officers that walk the lots we have four of them on shift at peak time and they all have a section of campus that they count and the busier lots is the ones that we count a lot of those resident student lots and some of those outlying ones that we call parking lots but have 15 or less spaces they don't generally count those because they're always full on the average day so it's not to the best of their time to count those lots that we know are full so we're trying to give you information that's based on fact I just wanted to make that point you ever I had one question which the number of meter parking spaces will they remain the same that was my question yes Jeffridge lot is not being touched the visitor section of that is not being touched we use the park mobile lab now so they are actual meters but it has the same number of spaces that we've always had there is just now using the park mobile lab or the kiosk for paying for your parking I think is there anything else you want to add mine no I'm coming back here in case you have more questions I think we're good okay thank you close this we do have another item on our agenda patiently waiting excited to see everything this is 3173 north avenue and I see the app is anybody else here for 3173 north avenue I'll swear you in want to raise your hand do you swear to tell the truth of the pain and penalty of perjury thank you so this is an application to rebuild on an existing footprint and I think staff is recommending approval continuance Brad if I may the recommendation was for continuance but as you saw earlier this week we had a revised site plan that was submitted to address the driveway location configuration yes that was site plan submitted today that was where it was either yesterday or today it's been posted online it was included in your pack I believe and that addresses the concerns Scott that addressed the concerns about the location yeah the primary concerns yeah it's a very nice project there any comments you want to make on it yeah it's we've been at this for about a year and a half now and it started as a much bigger home and didn't feel right so we sort of scaled it back to this sort of more modest impact on the property it's been a fun job and we're excited to do it great neighborhood does anybody on the board have any questions for I do think it was a very nice design on that site and you're well above the flood plain 107 is your floor elevation finished more so yeah it's a little tricky getting that to look nice and be elevated like that so thank you yeah and we're going to one other comment we started the process and had its owning poster on the house for about 35 days now 35 days tomorrow and the house isn't really it's not your fault obviously that we've dragged our feet getting this to this stage but this house really is ready to come down it's every storm another part of the roof presiding is in Charlie's boat house yard and we're gathering things so I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to come up with a 30 day appeal period to be waived I don't know how that this board can't waive the appeal period as I mentioned to you and you had asked this question by way of email so if no one testifies orally in writing I think that's the case I'll confirm then you the applicant can waive your appeal rights and pick it up within the appeal period cause no one else can file an appeal and no one else has standing for an appeal so is that a request excuse me is a request I think that's something we would pick up as part of our deliberative we have a form for doing that we do is that something we we're not doing anything just have to approve it or deny it and then he can appeal it or not it sounds like did you follow that it sounds like you're gonna talk about it let me know then I am closing the public hearing here and that is our last item on the agenda so we are adjourned