 Okay, welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018. First item on agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures. If there is an emergency and we have to evacuate, we'll meet in the South parking lot, which is this one right behind the store. The exit doors are the ones that you entered through, or these two doors right here. So we've got several means of egress from the building. Next item on agenda, additions, deletions, changes in the order of agenda items. Are there any additions, changes, deletions? None. Comments, questions from the public, not related to the agenda. No comments or questions, not related to the agenda. And thank you very much for passing around the sign-in sheet. It's very important that people sign that because if you don't sign it, you're not here for purposes of being involved in future discussions. Announcements. Next item on agenda, any announcements? Happy New Year. Fifth item on the agenda, continued final plan application SD17-28 of JAM Gulf, LLC, to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into 11 lots ranging in size from .37 acres to 45.03 acres at Golf Course Road. Who is here for the applicant? David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates on behalf of the applicant. Thank you very much for being here, David. So the board, last time we talked, we discussed two things. First item was, the first item that's listed on the staff comments is deliberate on the issue of other trees removed for golf course maintenance purposes needed to be replaced on a caliber by caliber basis, the deliberation we just talked, we just deliberate. So answers yes, and we have a, we have language for the revised condition model already, would you like to read that? So the applicant proposed language that allows tree removal for the health of the surrounding golf turf, the language the board has agreed upon is allow tree removal for the health of surrounding golf course with site plan approval of the zoning administrator and or city arborist. And then the other change was to amend the last sentence of the proposed condition which says to replace the trees on a caliber by caliber basis with trees of the same genus or as recommended by the city arborist of at least two inches caliber each. So for example, if an elm gets diseased, we don't want to put another elm in there. I'm sorry, Chair. If an elm gets diseased, we don't want to put another elm in there. Understood. So that's the recommendation. Second item on the, in the packet is the, we agreed to reduce the width of a portion of the road. And we have agreed that we should go ahead and do that. Okay. Very good. Okay. Other comments, questions from the board, staff, from the public, comments, questions? We do have one. We had a chance to meet with Mr. Provost. He is the neighbor on the south side of the proposed roadway into the project site. We did note one thing on the plans that were inaccurate in regards to a foundation drain from his home on lot 86. We would accept a condition of approval that requires that that foundation drain shown on lot 86 be relocated onto the applicants property rather than being relocated and an easement encumbering his property. So that's just a confession in regards to an oversight on our part. And we look forward to fixing that and moving forward. Great. So will that affect, you will then submit a revised plan. We would be acceptable of a condition of approval that would require that type of work to be submitted to staff. Right. And you guys are comfortable with how to do that and so on. Fantastic. Actually, I did have, I'm sorry. That's all right. On another topic, Mr. O'Leary was here last time. Did you and he talk to each other? We did not have an opportunity to meet. We are going to be doing some staking to identify where the property lines are in the roadway and things of that nature. So he will have a better understanding of how far his property does go back towards the applicant's property. But any discussion, any flexibility about moving the foot print of? There was no discussion on that. So your intent is to further explain not to change what you're doing. That is great. At this point in time. Is he here with us tonight? I guess not. All right. That's right. Good memory. That was great. And attention, motion to close. We already asked, there's no comments from the public, right? So there's none. Okay. Motion to close. I moved it. I'm sorry? So the tree plan is that if somebody removes the trees 10 inches in diameter by mistake, they have to replace it of equal size or five, two inch trees. That's my understanding. But there's no monetary costs or penalty if that happens. Other than the five trees? Well, no, I thought that they have to replace, they can remove it upon submission and approval by the zoning administrator and the city arborist. They can't just go and remove it and put it. But my point is, if someone 10 years down the road does understand this concept and renews the tree and the annual inspection determines that it was removed, the record, the consequences, they got to replace it with that size or the number of trees equal to that size. Well, and I thought, again, my memory is not that great. I just happened to read the minutes from this one. There was discussion about forming a homeowner's association to help with the... Management. ...sustaining the enforcement of these provisions. And you were going to do that, right? That is correct. The applicant has stipulated that that is going to be a component of the management hierarchy. So if that were built in as a condition, that would be okay. That is correct. Will the two... Will Mr. Provost and Mr. O'Leary, is it... Will they be part of that association or no? I understand from Mr. Provost that he is not interested in becoming encumbered by that association. Got it. I move that we close continued final flight application SD 1728 of Jam Golf LLC. Second? We're moving second. We're closing the application. All in favor, say aye. Thank you for closing the long road. You've been saving that up, haven't you? Next on the agenda, let's see. Item number six, preliminary application, SD 17-29 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to amend the previously approved 258-pan unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase two, Cytermill two of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units. The 142 units will consist of 66 single-family lots, 46 units in two family dwellings, and 30 units in three multi-family dwellings at 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road. Who is here for the update? Paul O'Leary with O'Leary-Bork Civil Associates. Brian Currier, O'Leary-Burt. Brad Dusevich, JJJ. Okay. Correction to the description of the project is not 30 units in three-unit multi-family dwellings. It's 30 single-family units on shared lots. The applicant referred to them as carriage homes and staff mistakenly interpreted that as multi-family dwellings, but they're single-family dwellings on a shared lot. Okay. And always happen. Okay. Thank you very much. Projects of master plan application swear it. Raise your right hand. You promised all the truth. All the truth and nothing but the truth on penalty perjury. I do. Yes. Thank you very much. We've described that project. Bill. Just disclosures. I disclose that I live in Cytermill on Whitesap Lane as I disclosed during previous iterations. Go ahead. Are there conflicts of interest? I live a half a mile away. Please go ahead. All right. So we're here for preliminary plan approval for Cytermill 2. So Cytermill 2 currently has approval for 109 units. It has a valid permit from this board that has a valid Act 250 permit. And maybe we want to flip ahead, Marlar. We can... I'm driving. Any of the plans, I guess. Yeah, I got to get to them. In fact, Marlar had a nice plan where she overlaid the existing approval to Cytermill 2. Plans we got. A lot of plans. Paul, you were thinking of the comparison one? Yeah. I mean, that's okay. I can work off that one up there. It's not a big deal. Towards the bottom, right? I think the comparison might be the master plan piece. It's a little tough looking at it on the screen. So essentially what we're looking at here is Cytermill 1. So this is Cytermill Drive that comes in. It currently ends right here. And this is Wine Sad. And this is Summerfield. Summerfield comes down and ends in the cul-de-sac. Roughly about two-thirds built out of the remaining units in Cytermill. So Cytermill 2, which was originally permitted by the Cytermill 1 owner, basically had a road connection here. And it had a parcel in here that was slated for future developments, but no units were in there. And it had a series of townhouses or condominium units here, similar to this plan. Then it had this single-family layout, which with a few minor changes remains the same. In order to meet the access requirements, we were showing another road was coming out and connecting to Hinesburg Drive. So that was 109 units. Again, it's fully approved. It's got an active 50 per minute. It's got all the state permits. It's ready to go. The current applicant, JJJ, purchased it from the original owners and wasn't that happy about the configuration of the multiple family units in here and then wanted to permit the future area that's there on top of the plan. So we've come back in for sketch plan and now preliminary plan to increase the units from the original 109 to 142. Now, maybe if we can just go to a regular plan, it's maybe not quite as confusing as that. Yeah, that'll work. So between sketch approval. Excuse me. Is there some way to blow it up a little bit, blow out the post section we're most concerned with, which is the new, it's two. You mostly want to look at, right? Mostly two, yes. So really just this section. Do we blow that up good? Pretty good. That shows most of it. So between sketch plan and coming back for preliminary, some of the changes were, when we were here for sketch on this road, we had this road coming out and there was a small loop here with a green area in between. And the board wasn't really excited about that. Suggested that we might look at some configurations. So we've met with staff. We've met with public works who were rather than a hammerhead kind of indicated they prefer it to be a cul-de-sac at the end. So we've come back and designed it as a cul-de-sac to meet the public work standards. And it's freed up a little more open space around it, although some of this area is encumbered by archeology concerns. But we did lose a couple of units, but we had a little bit less road. And public works and staff seemed to like it better than our original plan. We did meet with the Natural Resource Committee as the board requested. And we met with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. And one of the major changes that came out, if you recall last time, we have a 10-foot wide pedestrian path that goes from Heinsberg Road down along this road. And originally, in the 109th unit approval, it just goes down this road and then it ends. And the rest of the walk throughout the project is just conventional five-foot wide concrete sidewalk. At Sketch, we proposed that we continue that path down through this green space and loop it over here to a possible future connection with the city-owned parcel to the southwest. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee wasn't all that crazy about making that connection. One, because we had to cross the wetland with a boardwalk. And the State Wetlands Division doesn't like the boardwalk to be any more than four feet wide. They'll let you go to five sometimes, but no wider. And the Pedestrian and Bike Committee wanted to see an eight- or a 10-foot wide connection across. So what the end of the recommending is that they'd like to see a pedestrian bike path, a 10-foot wide path, that basically goes from our connection here with Site and Mill One, and go all the way through the project and go all the way out to Hinesburg, and then continue through the project all the way through for a future connection to a future possible development on our public piece. So that is what our plans currently show. So we have a 10-foot wide pedestrian connection that runs all the way through to here, and then it runs all the way out to Hinesburg Road. And we are considering a change that staff has recommended, whereas we may come off the end of this. We may change that path and come down this street and come across and connect. We'll talk about that a little bit further as we get through the staff notes. We had a slight reconfiguration of single-family lots. The lots were fairly small. Some potential buyers expressed concerns with how small the lots were, so we did a little reconfiguration of the lots. We ended up dropping four of the single-family lots. So same configuration, roads the same. We just spaced them out a little bit, so they were slightly bigger than what they were before. Are the lots all going to have at least a five-foot sideline set back on the individual lots? Yes. We have a number of wetland crossings, one here, another up here, one on this side street, and those crossings, we've actually don't have one on the top. We have one here and one here, and we've changed all those crossings to be 18-foot in width. And those are the major changes that we've done since Sketch. I'm having trouble distinguishing between pedestrian path and road when I look at this thing. Yeah, well, we're looking at a pretty big scale. If you zoom into some of the individual sheets, you can see where the pedestrian path is and how it goes. But it's following the same course as the road? Yes. Yeah, typically there's a five-foot green space. There's the edge of the road, the curve, a five-foot green space, and then the ten-foot wide pedestrian path. And then the road? Road, five-foot green space, path. Then pedestrian path. And to reiterate the area at the top, there was originally specified, as shown in the overlay that Marla had nicely done, to show that it had always been planned for future development. And so this is just implementing what was already noted and permitted in terms of density for that space. That's correct. You said the upper corner was encumbered by archaeological concerns. What do you mean? We've done, as part of the Act 250 permit for the existing 109 units, we had to go out and do a number of archaeological searches on the property. So we did phase one studies. Basically they plowed the field and looked for artifacts. There are a number of places, particularly in this area, that they discovered some artifacts. So we did a phase two study. The phase two eliminated some of the areas, some consideration, but there's an area left that's in this area right in here, you know, close to this wetland area, that they have not yet cleared. That they basically told us, if you want to clear that area, you have to go to the next step and do a phase three study, or you can elect not to impact that area and leave it as it is. And that's what we've chosen to do at this point in time. But is there still room for people to move around in that open area? Sure, you can certainly walk and use that open area, but, you know, we couldn't excavate it. We couldn't change the landform. That's currently out there. Was there anything there besides swamp? Well, it's been a cornfield. You know, that's a low drainage area. You know, that comes down through the property. So it's a relatively low quality wetland. And not so nice for walking through, for example? Depends on the time of the year. I mean, if you went through there in August, you could go through in your sneakers and not get wet. If you tried to go through there in March or April, you'd better have your boots on. All right. So, would you like to... I mean, it looks like there's only one comment in the staff notes. If you'd like to step us through. It looks like you've got some waivers requested. You want to do the master plan first, or do you want to do the preliminary? We have two separate items. Master plan. So, originally, when the 109 unit was approved, because of the small lot size that was approved, we asked for waivers. And those are listed at the bottom of sheet two in terms of the maximum building coverage, maximum overall coverage. And there was a front yard setback for the multi-duplex buildings that we were proposing. And so, we are proposing to keep those setbacks and also apply those setbacks to any of the two family homes that we're proposing, the duplexes. So, it's right up there. So, all the items that say requested for 2,000, that's really what you're talking about. Correct. It's already been granted for the single family. Correct. Okay. It's a bit of an administrative thing. There was some communication. I don't exactly know what happened, but the applicant requested these waivers for multi-family. In the LDRs, multi-family are regulated differently than two family homes. So, in order for these waivers to apply to two family homes, they have to be explicitly granted. The 109-unit plan had four plexes and larger buildings. They didn't have duplexes. So, that was multi-family. Now we've come back. Our largest structures are duplexes. Board, comment, questions on granting this waiver? Sounds good to me. Go comments, questions. Okay. Other staff comments? It looks like shift the alignment of Aurora Road, Russet Road, previously shown, East West Roadway. Doesn't really look like staff have any comments or questions. I certainly don't have any comments or questions on this. The changes to the master plan look fine to me. Comments, questions from the board? Additional comments from the applicant? Before we open up to the public? No, we're all set. Okay. So, public comments on the master plan? We're going to go to the preliminary plat, which will be more specific in a second. But if there are any comments or questions on the waivers, that's really the controversial item, not controversial. It's the item being requested in the master plan application. And we'll go on to the site plan application in just a little bit. Any comments? Go ahead, please. Identify yourself. The traffic study, is that in the preliminary or in the master plan? Traffic study. I was going to put them in. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments, questions on the master plan? Oh, yes. Go ahead, please. I'm just reading the actual wording on the agenda. This is number seven at this point. This is number seven. You're right. Yep. Master plan. Okay. I think they addressed what they were talking about, the setback for duplexes, but this refers to revising roadway layout and increasing the number of units. There's a mistake. The connections that are on there, number seven ties to the preliminary plat, but says master plan. And number six says preliminary plan. And what it ties to, the document it ties to, is the master plan. So theirs is reversed. So if you're looking for the master plan, look on your computer, for instance. SD 1709. Yep. The PDF should say 1729. So is anything on this agenda referring to what we're talking about right now? Item number seven. Item number seven, master plan application. Yeah. That's right, right? Item number seven. So that's what we're talking about. My apologies for getting that wrong. So next we're going, once we're finished up talking about the master plan, we're going to switch over and talk about the preliminary plat, which is item number six on the agenda. So the part that's written in number seven, is referring to revising the roadway layout and increasing the number of residential units, should not be there? Is that what you're saying? On the written agenda. What they were just talking about, setbacks for the duplexes, doesn't seem to be, doesn't seem to reflect what is written here on the agenda. Right, so item number seven on the agenda is what we were just talking about. Apologies, because next we're going to talk about item number six. But they're both the same project though. It's just two different processes. So right now we're talking about the master plan process, and then afterwards we're going to talk about the preliminary plat process. I understand that. What they were addressing though, was asking for a waiver, in terms of the amount of setback for the duplexes, because all they had was a waiver that allowed it for the multifamily. Yes. So is that reflected in the writing of the agenda item number seven? Yes. It talks more about roadway layout. In these staff comments for agenda item number seven, it talks about those requested waivers. Not every aspect of an application needs to be described in the agenda description. Master plan automatically allows waivers. So when one reviews a master plan, waivers is something that's one of the topics that's addressed. So it doesn't need to be specifically described in the description. But if you object to the waiver, you could speak up now. Do you object to the waiver? Yeah. To being five feet? No. I was concerned about the five feet, because I hadn't seen this chart. But in fact, the waiver, the setback you're looking for, is you're not looking for a five foot waiver. You're not looking for a five foot setback anywhere, are you? Minimum rear setback. The last one there. Minimum rear setback is five feet. Oh, I see. I see. Yeah, do you object? I mean, you're free to object. It's under discussion now before we move to the preliminary plan. And you're free to say whatever you want about it. My only concern was it was written as being discussed and seemed to be being discussed. I think as Marlon explained, that's just a short note about the general topic. The important thing to look at is master plan. If we're discussing the master plan, then in the context of the discussion of a master plan, the waiver request is one of the things that is considered at that point. So that's what's been brought up. We're now at the public comment part of the discussion. If you object to or have something to say about the waiver itself and not the fact that we're discussing the waiver, then please let us know what your concern is. Or any other elements of item number seven. Including the roadway layouts that are mentioned and so on in the agenda item notice. You're not restricted to the agenda either. You are restricted to what's encompassed by a master plan so you can say whatever you want about it. My only question is, since you're talking about the road layouts and whatnot and the master plan, are we still allowed to talk about the extension of Cider Mill Road on the next discussion or can that only be discussed on this? If I were you, I'd speak up. I think we've sent most of our discussion points tomorrow already. Can you identify yourself first? It's Jack Darlan. Thanks. 104 winds up. We feel that the extension should be made, especially with the additional units that they're looking to propose with the additional traffic. I can talk more about the traffic study once we get to that portion, but I just don't want that issue to be closed when you close out the master plan. So residents still feel that it needs to be added? Right. So there will be discussion on the traffic study when we get to Plimmeria and Platte. But this may be a good time. Is this the only time to discuss the roadway layout, changes the roadway layout? Okay. So we can discuss the roadway layout in the Plimmeria and Platte. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself. May I ask about the road layout? Specific question. And please identify yourself. Yes. Paul Meinorf. We're at 159 Summerfield, the house right next to where the road is going to go. There's about 30 feet from the edge of our house to a ditch, a drainage ditch. Now you're going to put an 18-foot road, a 5-foot green area, and a 10-foot bicycle path all in that space. That means the road or the bicycle path is going to be like 5 feet from our house. And I'm not sure if that's a problem. I would object to that. I mean, this is the place to do that. The other question I have is, I know in previous discussions, the builders have removed a couple of the houses to make a wider space for the wildlife. But then you're going to put a park area and a fenced-in water catchment. That's going to severely impede the wildlife corridor. So even removing the house doesn't resolve that problem. So I mean, those are two issues that I would raise at this point. Let me ask you about the first. Are you saying the road or the bike path, whatever, is 5 feet from your property line or 5 feet from your physical house? Well, I don't have a property line. I mean, it's all commonly owned property. What do you mean? It's just that the space from the house, the 159th suburb field, which is the first house south of the road. Maybe if you showed them, which one you're talking about. Are you talking about this thing over here? It's right there. This is our house. There is a drainage ditch here that's quite deep, and I don't know what they're going to do. So if you put a road and the 5 foot and the 10 foot road, that's going to be very, very close to the house. I mean, it's more than a sidewalk. It's a public thoroughfare. What is that distance, Bob? Looks like it's hard to tell. That's 10 feet. That's probably about 15 feet. I'll leave it in the right way. So you can see the bike path is 10 feet wide. So basically it's probably about 15 feet from the edge of the bike path to the edge of his house. He probably has a 10 foot setback from this right-of-way property. Which is pretty standard. That's what he is, 10 feet. The ditch is going to get reworked. You can see the regrading on the plan that he's describing. A portion of it, yes. You can see right where the cursor is right there. That's part of the ditch, yeah. And so we're going to be reworking that ditch and filling it. What about the question of the park area and the fenced-in water catcher? I think that may be part of the preliminary plan. It is part of the preliminary plan. Please bring that up again when we get the preliminary plan. Yes. Please identify yourself. Frank has a question, too. I'm looking at what he says. He says he has no luck. Is this a condominium? Is this a condominium? These are so-called footprint lot? That's correct. Is it in fact a condominium? Single-family carriage homes. Good. But it's a condominium. So the association owns the land under the buildings, correct? That's correct. Good. Thank you. Go ahead. Please identify yourself. Hi. I'm Dorothy. I'm 79. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding the road coming in there. Can I add a cutout to make the road narrower at that spot? Am I reading that correctly? Here? There. Yes, that's correct. That's where we're crossing the wetland. And the width of the road has been reduced to 18 feet to minimize the impact of the wetland crossing. Okay. Well, I guess my comment again, too, is that we're making quite a barrier if the goal is to maintain sort of that wildlife corridor that is sort of existing. The road and adding, I'm all for bike paths. I was on the path committee. Shelter started out, so I'm all for it. But we are making quite a barrier there by having that kind of width. So my question is, is why can't we narrow the road, which would also inhibit people from using this as a cut-through from the two neighborhoods, which is kind of an issue for the whole Siwa-Mell want. Why can't we narrow that road access so it really slows people going through there and even if there's a bike path there? I'm just saying, that's the la-hi-la pavement right there, too, for maintaining a wildlife corridor. So I would suggest making a choke point to really discourage the use of this as a cut-through. So it's already 18 feet. You're saying, like, make it... You know, I don't understand connectivity, but I'm like, if the goal is so that we're not having people making this a cut-through from 162 doors and also the whole neighborhood using this la-hi-la, it's easier to go to the school if we cut through that area. We psychologically kind of slow down the traffic, discourage it by making it less convenient, by narrowing it to a narrow road. So is this the most narrow? Is this the narrowest it can be? Yes. So 18 feet is the narrowest it can be. But it is narrower at that point that goes over the wetlands. That's 18 feet. 24. Then why don't we continue with 18 feet being the... go for the most narrow? Don't fire tricks need a certain turning radius and that's probably the reason why. They do need a certain turning radius, but that's not the reason why. Can we look at that? I mean, why use more road if we don't need it, right? Why can't we discourage it, slow it for both neighborhoods' sake? Sorry, did you like to address that? This kind of bridges into the plenary plant discussion, but we can go ahead and this can be the last on this topic. Then we will take it up in the plenary plant. Go ahead. All the roads in 701 are 30 feet wide, curvy curve. The roads in 702 vary from 18 feet to 26 feet. Any place that we plot a molten flame, a duplex or a single family home, 26 feet wide, what we consider to be the main thoroughfares tend to be 24, with the exception of the wetland crossings, which are 18. We have a few other roads that basically are there for second access that are 18 feet throughout the entire length or proposed to be that. We don't necessarily have an objection with narrowing up that road, but it's really public works call and this board's call, not ours. So if the board came back and public works came back and said, yeah, we're fine with that being 18 feet until you get to the first unit or something, then that's your call. We have no objection to that. We're basically on the whist and we're basically just trying to correspond to what public works and the fire department is requesting of us. Just to clarify, I'm sorry, the 24 to 18 was specifically for the wetland. That's correct. You had to go to 18. 18 is the minimum we could go to and the request was that we minimize the impact of the wetland by going as narrow as possible. So any place we cross a wetland were 18 feet. I guess I'd like to come back and settle in my mind at least exactly what the parameters are of the wildlife corridor issue. I'd like to start with this question. What is our authority to address, assuming for the sake of the argument only, that this project would destroy a wildlife corridor? What is our authority to do anything about that? The authority comes under the two criteria that one of which addresses the open space plan and one of which addresses the comprehensive plan. Those criteria are the compliance of the project with the city's open space plan and with the comprehensive plan. Without putting you on the spot, do you remember what they say with a little more precision? Oh, those are definitely in the staff comments. For preliminary? Yeah, for preliminary. Discussion maybe for preliminary since it's specifically addressed. I'd like to hear that hashed out a little better. Can we go into it now? Because it's on the... We got one more question. One more question? Yes. I don't know if it's... Is a walkway area the same width or are there different regulations whether you call it a walk area or a bike path? And my other question is does that... does a bike path or a walk area, whichever they put there? Does it have to be adjacent to the road? For instance, could it be separated? There's more land in my direction very well. North. On the other side of that... Ditch. Could it be on the other side of it? Could it be separated? So that the road would be here so that it would be not as close to our home? So that's a great question for a preliminary plan. So let's hold that question again for a preliminary plan because I think that will come up again in that context. So that's a great question for that. Should we close master plan? So do we want to go into wildlife quarters or hold that also for master plan? A preliminary plan. Sorry? A preliminary plan. Let's hold it. Let's close this guy. Let's close master plan and make a motion to close master plan application by JJJ. Yeah. Well, if someone was seconded then I have a question about it. By closing it if we're supposed to be considering roadway configurations in the master plan if we close it before we've settled this issue what's left to talk about about the issue. For example, the lady's concern about moving the separating the walking path we might want to have something more to say about the road depending on how the wildlife conversation comes out. So how are we still free to do anything significant if we have gotten to the end of the master plan discussion? I just wouldn't like to understand that procedure. Yeah, I think Frank makes a good point. You're not supposed to admit new evidence on application that has been closed. So it may behoove us to keep master plan open in order to allow things that are heard on preliminary plat to affect the master plan decision. Great. So that means we should continue. But first we have to deal with the motion on the table. You want to withdraw the motion? I withdraw my second. Then I vote that we continue master plan application mp1702 of J.J. South Browinton LLC for maybe 20. What? Just 20 minutes. I would hope 20 minutes. I don't think so. That is a nice optimistic to January 2nd. February 6th. I make a motion that we continue master plan application mp1702 to February 6th. Second that. Moving second we continue February 6th on favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you. Okay. So next on the agenda this is read preliminary plat application SD17-29 of South Browinton J.J. South Browinton previously approved 258 planning development as previously read. Please describe. Who is here for the applicant? Same folks as before. This is the first time. So please raise your right hand. Thank you so much. So the staff notes are very thorough and very lengthy. So I would suggest that we move through the staff notes and we will hit all the topics that the neighbors have raised so far and a few that they haven't raised. Okay. Thank you. So I'm on page 3 and the first staff item is that staff recommends the board approve the waiver request to apply the previously approved multifamily waivers to the two family homes. Okay. Our next item is at this time staff recommends the board discuss the building heights with the applicant as needed to understand the proposal. So if we look at the plan essentially there's a pump station that's located right here and when site one was designed the pump station was sized and designed to accommodate all the units from site of mill two. And these units flow gravity actually cross the wetland and they flow gravity. So we don't like pump stations one they're expensive to the developer and two they're a long term maintenance cost to the city and I'm sure if you talk to public works they tell you they much prefer a gravity sewer over a pump station. Big maintenance item if you look at public works budget. So in order to get these lots all these lots to flow gravity back across to the pump station this lower road here has been raised approximately five feet. So if you look at the planning profiles you'll see that the finished grade of the road is five feet above existing ground. That's not unusual in my business if you looked at site of mill one or some of the other developments you'll see similar streets where they've been raised or cut in order to make to make the grades work. So all the lots along this lower street basically will be filled to that road grade and basically every time we dig a foundation yards of fill that we need to find some place to go. If people remember site of mill one there were giant piles of dirt that they eventually had to move. So we have a place as we start building units we have a place to put all that fill. So your regulations state that building height is determined by measuring from existing ground to the midpoint of the roof and will allow 28 feet. Our designs that we have presented are typically 26 feet. So the issue is is that in that road where we're going to fill basically we're filling five feet so we don't want to be allowed 23 feet if those units won't fit. There is a waiver provision that we can come in and we can ask this board to allow existing ground to be measured from the new ground surface and we're going to prepare that application and come in at the next step so what we would intend is along this lower street that we would ask building height to be measured from the final grade. So typically first floor of the units are about two to three feet higher than the satellite elevation of the road. That's typically where we always set them. So with that then we think that we will comply with the building height. By measuring from the top of your new grade foundation. By measuring from the top of the new grade. Not from the top of the foundation. No, from the top of the new grade. And to do that we need to prepare a plan that shows the new grade and we need to file for this permit and this board needs to approve it. We have not done that yet but that's our intention. You want comment from the board? Certainly. I'm in favor of it? It's no brainer? I don't have an issue with it. Just briefly does this violate any principle? With which one is concerned? The purpose of the regulation is so that you don't sell me a lot and I come in and decide I want to be the king of the hill and put six feet of fill on it because I want to seal the top of my neighbors or you know I don't care about blocking my neighbors so you get one guy that's completely out so this prevents that from happening. Well you're getting to my point I mean the only thing I can think of would be view impact on some hypothetical somebody so the question is is there a view impact here on anybody? No. And also we don't consider as a board view impact from private property unless it's a significant view corridor and it's a public way like a... We can consider them as for a waiver. That's always been my understanding about the whole issue of height in this city. Keep in mind that this is a lower section of the development so it's not like we're up high and we're raising it higher. I don't agree with Mark so my question remains. That's never happened before. Is the review impact on anybody? I don't believe so no. Okay how about the houses across the next street? As you go up the grade goes up so these houses are probably I would guess 6 or 7 feet higher than what that lower one is. You're bringing them into houses. For me it's a non-issue. We're going to provide you with a grading plan so you'll see exactly what grade is going to be listed too. We don't see anything to this. Are we looking north and south now? That's correct. To the south is there any concern? To the north is there any concern? Is there anybody down there? I don't believe so no. Okay, thank you. Moving to page 4 we're talking about density in TDRs. Originally well staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant their plan for obtaining additional TDRs and require as a condition of approval that documentation of the all-clear TDRs and the remaining 2060 TDRs be submitted prior to final PLAT approval. So currently between our base density that we have on the parcels and with TDRs that we've bought from the all-clear piece across Hinesburg Road which is a little over 60 acres, we are short 26 TDRs. I think originally we had about 116. 116 and we have 142 units now so we're short 26 TDRs. If you look above in the staff comments it basically says that development rights must be purchased by the applicant prior to the issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 44 remaining of the property's inherent density. So basically that's what we would like the condition to be. Not that we have to produce evidence that we have these 26 TDRs before final PLAT approval but that we have them prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Typically I've seen that final PLAT approval right? I think typically we've required them to show that they have an option or where they're going to get them but you don't actually have to physically purchase them before prior to issuance of a zoning permit is that correct Ray? Yes. Control as opposed to ownership. Right. And it is not prior to final PLAT it is prior to approval. So the board needs to know that the applicant has TDRs and where they're from but we don't typically require them to purchase them until they need them but it wouldn't make any sense to give preliminary final approval not knowing where the 26 are coming from as you'd be transferring 26 from you have no idea where. So we just need the option we don't actually have to purchase them so we're fine with that. Okay Frank? Yeah that's what I wanted to be it's not just where they're coming from we need to know that the ability to obtain them is secure. Understood. I'm sorry? We understand. Alright moving on staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate that they have obtained preliminary water supply and wastewater allocations prior to final PLAT approval we understand that and we'll prepare necessary applications on page 5 talking about open space strategy staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the goals of the open space strategy and as much as they can be incorporated into revisions necessitated by comments on other elements of the design such as storm water or traffic. Further staff recommends that in order to protect the wetland associated buffer areas the board include the following condition which shall also be included in homeowner documents for owners of the lots and dwelling units that no pesticide nor herbicide application within wetlands and buffer areas no mowing in wetlands and or their buffers. Disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities and no planting non-native species in wetlands or their buffers we're certainly fine with that condition of approval. Okay how about the first part exactly first part well a good majority of the open space is wetland or buffer alright so you've kind of dictated what we can do basically we can't do anything we can't mow it you know so that takes care about 70% of the open space A&R is dictated. A&R does the same thing that's correct so in the non-wetland or non-wetland buffer open space then we're proposing we will prepare an open space maintenance plan and that will be part of the homeowner covenants and they will be required to adhere to that plan and do any maintenance or any requirements of that plan states we have not yet developed that plan but we will as we move forward So in response to the comment that the wildlife corridor is narrow the response really is that the wetland is narrow well the wetland and the wetland buffer is narrow through there I mean originally we did site of mill 2 when the 109 units was approved this wasn't a topic I don't believe it it shows on the city's comprehensive plan to conserve that necessarily since we've been back in with the new 142 unit plans we've relocated some of those units that we had close we've basically done our best to give it as bigger corridor as we can through there we've narrowed the impact on the wetlands we've relocated some of the units we've moved paths and essentially you know we feel that this is a substantial improvement to the approved 109 unit plan that we currently have I apologize to you because I know you worked hard on it but I just don't fully grasp what was the condition of a wetland corridor what is the condition of the wetland corridor its importance its scope its width you know assuming nothing that site of mill 2 is not built compared to what happens of site of mill 2 is built I don't have a purchase on that comparison can anyone provide that in a way to be communicated the open space strategy was developed after the master plan for site of mill was approved therefore the open space strategy does not have a specific provision for protection of the land within site of mill what staff is recommending in this comment is that the intent of the open space plan which is to provide wildlife connectivity to be respected considered to take it into account as much as possible during site of mills development with the understanding that site of mill wasn't intended to be site of mill was always planned to be developed because it was approved prior to the open space plan being implemented does that make sense I sort of understand in other words there's nothing explicit about wildlife in the LDR is that correct in the staff comments A4 the project design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetland streams wildlife habitat as identified in the open space strategy so it is discussed in that sense I'd also note that we did go meet as requested with the natural resource explained our proposal and I believe they've come back with a list of recommendations and I think that we comply and their recommendations have been incorporated in some way I believe so, yes when these fellows go speak to these boards these advisory boards why don't we hear something from those boards you have a memo in your packet isn't the packet why don't I read the stuff that's in the packet I'm sure Marla will correct me it's been a while since I've read that portion of it but they weren't asking for any dramatic changes to the layout that we had their primary recommendations were gentle slopes on the roadways so that it didn't create a barrier no guardrail no fences were their primary recommendations and I'd be interested in hearing from neighbors here, I think there are people here concerned with the corridor it's come up at every hearing there have been people concerned enough to show up and I'd like to know whether they understand what's being preserved and what their views are I ask a question as well prior to we getting to the public comment it's in the staff comments the line, there's two lines that I sort of focus on I'm sort of wondering gets the crux of this issue of what we can can't or should do and staff considers that the proposed layout in particular storm on C and storm on B and dwelling units failed to strengthen gaps between existing open space to develop a network or system however the parcels which are the subject of this application were not identified as parcels to be protected and or managed as open space is that part of the overall comprehensive plan or city maps that we're referring to okay it's the open space strategy which is the subject of the condition we actually disagree that storm on C and B don't strengthen the gap between the open space and the units at this point in time we're not proposing to fence those ponds unfortunately I spoke to our stormwater division and in order for the city to take over the stormwater ponds I guess city policy is to fence them which we all don't like including the stormwater division they haven't acquired that in site of mill one which they're about to take over and that's the first time we've heard that formal comment from them that's never come up that we need to show fencing around those ponds but even with the fencing anyone who lives next to a pond in my office is next to a pond there is a significant amount of wildlife that uses those detention ponds they're wet areas they attract a lot of birds a lot of different and to say that that isn't an element that helps it certainly doesn't detract in my view from that open space corridor through there just a comment and amount of opinion I think there's an opportunity to do something like a split rail rather than a very well you can't actually like anyway but yeah something that's very closely spaced which could be at least a partial benefit but right now the city's policy is in order to take over a stormwater pond it has to be fenced which we're working on is that because of liability because they're wet can I ask a question about the general wildlife critters are we talking deer or raccoons opossum what is the wildlife catamons various things were identified in that 2012 Arrowwood study 2002 2012 including bobcats that's all of the above I'm sure there's a wide variety of wildlife that moves up and down through that quarter also discussed were you know small critters and it's not just within the quarter I mean obviously you know people who live around for my national will attest to seeing you know you see coyotes out in the fairways you see deer I mean they're not like ooh I'm not going there in the backyard I'm only sticking to the corridor pretty much everywhere there's lots of confirmed sightings in the last six months of bobcats in people's backyards you know everyone said oh bob we're going to drive all the bobcats out but the bobcats are record populations right now in the urban areas they seem to be adapting pretty well I was just thinking deer can jump everything else can go under so the spurt rail isn't an obstruction bobcats probably attracted all the rabbits that are eating my lilacs yeah alright shall we move on yeah and just on pay in the pack and I was just reading reading again Betty Molissier's memo from the national resources committee and they all of the things that I mean you're going to put signage depicting wildlife crossing at both ends of the connector for example you're pretty much going to do everything that she's got in here correct so and she has 15-ish 20-ish recommendations you're probably not going to where's that letter it's page 140 of 152 the whole package is 152 this is page 140 so if you're just looking at the package for this project the minutes probably take up how many minutes take up five pages so it's probably the fifth to the last page of yeah 142 out of one or one yeah there it is thank you how do you do it like this there's been a few changes on the boardwalk the past committee said ah you know not too keen on the boardwalk so is there is there anything within her recommendations that you're not going to do establishment of a fund probably to address the very last recommendation considered having a development contribute to a fund which may be used for future construction of the roadway should the roadway be deemed warranted in the future but otherwise would be used for other transportation network improvements which may be identified yeah that went on in favor of so what I'd like to see then if you're generally in sync with this let's be specific about the things that you're not going to do and let's build the others in as conditions okay so let's be specific about what you won't do so the balance should remain in its current state obviously we're fine with that provide adequate undisturbed area to ensure no south connect connectivity buffer we believe we've done that boardwalk recommendations are out alright extension of you're not going to do the boardwalk not going to do the boardwalk the path committee rather than the boardwalk would like to see that ten foot wide that was in lieu of the boardwalk you're connected I've got to get the connection all the way through so the boardwalk recommendations portion is out extension of site and mill road recommendations we're not proposing to extend site and mill road this is the section we're talking about that little that's going to become a discussion point to summer field natural resources committee said do not extend site and mill road that's correct they recommended against the extension what were you doing natural resources committee here you're back on the wildlife quarter I'm sure no one from natural resources committee is here tonight are they they're not it doesn't it doesn't seem to say exactly what their reasoning is yeah I would think to minimize the impact of the wildlife yes it was certainly to minimize the impact of the wildlife recognizing that there was an approved connection the 109 units is approved has all its permits that shows the existing connection they didn't figure that the impact on the wetland crossing that's involved with extending site and mill and it's a very large question as to whether we could get a state permit to extend site and mill to because the state's going to ask the same questions why show me why you need a second roadway connection when you have one and so those are all things that the natural resource committee weighed in and making their decision can we go back to the bottom of the previous page there were some recommendations on aurora summerfield summerfield okay so the width of the road should be limited to one lane it's a minimum of 18 feet road to emergency vehicles only that's up to this board I don't think you're going to go with that necessarily which one are we talking about second bullet under aurora no which section are we talking about midfield important to recommend limiting this road to emergency vehicles only so I'm assuming we're talking about the east-west connection between site and mill one and site and mill two so do you want to go up to the map or do that they're talking about this I'm not in favor of that I wouldn't work yep okay we want to flip back yep third bullet thank you height grade in the bank on the road should ensure safe passage of wildlife it's relatively lower as we can now to get a culvert underneath it and so certainly it's not so high now that wildlife can easily get over it structure should be free of guardrails it is free of guardrails as possible the structure should allow for passage underneath of small animals critter crossings 224 inch underneath it science depicting wildlife crossing should be placed at both ends of the connector was certainly fine with that so the last four bullets can be conditions that's correct the critter crossing you're not proposing an explicit critter crossing well no we're proposing the 224 inch culvert so that structure not that structure so you're going to drown the critters and welcome they can swim teach them to swim you know it's tough you can we could put a larger structure in there boxcourts say but you got to raise the road you know so it's like and then you got your impacts on the cut you got more impact on the wildlife because you have more embankment on the side I think you're doing the balance I mean if you want a 36 inch culvert we could go up a little bit if you want an 18 inch culvert then we'd gladly go down a little but then you're going into whether you steep in the embankment which doesn't make for safe critter crossing or shallow the cut which goes into the wetlands we're pretty happy with what we have and we have a state of mind wetland permit to do what we're proposing that's pretty compelling sorry yeah next staff comment thank you very much for taking the time to step through that on the top of page 6 staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide demarcation at the boundaries of open space areas to prevent the open spaces from becoming extensions of the adjacent backyards we agree without a hundred percent and I know at Rye we use boulders to mark the back we may use boulders, we may use the split rail fence we haven't decided but we will we will show something on the plans when we come back do we care, does the board care staff care whether it's boulders or split rail fence I don't think it should be marble it's dinner mic okay I'm not hearing any care so go ahead we're still on that page the paragraph just above the blue there's a date they're from the future so at the bottom of that page in blue we have all the stormwater section comments I can pound through those if you want but 80% of them have been addressed the few remaining ones we're close to having it worked out with them so number 7 comments is outstanding from on stormwater management manual maintenance access applicant has indicated comply with this comment they will request the board remove narrowing the segment of Russet road between Liberty and Lindemack to 18 feet for this entire length yes we'd like to see what that is on the plan so essentially we have a wetland crossing here and so this section of the road was 18 feet and so most of it was 18 feet then we got to the last what a couple hundred feet maybe and we went back to 24 feet all houses is anything on there so it was pointed out that why don't we just continue the 18 feet all the way until we get to the intersection so essentially from intersection to intersection we're proposing it to all be 18 feet so great staff is fine with that other impact so number 8 trees should not be planted within easements this comment is outstanding applicant has indicated they will remove the trees from utility easements that looks like it takes care of it we've got 7a and b2 oh did I miss 7a I'm sorry oh yeah 7a well that's the one we just talked about yeah 7a those are all in the stormwater comments so we're fine we're going to address all those most have been addressed okay so that includes number 9 landscaping plans to be revised to be access to stormwater ponds for maintenance okay okay so the staff comments further recommends the applicant to make progress okay so we're all set with that next comment is the public works director reviewed the different traffic analysis that we're prepared for the project and in blue are his comments on the traffic analysis and then on page 10 is the staff comments in their cover letter in support of this application the applicant has requested removal of condition number 25 of the original approval requiring that the applicant reassess heinsberg road cheese factory road intersection before the 26th dwelling unit is constructed and pay a fair share impact to the city of south berlington which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total cost of improvement in accordance with the director of public works recommendations staff recommends that the board not remove this condition and we're fine with the condition remaining the second portion of that is they have also requested the removal of condition number 26 of the original approval requiring the applicant to reassess the northbound left turn lane warrant at the heinsberg road nato crest intersection prior to issuance of a zoning permit for 100th dwelling units staff supports this request so we ask the two changes one they denied one they're approving and we're fine with that other comments, questions from the board okay next comment next staff comment okay on page 11 no grading parking or landscaping plans have been provided for the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots staff recommends the board or the applicant to submit these materials for review we will prepare and submit those for review proposed electric and telecom lines are not shown on the provider plan staff recommends the board or the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed layout of site utilities including electric cabinets prior to final plan approval staff further recommends the board or the applicant to demonstrate coordination with electric service provider regarding general utility cabinet number and location we're agreeing to do that page 12 I'm going to kick this one to Brad applicant has submitted a set of model home plans and elevations for each of the single family duplex and single family on a shared lot homes the applicant has proposed a design guideline document to ensure that the mixture of home models meet this standard staff recommends the board incorporate the design guidelines for each home type as a condition of approval standard is discussed in greater detail as it pertains to the sqnr standard 907 c2 below so we've prepared we've prepared a guideline staff is recommending that you accept that guideline so unless you have specific questions I guess we can move on right the bottom of page 12 it appears the total cost of the project may include the cost of single family homes the single family homes are not subject to the landscaping budget staff recommends the board clarify with the applicant the project cost exclusive of the single family homes in order to update the required landscaping budget so a question on that single family homes on common lots are they considered to be single family homes or not they are technically under our definitions but those would need to be included in the landscaping calculation the ones that are on shared lots that are on their own individual lots okay very good the applicant has not provided proposed landscaping budget staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a proposed landscaping budget exclusive of street trees landscape plan does not show landscaping on a duplex in a single family home on a shared lot which is a required element of site plan review applicants should provide landscaping for the homes requiring site plan review so what we would suggest is that we will correct the budget numbers we will provide you with a landscaping budget rather than landscape the entire project we would propose to show you typical landscaping around the duplex unit and around the single lots I have a question not directly on this point but raised by the duplexes I just want to be clear about something the duplex structures yes or no are designed to have their own lot yes no they are on common land so the entire structure is on common land with other like structures correct we have done what you are talking about we did duplexes on their own lots and it is a nightmare because you have condo documents that are extremely hard to us to manage well this calls for condo documents or common land documents also but one for everybody so you have one for the duplexes the one I am talking about is an individual condo within a condo I remember we did that 35 years ago it is great because you own your parcel I got so it is not that so any questions on landscaping yes all right on 14 the city arborist submitted comments on our landscaping plan we did address most of his comments and revised the landscaping plan we have not heard back from the arborist on whether all his comments have been satisfied yet so I heard back this morning there was just one remaining comment where he had indicated there were some white three trees that were a little bit delicate and too close to a sidewalk and the request was either swap out the trees or move them a little bit further from the sidewalk I can provide you with that specific we'll swap them out, we'll move them a little bit further from the sidewalk otherwise good work on the landscaping plan bottom of page 14 staff recommends the board require the applicant to submit an open space management plan prior to final plat approval and we are agreeable to do that and that will be incorporated in the homeowner covenants page 15 staff considers the proposed fencing adequate to meet this criterion except staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide demarcation fencing or landscaping along the wetland boundary south of unit 83 so this was talking about some of the comments from the natural resources committee which we've already agreed to and we will agree to provide demarcation fencing or landscaping along the wetland boundary south of unit 83 still on page 15 staff recommends the board ask the applicant to discuss their plans for communicating with future residents of this area to ensure the adjacent lands and Vermont's right to farm statutes and discuss any physical delineations they might make to support a mutually supportive transition between these areas so our intention at this point time is to include in the covenants information about Vermont's right to farm statutes so okay I mean all we can really do is make them aware that the neighboring properties have have that right so yeah let them know so you surprised well what about this the last part of it and discuss any physical delineations they might make to support a mutually supportive transition between these areas thanks Mark I'm not sure if there are any I'm just saying it's a discussion point it could be a signage component or something very simple we could sign it I suppose but it's going to be in people's backyards yeah I don't really have any good ideas for physical delineation there are good examples that have been employed in the past other than fences usually farmers have fences around their fields to keep the animals in so those usually demarcate farm so how is that a burden why should they be burdened with that it's up to the farmers you know the likelihood is to the south the remaining all clear piece and there is a fence there's essentially a hedgerow the property boundary that goes up to there that will stay but it's fairly clear I would think to a homeowner where their property ends and the farm begins I don't really get the comment I'm open to suggestions farm beginning next five feet pretty good put up those little signs with the tractors on them smell coming from here okay thank you on page 16 staff recommends the board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to final flat approval we acknowledge that there are those applications on the bottom of 17 the applicant is proposing five open space areas designated as parks of these five areas one is designated as community garden while the remaining four are designated as neighborhood parkland the applicant has verbally represented that the parks will be maintained as long without amenities although a proposed planning indicates a gazebo in the south most neighborhood park staff recommends the board consider whether this meets the distribution criteria of this standard so that is correct we are proposing one park to be neighborhood gardens and we are proposing one park to have a gazebo where there is a pedestrian path that bisects it other than that we're proposing that it just be mode open space and it be up to the homeowner's association to decide whether they wanted additional amenities as you go forward we see homeowner's associations we are moving amenities once they get control some of it is for insurance reasons some of it is for liability reasons even a simple playground if you talk to your wreck director about how many requirements they have to meet just to have a playground it has to be handicap accessibility the surface has to be a certain type of rubber chips I don't know if they still didn't let to use mark mulch so anyways that is essentially where we have come down to we are finding that the homeowner's association are removing the amenities they don't like pools they are way too much way too expensive to maintain particularly when the city has city pools and city facilities that are well maintained meets all standard requirements nobody is putting in tennis courts anymore so the 109 plan that is approved didn't have much public space in it whatsoever this plan although not I wouldn't say that it is overly generous but it certainly has more space than the 109 unit plan what is the total acreage of your five parks and what is the range of acreage I think we have that 3.23 total and the range 1.36 acres 1.33 acres the community garden is just over a tenth of an acre 1.06 acres 0.34 acres most are on 0.3 0.35 and one big one two of that are one we are supposed to have a certain size per do we meet those requirements we do yeah we're pretty comfortable staff is comfortable even if you discount the community garden they're still over okay and that structure area is there to find then you have all the other open space we don't count the area in between the loop center there where the keratones backup is about 100 feet we didn't count this space we didn't count that and will that space demarcate it will there be fences so that people know they're free to walk in that space in this space here what is that space it's just a grass space for those units the backup on so they're not looking right directly in functionally backyard backyard for those units we're not encouraging other people in the development to walk back there you are going to feel like you're walking in a backyard it's not restricted to those homeowners because it's common land so technically anybody could walk back there and anybody could put a fence up there or will there be restrictions against them no the association controls the open space so the association would have to if they decided to fence it then they could when we had the bike path down through the middle that's exactly what we're going to do we're going to fence both sides of the path so that you didn't feel like when you walk down the path you're walking in someone's backyard but in this case the path has been moved so we can move the fence so I think staff's comment was about distribution so do we feel that the park areas are distributed appropriately throughout we've got park here in the middle of the single families there's a smaller one in this little loop area here the community garden located here on nato crest this corner is a community park land and this area right here adjacent to the wildlife corridor do you want to show the plan where they're in blue do you want to show the plan where they're in blue so it's the other it's the master plan you have open mark the other tab up at the counter that's in the folder as you recall the public area that's closest to the wetland crossing was added because site of mill one currently doesn't have any public spaces and so it was requested that we try to locate something that was somewhat close to site of mill one so that shows how they're calculated blue there that's very helpful is there a map that shows that in conjunction with the wetland area where you guys are talking it seems like the two west and east blue sections are in wetland areas so the wetlands are there if you zoom in a little bit more they're just the contours are a little heavy on this plan to see so we butt up to the buffer of both those parks so without the wetlands they would be substantially bigger obviously as you can see so I'm happy with the description of the parkland anybody else's comments you see any different distribution okay next comment at mill of page 18 staff recommends the board require the applicant to substantiate their open space calculations with a plan and to describe and show how public open spaces will be demarcated from private spaces the other plan that actually shows the open space calculations that one that we saw in blue outlines that public open spaces and whether we're back to fencing essentially split rail fence I guess is the best way to mark where those public spaces are maybe not maybe not to completely surround them but certainly to show for instance if we look at the public space in the top on the west side we can definitely see providing a fence to say this is backyard and this is the open space but I really don't see a lot of reason to completely go around blue area in a fence wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable first of all there doesn't seem to be a path to it particularly this one acre parcel on the top right if there was a path to it and some type of marking that would make a difference and obviously given where it is if the homeowner's documents required it to be mowed so it was kept down where obviously around it is not going to be we're all proposing that all these areas will be mowed so then it's essentially demarcating itself by being mowed we'd be fine to put some sort of sidewalk connection between some of those units so it's obvious that there's a path there's a path there that's how I get there I'm entitled to walk back there because I mean obviously it's a big enough area but it's also not off a public way so my concern is that it would start to become like a very generous backyard for 141-142 there has to be some way of defining it so it's clear that it's a neighborhood park open space for we'll come back with a proposal that will define all the areas give it a name that's it, oh leery park no and Mark the other the other area is so that one that kind of sock shaped sock shaped one that will obviously be just it'll just have a fence on the left side the west side no need to put a fence the other side the one on the upper right there no need to do much there upper left only need one on the right side the east side yeah and the community garden no need for one on the north side this one is really the one that you need to put some thoughts make sure it doesn't get segregated into someone's backyard one thing with the community garden I mean ideally there's water there and ideally there's some way to park next to it because people need to be able to drive to those so I'm just suggesting for final maybe you work on that a little bit that section in front of the units would have on street parking and we can provide we can provide a height not a fire hydrant but a small yard hydrant there that you could get water from we could meter it and the association would pay the meter costs that's great thank you very much okay bottom of 18 applicant has verbally represented the open spaces will be maintained by the homeowners association staff recommends the board require the applicant submit documentation of this agreement prior to recording my laws we will certainly do that top of 19 as discussed above the applicant has not provided demarcation to find a clear transition from the private and public realm staff considers the other elements of these design guidelines to be met we just had that discussion about defining that on page 20 street trees are spaced greater than 30 feet apart along the east west roadways in the two and single family on shared lots portions of the development staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the plans to reduce the proposed street tree spacing to 30 feet the comment also applies to the SEQ VR district and we will take care of that I think we had a few trees that were eliminated at the request of the arborist because they were too close to lights and then I think we didn't go back and count and make sure we had the correct number staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the proposed road and whether there is a compelling reason not to widen the roads by 2 to 4 feet to allow on-street parking so maybe it would be appropriate to look at the nice stick diagram that Marla did very nice and we would agree that any place where the roadway fronts units but it should be a minimum of 26 feet wide so that you can have on-street parking so the differences on this plan this was the section of road from here to here that we agreed should be 18 feet but that would be 24 feet so this would go to 26 what else Brian a short piece here would be 26 the nato crest right yes it took to where the units end and that's where we talked about having parking what else did we have is that 24 piece on lindemac here yeah so that would be 26 another 24 a little piece there yeah and then the 24 on the russet down right there essentially if we have units that face it will go from 24 to 26 great super thank you the next item staff considers that the intersections are not designed to reflect the slow traffic and reduced width recommended in figure 9.6 staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant how they propose to meet this standard to see figure 9.6 but essentially in the existing approval the 190 approval basically at the intersections we neck everything down you know you have the 26 feet you know it comes in and then you know the intersections are there we have all these bump outs and it's my understanding that public works experience with the bump outs and the fire chiefs experience with the bump outs aren't all that great so we've eliminated them on this plan thinking that that was what public works wanted to see all right we have fairly narrow roads to start with 26 feet 24 feet 18 feet so where we'll leave it to the to the board and to the staff if you want us to put those bump outs back in other words you know narrow down all those intersections and we'll really do that but for some reason we were under the impression that public works and the fire chief were not that happy with those other developments you got a comment from public works and fire chiefs I mean as a walker you know I like those narrow intersections with the bump outs but if public works and the fire chief are unhappy with them well I guess it depends on what's priority the pedestrians or the other ones I mean you're talking about a competition here between convenience and safety this is a specific detail that was put into these regulations too for the pedestrian safety so we're not you know staff is not too keen about recommending that you remove them maybe I'm sorry so staff is not too keen about having them eliminated having the neck down correct that there's a standard these are Seq intersection design standards that should be met if it's in here it supersedes what public works or the fire Marshall feels is convenient those departments had input into these designs when they were proposed well I can have input but this doesn't mean it's controlling no when their input was go for it with the neck down so yes please yeah thank you now in the middle of page 22 staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether higher density light fixtures are necessary in the single family on shared lots portion of the development and also discuss relocating lights to reduce lead into the wetlands comment also applies to the Seq VR district so just to clarify there are higher density light fixtures in the single family on shared lots and the question is whether that's warranted or if they should go to lower to match the rest of the development density you mean higher intensity the lights are space closer so staff is recommending less dense to match the remainder of the development we're fine with that it's one of those balancing things you know you don't want to light the thing up you know like a downtown but you want enough lighting so that people feel safe you know out there so it's it's a guessing game on our part as to what's appropriate what high do your fixtures 12-14 12-14 no it's village type fixtures right 23 staff considers that all of the proposed two family home types or the duplexes are too similar to one another and should be revised staff considers that the single family on shared lots type 3 and 4 are too similar to one another and should be revised comment also applies to Seq VR district so we have provided elevations of the proposed units they were prepared by rabidu architects who have done a lot of work in south burlington so go to the pdf so home design right and these are in response to staff comments no these are what we proposed and staff is commenting that they think that some of the types are too similar to each other to qualify as different under the home design document so there's a whole home design guidelines document that specifies that there's a maximum of 10 of each type for the duplexes and 16 of each type for the single family so if the types are just supposing for a minute that the types are too similar to one another and you're allowed to have 16 of one type and 16 of another type you could potentially have 32 that look really the same so that's what this comment is getting at and boards welcome to look at the types types just do we have discretion about are these what's our discretion on this criteria the seq district has a whole section on residential design so the board has much more latitude in dictating what buildings look like in the seq district than it does in other districts and so could someone point out what would be helpful in increasing the distinctiveness between some of the designs like maybe staff for example excuse me or someone or board member someone at the furthest west someone closest to the screen perhaps I thanks for the pressure guys I'm just trying to look at the I didn't see this in our packet way out on page 83 so on that first page there the first two are variations within a type so those are supposed to be the same but then the third one on the page is supposed to be dramatically different than the first two and staff would agree that the third one is sufficiently different if you had 16 of the third one and 16 of the first or second then it would look like you had two sets I would agree with that but then if you go to I believe it was page four yep those are the nope keep going those are the carriage homes so those are types one three and four of the carriage homes the first two are two different types three and then the bottom one is supposed to be type four there's a typo on that so if you had 16 of type three and 16 of type four they would all look like you had 32 of the same home yeah they also seem to have the same sort of general massing which is I know the concept of a carriage home design but I think that the problem you'd run into is the same problem we ran into on market street when we thought we were going to be getting a differential of design it looks like a wall of the same house going down and while I agree that these definitely have far more of a differentiation to them this one definitely have issues with in terms of just throwing a dormer up on the roof isn't going to make much of a change is there much Mark I guess I'm asking you as much as I'm asking the developer what can you do with color and materials the problem with colors and materials is that you still end up with the mass when you look at a structure you first see the mass and the fenestration of the windows and the roof structure and all that so even if you have a certain number that have gray shingles or brown shingles or black shingles for roofing and then the pallet tones of grays, beiges and for the siding especially just looking at this one in specific you definitely end up with they're all going to look similar regardless of colors so I think that I would say that the carriage home one definitely needs some work to give a little more differentiation we'll take a shot at revising that how about the duplexes so splitting them up well the biggest problem you run into a duplex is that it's supposed to be a book of the question would go to so type 1 option 2 I would say the same thing with the duplexes especially I don't remember the plan enough to remember are they all grouped into certain areas so the problem with that is you don't get a blend of the you know then on a unit count you have a good mix but within the development they're all sort of congregating to the same area so it's not like you have the ability to have a couple duplexes then a single family or carriage and a few more duplexes which would allow itself to blend itself and notice the how similar they are I definitely like to see a little more work in the duplexes so they don't all have the same two story with the gable top whether it's an actual gable or a hip it still gives the same you know same sort of overall feel to which is you know two story with one story in the middle I'd like it to see a little more work then personally so I think that the two duplexes I think you need to get a little more mix especially if they're all in the same part of the development the single families you know they've got some mix to them so I think that they actually I think that they will work in terms of a blend of them with diverse housing types you know how about the other point that he's making as opposed to changing the structures or in addition to changing the structures how about redistributing so they don't cluster quite so much you have the single family next to duplex etc those are hard to sell it's hard to sell the single family lots obviously it's hard to mix the association land in among owned lots the carriage homes tend to be a lot deeper to get the square footage in narrow and width where the duplexes are kind of the opposite they're not as deep and they're much wider and some of it has to do where they are on the plan for instance the duplex is on the top you can see that physically you'd have to reconfigure all the roads to fit one of those carriage homes up there because there's just not quite as much depth and basically we find that when they're clustered together they sell better I asked, you answered so you'll take a whack at both the duplexes and the carriage style homes staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether the single family homes on a shared lot can be located within 25 feet of the back of the curve these homes are currently located approximately 30 feet from the back of the curve similarly while the proposed locations the two family homes meet this standard the porches are located 10 feet from the recreation path on the south side of the street and 17 feet from the back of the curve on the north side of the street where there is no recreation path staff considers that this may result in an unbalanced feel to the street and recommends the board discuss whether the homes should be located an equal distance from the edge of payment on both sides of the street so let's start with the carriage homes the single family homes on shared lots so currently they're 30 feet from the curve to the front of the house the closest the garage can be therefore is 38 feet the garage is set back that additional 8 feet where you have a sidewalk you have the curb line to have a 5 foot sidewalk so now that puts the back of the sidewalk 28 feet to the front of the garage if we reduced it from 30 feet to 25 feet they would put it to 23 feet and I guess our opinion was 23 feet was a little too tight particularly someone's got a pickup truck you pull it up and now you're close to overhanging so we that's essentially how we picked the 30 feet by looking on the sidewalk side you know what you know what's that minimum length we'd like to have the driveway be and in this case we're picking 28 feet so obviously on the other side your driveway is longer but that's the rationale for being 30 feet instead of 25 feet on the on the duplexes maybe if we bring up that plan different plan or listen to that'll do so we've had we've had some conversations with staff about relocating I mean one reason there's so much difference from one side to the other is you've got this 10 foot wide path and the road is offset as it is but that kind of contributes to that unbalanced look you know you've got a 5 foot green strip you've got a 10 foot wide path on one side and then you have the unit so what we've talked to staff about is actually relocating that 10 foot wide path and coming down the street here with the carriage home and then either coming between two units here so to come down here and then either go between two units or maybe come down and connect to the end and have a connecting path here one it it makes it a little bit nicer if you are trying to move through you know the development and two it kind of one of staff's concerns about the fact that you know we really didn't have that block you know tight feeling that the regulations look for and staff had commented that you know potentially by adding a pedestrian connection either here or maybe off the end here that would help create the the block feeling that the regulations so you then eliminate you eliminate the so we go back to a 5 foot wide sidewalk balance that from one side to the other and we move that 10 foot path so is there a 10 foot path so there's no 10 foot path here now 10 foot path right now comes like this and goes here and then continues down to the single families I was mistaking that shaded area as the 10 foot path so the course of it now would be for the 10 foot path would possibly come down the edge of this public area which would kind of help feed you've got that path that provides a separation between the end unit and the public area and kind of feeds people into here and then it would come across the back outside the wetland buffer and then we'd have the 10 foot path would come you know up to here and then out so and how about the path where it exists on the in the northeast section here go along the current course of the path and then you get to that intersection then right there you have more path right so this would become 5 foot wide sidewalk so the 10 foot connection would be here like this and then out to south but right now coming down that eastern right now it's like this this is how it goes here now and so by moving the 10 foot path coming down this street with the 10 foot path instead of this street and then coming across the back would allow us to balance this better because we don't have a 5 foot sidewalk instead of a 10 foot path and it would help delineate this public park space there yeah but then all the people in that in the duplexes who now have convenient access to the walking path no longer have such convenient access they still have a 5 foot wide sidewalk that they could so I mean if you're in this unit you can either take that sidewalk to here to get on the path or you can take the sidewalk to here to get on the path to get on the 10 foot wide path so now we can bicycles would that just increase the amount of driveway here or would these all shift 5 foot closer to Aurora bullet road we move it in so it's the same distance that the units on the north side are so without widening this gap a little bit here yeah a little bit you get a few feet back yeah because you certainly have the room to shift these down by changing this to 10 feet I mean I like that idea I also like the idea of the path that meanders through the open space like they have in Rimetto's meanders through the big open space it has a nice feel to it yeah I agree so that's in favor of you to address that staff comment I like that, other comments from the board good right top page 28 28 foot comments on the board the long pickup truck argument for the 30 feces 25 I like the 30 feet because I think you don't want people parking a little away from the garage door and then it is overhanging the sidewalk other comments I agree on the go atop of page 24 staff considers the garages are set back at least 8 feet and all the home types provided but for some of the home types it is not immediately apparent that the width of the dwelling is 12 feet or greater staff recommends the board require the applicant to clarify building widths prior to that approval comment also applies to SEQ VR district we will dimension those plans as we modify for the other conditions great bottom of 24 staff considers the board should require the applicant to add a mid block pedestrian connection to a rural road or otherwise revise the configuration of a rural road in order to meet this criterion so that was the discussion we just had about the potential change with the path to create the more block type look would that do it, would splitting that bike path off would that accomplish this goal of creating a mid block pedestrian connection there we go do we have the staff notes PDF on anywhere just trying to go online it is hanging up so in that same folder go up to from where you are selected staff comments this portion on page 27 mid page staff we have two 24 inch culverts at the white line crossing staff considers that these culverts may act as restriction reducing the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters and recommends the board require the applicant to provide supporting documentation demonstrating that selected culvert sizes and slopes are adequately protective of the site's ability to carry and store flood waters we agreeable we will provide that documentation I believe that is the end of the staff comments board questions further we didn't get into traffic at all and is that planned for preliminary going into it in the final or what's the thought there I know you have traffic in the back here we just didn't get into it right I am concerned but if we do not address traffic now that will be restricted from addressing it in final so I would like to have if possible if you guys would like to step us through the traffic analysis talk about levels of services on sure so the traffic analysis was provided by a third party Roger Dickinson from Lamar and Dickinson Assaulting Engineers and it was originally done for the 109 lot development as part of our act 250 permit an original traffic report for this was done December 28th 2015 and at that point in time there were quite a few the unit count was different so when we came back with the current plan we asked Mr. Dickinson to update his traffic report and he did that on July 17th 2017 and then it was revised again on December 4th 2017 because the unit count had changed once again so Mr. Dickinson in his report evaluated the impact that site of mill 2 development would have on the adjacent intersections so in the report basically for the 142 units proposed he is projecting based on ITE land use category for single family dwellings that the am peak hour production will be 107 trips 27 entering and 80 exiting as you would expect in the morning more trips going out than coming in and then the PM peak hour there would be a total of 142 PM peak trips 89 would enter and 53 would exit he has essentially the standard traffic report the projected distribution of trips he did rest what percentage of trips would travel through site of mill 1 to get to their destination as opposed to how many would go to hindsburg road so Mr. Dickinson uses census data US census for south berlington the year 2000 the census data tells you where people who live in south berlington work where people work traffic engineers like to use that to model 2000 did you say? 2000 was the latest census I believe that he had this data I believe that's what it says it might be 2010 it's supposed to be a tech annual census well the census is but the correlation of where people live with where they work that may take another 10 years let me look 2000 US census directional patterns using US census 2000 journey to work data that tabulates locations by town where south berlington residents work with a large majority of the residential peak hour trips being work related we found this to be a better method to estimate the direction distribution of residential development so that's a fairly common way that the traffic engineers distribute trips so based on that he basically predicted that about 37% of the trips from side of mill 2 would travel through side of mill 1 and the remaining 63% would come and go via hinesburg road now he did not estimate or he did not include in his calculations an estimate he didn't assume that side of mill 1 traffic would also use side of mill 2 so he basically assumed that all side of mill 1 traffic stays where it is although in other projections he estimated that approximately 10% of side of mill 1 traffic would travel through side of mill 2 but he went through standard analysis that he looked at the intersection of dorsus street and side of mill drive he looked at dorsus street and cheese factory road he looked at hinesburg road and vansiklin he looked at hinesburg road and nato crest and he looked at hinesburg road and cheese factory road and predicted the level of service for the different scenarios in the year 2025 after go ahead no please after he submitted his original assessment the public works director came back and asked for some additional evaluations so there's a December 22nd document where he came back and looked at the hinesburg road nato crest drive as to whether there was a right turn warrant needed which there was not he re looked at hinesburg road and vansiklin hinesburg road currently the vansiklin left turn is currently level service f and the traffic report showed that side of mill 2 would worsen that intersection there was no additional traffic to it so it's going to get worse he asked him to evaluate adding separate left turn and right turn lanes on vansiklin and it was reported that that did improve the performance of that intersection they also noted that vansiklin is one of the intersections that the town currently collects traffic impact fees for and so any work we've been contributing with the traffic impact fees at hinesburg road cheese factory road the analysis showed that adding a right turn southbound lane would have significant improvements to the level of service that intersection right now on cheese factory the left turn lane left turn movement from cheese factory on the hinesburg was level of service d it did remain d with the right turn lane but the capacity intersection improved significantly by adding the right turn lane and that was one of the comments that Justin had made about leaving that condition in that we evaluate cheese factory road and that we contribute 21.3 21.5% no more than 21.3% he re-looked at dorset street side of mill drive and verified that with the construction of side of mill 2 a left turn warrant was required that a left turn lane should go in on dorset street at the entrance to side of mill drive and those are the major portions of this traffic now in addition to that we asked him to look at the impact that side of mill 2 would have on existing streets within side of mill 1 specifically windsap lane so it has a December 4th 2017 document that talks about that it projects the amount of traffic on windsap lane currently which is 62 p.m. peak trips with side of mill 2 constructivities projecting that traffic count goes from 62 to 109 p.m. peak trips so that is basically a car every 30 seconds almost doubling he further goes on and comments that well I'll read what he says of the above scenarios the maximum estimated external p.m. peak our volume on windsap lane equals 59 vehicles per hour this is less than 2 cars per minute and less than the peak hour traffic volume observed traveling side of mill drive between doors to street and crispen drive presently such a volume is not uncommon or considered to be quote-unquote high traffic on local residential neighborhood streets we therefore have no reason to conclude that this maximum estimated p.m. peak hour volume would create adverse levels of traffic congestion or unsafe conditions on windsap lane it should also be noted that while side of mill drive Summerfield Avenue connection would reduce traffic volume for the 15 residential units on windsap lane it will produce a corresponding increase in traffic volume for the nine residential units on Summerville Ave north of Braver so that's his traffic report I'm looking at we got you don't have the benefit of it maybe you do I don't know if you got a copy but we got a late submission of comments from Jack and Lori Darling and I'm struck by one sort of obvious one and kind of stunning it says the assumption was made that more traffic will go east rather than west through the phase one development I'm looking at the first bullet says concerns with the study see that on the first page the second paragraph under the first bullet on the assumption that was made that more traffic will go east rather than west through the phase one development I agree with the comment I mean I think empirically or intuitively that's an insupportable assumption if that's the assumption that's in the I'm not making a judgment about the ultimate effect on traffic I'm just saying that's the assumption it strikes me as intuitively is insupportable one would need to see some serious justification for the assumption I mean all I have to do is look at I-189 in the morning or almost any time any time there's heavy traffic or in the PM and you have traffic lined up for a mile going west the assumption in the traffic report is that one-third roughly 36% or 37% of the traffic in Cytomil 2 will travel east to west through Cytomil 1 and the remaining we'll have a public comment I guess that's the assumption that the traffic engineer made a good PNP trip distribution I guess I'd have to look at the traffic study but basically I don't believe it you don't believe that that's what I'm sure that that's what Roger said that's what it is I believe that that's what Roger said so you don't believe that 37% of Cytomil 2 will go through Cytomil 1 I think a larger percentage will larger than just as the commenter does basically for the same reasons I'm willing to be disproved but I guess I'd have to see it I can't comment on his assumptions but basically he stated how he did it it's based on where people work in Chittenden County he develops the model and that's what he came up with and I'll point out that the traffic volume on Hinesburg Road is significantly higher than the traffic volume on Dorset Street originally with the original traffic report that was done by Trudell almost all the traffic in Cytomil 2 went to Hinesburg Road because Hinesburg Road you know you look at I have this much traffic on Hinesburg and this much on Dorset and that's how I'm going to wait it and that's the one thing that Roger when he came back in changed that dramatically put much more traffic through Cytomil 1 and he changed traffic and insulted that but that's where he's at he's 37% I guess I would suggest Frank that a lot of that traffic you see on 189 first thing in the morning is coming off the highway it's not all coming from the intersection of Dorset and Kennedy I understand that but the comment the person is making is that where everybody works is to the west I think the question is that's not I mean what he's saying I think I'm taking it that 37% of them are heading to Burlington or downtown Dorset street and the rest are going to where businesses are in south work are you going to Montpelier to the interstate are you going south you're definitely going in that direction that's what the employment data is saying apparently and this is one of the problems with Vansiklin right now is that people cut I do I see the big traffic issue being on Vansiklin yeah there already is one there already is one and it's going to get worse I go west east I don't know whether the numbers are right or wrong but I can see how they could be right I will comment that his report was submitted to act 250 it was reviewed by VTRANS who was very interested in the impacts on Hinesburg and essentially there wasn't any suggestions that it needed to be revised so that it was incorrect and the public works director has reviewed it and again basically agreed with the conclusions of the report there's a chronic problem let me be clear I don't know the answer and I don't know that this fella is right and I don't know that my gut instinct is right about it and it's a chronic problem and I say this for the public for those who have difficulty digesting or accepting the traffic conclusions it's always problematic because it's very expensive to do a traffic study and we are permitted to go with our independent judgment we are not bound by the traffic study but in the absence of significant evidence other than our gut feeling to the contrary we got a problem so that those who feel strongly about it unfortunately are faced with only one serious prerogative which is to hire their own expert or at least discuss it at least hire the expert to discuss the conclusions made by the developer's expert and then if there's more warranted it gets serious about spending the money to do it we don't present you with a viable alternative to that this is not responsive to you Frank but I see two reading his conclusions I see two problems in my mind one is just as Dorset Farms has on a southbound lane on Hinesburg Road you ought to be right turn lane you're going at a speed that will have people right on your tail when you're trying to turn into this so I understand that it may not be a requirement I think it's common sense that it ought to be there there is one for Dorset Farms it's very similar in size I just think you probably ought to be there and I totally understand where the people on the road would or any of these cross streets would be concerned about going from 60 ish to 110 ish cars per hour there are a lot of kids in these areas and this is the one reason I feel like maybe we do need to open up this road to exit I understand that there is ways to wind through this property and get out but there are more direct ways that would be less impactful on people of Cider Mill 1 the Hinesburg Road issue is really a v-trans they'd have to be the ones that currently the right turn lane and the nato crust is not warranted initially when we got an active 50 permit for the 109 it wasn't warranted and they did not ask for it are there suggestions you'd have John? that's it I understand that v-trans is going to control what happens on 116 versus south brollington handling what happens on Dorset Street it's just a different animal yes so we don't really have a lot of ability to sway that so the traffic addendum prepared in December of this year does reference the Dorset Street Cider Mill Drive intersection and talks about a southbound left turn lane on Dorset Street into Cider Mill Drive would be warranted I was talking about Hinesburg Road into is that we still have ability to affect because it's all one project whereas Hinesburg Road we have to solicit v-trans to and the good news on Hinesburg Road is that there is a large shoulder I mean coming into turning on to cheese factory maybe a right turn lane is necessary but I got to tell you I use it already so it's already in use as a shoulder I would agree with you John because I mean I live in the Oak Creek Village Butler Farms Development and those right turn lanes even when you use a car still fly into the left lane to pass you because you're trying to slow down to an adequate speed to turn into development and yeah you're right there's a large shoulder but I would see where a right turn lane heading south on 116 would be much appreciated I guess I would ask that you speak to v-trans about this you may not choose to want to do it but I think realistically that's going to be a problem people are going to be I don't know what the speed limit is there 50 but 50 is fast they go past my house on Dorset at 50 and it's hard to get into my driveway I can tell you that let's put some lights up yeah you think you know I'd also concur with the traffic conclusions about the direction of traffic flow through the two developments because coming out onto Hinesburg Road from my neighborhood I've seen in the past 10 years traffic has just gotten ridiculous I still never seen more than two or three cars stacked up waiting to turn but you just see floods of cars coming from the Hinesburg area up 116 and my experience at Dorset is still far less traveled so I would say more people would be heading out to Hinesburg whether it's to go south onto the interstate to go to Tilly Drive area and whatnot what is the would you help me with your position I'm sorry if I forgot on the cut through just cutting through Cidermill Road as John just mentioned cutting all the way through to Hinesburg Road what is the problem with that I mean extending Cidermill Drive extending Cidermill Drive you're talking about here Frank? we impact the corridor we impact wetlands and I'm pretty pessimistic that we could convince the Vermont wetland folks to let you go do what you're doing a class two wetland when you know a couple hundred yards to the south there's another crossing in the words I'd have to justify that there's enough traffic or something that it's required you know and just a hundred trips and a PMP on a local road is a lightly used road I understand completely why the people on Winesap are unhappy about it but it's always been shown when they bought their properties on Winesap there was no question that connection was going to happen and that development was going to happen it's been on the books way before anybody bought in Cidermill so it's not new anybody Ray can I ask your opinion on it because I think Cidermill one was before my time on the board so I can't speak to the rationale or discussion points like I can for a lot of the projects we see about why that connection between you know the Cidermill wasn't required or proposed it was required as a connection to the property to the east there was a development being proposed actually I think proposed even before Cidermill one came in it was a review called Marso Meadows and that development was going to have a connection that would connect to this property and then when Cidermill came in they made those two basically line up to each other but that Marso Meadows development has never happened Marso Meadows development where the solar farm to the north of the solar farm is that the one that actually was going to connect through to Adirondack and to other farms yes that's an east to west connection I would use yeah because it just I agree with John and I agree with the person that wrote the letter about this connection and while going from 60 to 100 might still technically fall under small residential traffic you know I've been through that neighborhood I've been through Winesap I've gone through down to it it just it feels wrong it feels wrong not to have that connection happen and it just logically doesn't make sense me why it wasn't required as part of this project not just as a connection because you know when you get this little extension with the hammer head to allow for a turnaround I would just like to have more discussion and look at our options for making that a requirement for this project I don't know if the rest of the board feels that type of didn't we explore whether we have the ability to broach that subject yes we did get a legal opinion on that as a resident of Winesap Lane I'm admittedly conflicted obviously I have children that will play on that road and more cars would be more cars I've also seen people think that cider mill drive does have a connection I've seen cars turn around get stuck in the mud and have to creep back to civilization my fear is that if it is built it gets turned into a 60 mile an hour highway because it's a straight shot and then you impact the people that live on Summerfield over there because they're going to take a hard right to make their turn I also fear that if it's a highway if it's a straight shot you will encourage to cut through rather than just use by the residents of cider mill one and cider mill two which I would hope that would be respectful of each other's properties and obey the speed limits and we wouldn't have any problems so I don't want to make a more enticing cut through if we have the option of building that I'm not saying we do so that's why I'm conflicted I think a cut through is desirable well I like the meandering path so people say I'll just take the 116 to the county drive that's a cut through is desirable for those that live in cider mill one or cider two but those that live there would probably be less likely they don't want to make it an easy cut through if it impacts there I don't want to spend too much time on this but if you're way to the north if you have and you have a fairly significant street that's a regional cut through I don't see it's not connecting to Hinesburg Road it's connecting to Somerville which is connecting to Aurora it's still a winding path but for the first half of it on cider mill one it will be a straight shot straight shot that ends up winding so you're shifting the traffic from wine sap to that end of Somerville so they're going to see the traffic instead of wine sap and then he has a good point your speeds are going to increase substantially because it is a straight shot as you come down to cider mill there's no driveways on it you know there's you know that's controllable with devices if you could connect that to 116 and have a proper intersection of 116 and avoid the jams that you have at Van Siklin that would be wonderful but that's not what this is I'm entirely conflicted too we've heard stories of cars nearly getting on two wheels as they're going around from wine sap up onto Braeburn and the speeds already there can we hack the GPS devices so they stop doing that we can fix Google can we? yes if that's a genuine problem I can deal with that I think Google thinks that because it should happen Google is that smart can I ask a question that does affect traffic but dealing with phasing I have an old old document I tend to keep paper around too long and it shows the document in the packet says that phase one is 34 units it's the duplexes and it includes the cut through to Somerville and then I have an old document that says phase one is actually could it be the carriage homes and the duplexes that happen until phase two and the cut through happens on phase two do I have this right? I think the one where the carriage homes are being in phase one there might have been the sketch plan okay so what we're at right now is the cut through happens at the initial was there a requirement that the cut through happens at a certain number of units and it's more than 34 isn't it? 49 would be the maximum 50 that would have to have the connection so is your intention to develop that cut through before you get to 49 to do it during the initial layout essentially when you lay out the road? problem is all of our utilities they're coming from Cedar Mill 1 we might just run utilities we could just run utilities until we hit 49 units and not not utilize that until we hit unit 50 the decision to make duplexes to do that in the phase one it's not based on market conditions it's not based on anything we've already agreed that all our construction traffic has to come in NATO crest we're just basically making that connection because as Brian said we pick up water and sewer at that intersection so we could not we could be fine but not actually constructing the cut through until we hit the 50 but the removal of material isn't going to use that cut through regardless because you're going to put the material south of the project so you're building NATO crest first regardless and the discussion is one to make this cut through so we could hold off until we did 49 units to make that connection you could start building these carriage homes which you would get to in phase two when you start building the carriage homes so we are seeing a probable doubling of traffic on some streets Cytermill in Cytermill one and as you say it's still low still low traffic count Cytermill you're not seeing a doubling you're seeing roughly a doubling on Winesap okay thank you and otherwise it looks like there will be as Mark alluded to there will be a significant increase on Hinesburg Road going north but that's part of and your V-trans has already signed off on that impact and accepted it and they govern Hinesburg Road increase also on Dorset Street but it sounds like it's within acceptable limits so there is an increase in traffic from this just hope people right so the traffic study recommends or says a southbound left turn lane on Dorset Street in Cytermill Drive is warranted I think Justin has asked to see the plans for that prior to final approval okay and thank you for mentioning the letter from Darwin other comments on the traffic study before we open up to the public hearing none public please identify yourself now is this a swearing procedure oh my gosh okay please identify yourself Karen I live on Winesap Road I'd like to reference this map that we have up over here regarding I'm over here on Winesap and I'd like to see this road extended based upon some reviews I've done with the Cytermill Drive and the Dorset Street intersection we retrained we retained a civil engineering term and asked them to look at the data provided by Lamarone Dickinson and just give us their opinion regarding the information we're looking at as was mentioned earlier it's estimated that 37% of the trips from here will go through Cytermill in or out in order to get to Dorset Street based upon the information from the engineering firm it was suggested it might be closer to 60% instead of 37% the reason for that it should be in your packet because I had sent this to Marla and inside your packet is a map and this map was taken from let's see on-the-map-sense.gov and the year is 2015 the map shows work area profile analysis of where people work now I understand that 2000 census data was used with Lamarone Dickinson as they discussed directions and directional patterns as to where people turn but this map you're choosing 2015 and what it's showing and it's in your packet again is that the predominant amount of where people work is in your hill section it's in Sheldon Road it's located in downtown Burlington church street area the business district and so the civil engineer that I had spoke with suggested that instead of 37% over here of traffic being generated entering and exiting be closer to 60% with again this being a rough estimate it's not exact it's basically looking at the numbers and trying to come up with an estimate as we've mentioned also Whitefac Lane the road that I'm on is going to go from the current 41 vehicles per hour to 62 vehicles an hour when it's built out and the part we're talking about being built out is basically from here on down 21 houses or so have yet to be developed and then of course when this is developed over here the estimate we were provided for Whitefac Lane was 115 vehicles an hour, not 109 109 came about because it was suggested and unsupported that it would be 109 vehicles per hour just the estimate that was used but it's not supported according to the traffic engineer that I spoke with so basically that was going to go from 62 vehicles per hour when this is built out to 115 vehicles per hour again these are just estimates just like the 109 one is too so where people work is very critical in termining traffic I know there's a lot of concern and I agree with the concern that even Matt had mentioned that this could become a speedway over here which none of us wants but we could do a variety of different things if we were to extend Cydermill Road over to here for example we talked about going through the wetlands narrowing that to say 18 feet instead of 22 or 24 feet that's one idea that helps slow the traffic down there potential for speed bumps that helps slow the traffic stop signs I don't think any of us residents in Cydermill 1 want to see that section become a speedway plus narrowing it to 18 feet would certainly be more positive for wildlife as we talked about the wildlife corridor was also mentioned that people who moved into the Cydermill were well aware that this was going to be developed at some point in time when I bought my home over here we were also aware at that time that this road was going to be built and that's why we bought our house and put it on the line we were aware of both of those we knew that there would be traffic congestion but eventually it would be mitigated in addition this road is also a comprehensive plan approved by the city council so we had every reason to believe that traffic would be mitigated at some point in time when we built our house there and placed it there so to say that hey, we knew and we knew this was going to happen and we still went there anyways we also knew that this road was going to be built so why not now is my question as opposed to later additionally if you as a development review board don't feel the road should be built right now it could be built and then be paid back to this developer by the person who moves in up here thereby improving the quality of life along our corridor and wine set I'd like to conclude with because it's late I certainly have taken up enough of your time but if we go ahead and say make this into an emergency vehicle only connection as was suggested to help with the wildlife quarter there's no need to build this road over here I strongly support making that as an emergency enter and exit that was great not connecting into the neighborhood additionally I wanted to see how our neighbors in site of mode 1 were feeling about the site of road extension and so with that in mind a petition was circulated and it was signed by 55 people in site of mode 1 and the petition says as a resident of site of mode 1 I'm signing the petition to request the extension of the current site of drive to summer field that part right up in there and so tomorrow I'll give this to you I don't know if you're the one supposed to take it or what but there is interest we're saying well isn't it going to be built I mean we expected it was going to be built you need to tell me it's not automatic with this development over here going in and of course they were a little bit surprised to find out that it wasn't an automatic thing anyways thank you for very nice comments yes go ahead the civil engineer that you use was he a traffic engineer or civil engineer it was a traffic engineer a person who does traffic studies and so the person who did not do a traffic study they just simply took the data looked at it and provided their thoughts on the employment data is this data where people in south berlin can work or is this just data on where people work because it doesn't really say it appears it's where people work in tipton and county looking at the distribution according to the person that I spoke with from the traffic firm this is where people work in the hill section south berlin tent shelburn road which would be to the north and to the west encouraging traffic to go to the side of middle road I guess the point was the census data that Lamar Dickinson used was where people who live in south berlin can work which is certainly different than where people work in chipton and county people in south berlin tent may not tend to work west or berlin tent or other places you tend to locate where you work that could be a significant difference we also had three elementary schools that are in dorset street I'm sure you're aware of the elementary the middle and high school just thinking from my perspective I'm a parent over here and I've got to get my kid to school I've got a couple of choices obviously I can go out hindsburg road and fight traffic on Kennedy drive or cheese factory road or I can go ahead and come through the neighborhood just speaking for myself as a parent driving kids to school for that east-west connection because one simple reason my car is moving it's not stuck in the traffic jam until you get to swiss street that is a nightmare intersection I would not choose an intersection but before and go to kennedy drive I would still fight with but we would hope that your kids ride with us and cut down on a number of traffic to start with we don't have a lot of east-west good traffic roads in the area so that definitely is a problem and I know that hey this is a pain going through here but my car is moving and that's, I don't know, for me that's pretty important that it's moving Karen, can I ask it seems Lamarone Dickinson have been questioned many times here but they are sort of revered as the traffic folks so you seem to be avoiding telling us who your traffic person is is there some reason behind that the person that I had spoken with if I needed them to do additional work, you know, I'd certainly bring them forward I have no reason to hide the person in the RSG firm that I'm working with to get input and again they didn't do a traffic study they simply looked at the data and gave ideas and suggestions in addition to I read more about traffic in my entire life recently through all the documents so I certainly have a very good appreciation of traffic studies and what goes into them there's a great deal of work that goes into them but I'm also a mathematician too so I'm aware of what we can do with data and numbers and it's not all about pure data numbers sometimes it comes down to just as an influence on the data and numbers that we do look at so that's the other part of that thank you very much, I appreciate that thank you and we had 7 more comments so I want to make sure we get to everybody tonight I'm wondering about the direction now for the 10 foot wide walking bypass connecting from cider mill 2 into cider mill 1 it'll exit right off the summer field it won't connect to any bypass it'll connect to the street the sidewalks on the other side of the street so it would make sense to have a bypass on the south side connecting to the bypass that's already there on the west of cider mill 1 but just to empty out into a residential area with no bypass and no connection to bypass I'm just wondering why you don't just put a sidewalk there but not a bypass that will encourage kids to drive out onto a street sorry can you say your name again Paul Mayendorf comment on that I'm not aware of any I think it's the idea of having a bike path is a great one allows for bikes and so on and if there isn't already a bike path and there isn't a bike path and it ends up on cider mill road well it ends up cutting through to the north and going to Old Cross Road and then down Old Cross to the golf course you can connect to it by the sidewalk and there's a path the other way so it's not the old fashioned boardwalk but the city has traditionally tried to expand their bike paths and the bike path committee has a letter in our package as well so you know this is just normal operating procedure for us is to try to expand it I mean realistically there isn't a bike path over on Heinsberg Road yet right? but that's yet there may be that doesn't connect to anything if you go south of cider mill one and connect to the bike path now it makes sense but this doesn't make sense well this allows people who are getting off of Heinsberg Road in the future this is our one chance we can't go back to the developers and say you know what we think you need to build a bike path now because now there are housing over on Heinsberg Road we don't have that opportunity later location of the bike path yes please identify yourself again first first of all I agree with you you've got to build a bike path that's not connected to anything if you need to go up and over to the part that goes to Old Cross or down and over to the part that goes to Gorsuch Street right now it's just sitting there but my concern the reason I wanted to say something was the traffic study if I understood correctly single family homes into consideration is that correct that was said at the beginning that's what they use for numbers that's correct you used all single family homes just single family homes it assumes that all homes generate trips equal to the number of trips generated by single family homes whether they're duplex or carriage instead of reducing instead of saying oh duplex only generates 0.8 trips it says you know what let's just say they're all generating one oh it's conservative in that aspect so each unit is given one that's good and using the 2000 data is that population data no that's the correlation between where people live and where they work and so it sounds like either there's not enough money going into that kind of study to make it I mean our tax data is equally not equally but many years behind you know I mean we're just now getting 2012-2013 data so the correlation between where people live and where people work that is the kind of tough analysis apparently that takes a decade to get to the sorry but when you figure the amount of population increase in South Burlington it kind of makes it a valid number as far as I'm concerned and it also isn't taking into consideration the fact that there's school traffic there's buses in and out there are kids driving themselves to school once they reach high school age they're not talking about the evening trips or sports things and people going in and out if it's only talking about people going to work that's not even close to the number of trips in and out it's just PM and all the schools are to the west of the development and so as you said well I lived right on the corner of Dorset Street in Sadamelle but I can't imagine anybody in Sadamelle 1 or 2 deciding they're going to go to Hinesburg Road or any of their kids who are driving or parents who are delivering their kids from a school event coming from Hinesburg Road after coming out of a school so those numbers the traffic study to me doesn't seem to be at all accurate because it's not reflecting real numbers thank you yes please identify yourself so my name is Ganesh Kyaasa I live on Winesap Lane I mean I've looked at the traffic study and all I'll give my 2 cents based on 3 years or 4 years actually 31st December is when I moved so I have a 2 year old kid when we originally moved 4 years back kids were allowed they were just playing outside back side outside in front of the house and all now what we are seeing is literally I had to go and buy some board saying that drive safely something on Amazon saying drive safely this is your kids something like that and I have to put that in front of my house I think most of you might have seen that because the reason is I was not able to send them outside in my house so that's my experience that's my 2 cents for this decision thank you hi Dorothea Pinar again I just have quick lines questions that I was going to I'm supporting basically the letter that you received from Catherine and Edward Bond Ward we've been kind of working together they're not here tonight so this we didn't get a letter the folks on it's painful on Summerfield isn't that we sympathize obviously with the lines out folks but shunting all the traffic quickly down a straight shot I mean down to Summerfield it makes it even easier for that traffic from Siderville to or even a country from 116 to Dorset once people learn how straight that path is when we bought our property we knew about the connection potential the connection potential was to the north of the solar arrays to a future neighborhood which made sense and we were told it probably wouldn't happen in the future it would be a more distant future plan but that we never were given the impression that that was going to be access to Siderville to we were told where at Siderville would be accessing and that it would be just a minor connection and yes so we're supporting more of an emergency connection or a narrowing of that even if there's a bike path there we suggest maybe some mitigating factors for you know some landscaping along that to give some relief to our two fallen had here live right on the edge of that area so we started a petition to or just to give some comments on Summerfield if we did that just that part of the connection it would shunt everything from one area to the other so the impact would be shunted to South without it going north to make a connection to 116 which is what we thought that connecting path or connecting road would be as far as the we're requesting that the park that's in the northwest corner that's proposed would be eliminated because that really cuts again that corridor while of the corridor yeah having a park there is not something that's conducive to wildlife allowing the land to go back to natural will help that corridor to make it as wide as possible that and also dealing with the wet wetland area of the retention area those are sort of breaks for that corridor so if that park would be eliminated that would be great and allowing things that are open space insofar as that they're not parked just to allow them to be on mode and go back to natural would be the best way to maintain a good buffer for the wetlands and for a better corridor and for bird nesting we have a lot of kill deer and other nesting birds which we're losing a lot of if you've been reading the news in Vermont we're losing a lot of our birds because we're mowing everything their food and everything so we're going to have a well up corridor let's not put impediments to that such as the park if that fits in with your your ratio of park I would suggest eliminating that and that's it that's all I have so what would the impact be eliminating .3 those three so you take it down from .6 to roughly 3.3 would that hurt the ratio would it take me out that northeastern park is that a big killer little bad thing Brian which open space letter is that northeastern so if I do 0.36 plus 1.33 plus 0.14 plus 0.6 equals 2.89 required is 2.69 if I take out the community gardens just for funsies we're still marginally above the absolute minimum so it's something that can be considered yep or something that you already considered no no it's something that can be considered so we'll leave it to the board's discretion we don't have a strong opinion one way or the other anybody care so does that mean it would be in favor of whether it's structured lawn or open space I personally don't care that's not my hangup anybody else I agree with that let's get rid of it so not structured lawn so there's a general sense on the board we just don't need any more lawn yeah so we're good with that Dorothy could I clarify your first comment was your comment that you did not want to see side or mill drive extended but for the connection to the property to the north when that property to the north is developed then it would connection my assumption is it's coming from Detroit you know you have your main road and then you have your neighborhood on the side that was what I thought was the intent when I saw that in the design so you have the road and they have your neighborhoods to the side of that but not they have it as you know dumping to the actually where people live with their you know neighborhood and that's what you would that's what we are doing actually but it's a tradeoff it's a wine sack or summer field right now you're impacting one or the other heavily but if you did it to the north and it was to the side of that neighborhood then that's a good cut through basically giving you another east west there's an important difference in fairness as I listened to the speakers between whether you lay it on wine sack or whether you lay it on what's the other one summer field which is that the developers has argued with great eloquence that everyone knew well that was mildly probably that everyone knew that there was going to be a side mill that was going to be developed well as the lady says everyone expected or had a right to expect that sider mill road or sider mill drive would be extended including a the people on wine sap to their benefit and b the people on summerville with no assurance no assurance that anything to the to the east and north would be built so if you're going to stick it to to be blunt one street or the other I'd stick it to summerville well you couldn't have no you couldn't have reasonably relied on that because that was entirely speculative what was settled what you had a right to what you should have expected is that sider mill 2 would be developed and that sider mill road would be extended with no assurance that anything to the north and the east would be would be built now the biggest question I have coming out of this debate and again it's my poor memory the suggestion that making the actual connector between 2 and 1 into just an emergency access I think or I see Marla shaking her head already probably neighborhood connectivity problem and yet how do you balance that out against the arguments for exactly that or is it a matter of balance are we required to provide the connectivity or do we have discretion about providing the connectivity I think it's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan to connect neighborhoods fine there's a goal the comprehensive plan and where is it a requirement of the LDR it's also desirable from an emergency response standpoint from a what emergency response well that's what I'm saying in other words but the argument that people are making the thing that the people who have a traffic problem shall we say and the people who have a wildlife car in a problem both agree on is both their problems would be best mitigated in that area if what is now the connecting segment we're limited to emergency access that would violate one of the provisions of the LDRs which limit the number of homes to 50 units on a dead end street so that Heinsberg road connection is a dead end street you could only have 49 units access from Heinsberg road only you mean the long entrance in from Heinsberg road could then become a dead end street could only be 49 units access from Heinsberg road then you have to have a connection someplace else if you're going to have more that's the reason for the connection I guess you answered the question sorry identify yourself when I asked the question and you told me keep that question until later and I almost forgot it can you identify yourself but let me start open my door open my door I am the person who lives next to that connecting street and we are anticipating and I'm hoping that maybe you can tell me that I'm wrong that that street along with that path whatever it is the bike or the walking path sidewalk it seems like it's really going to be encroaching right outside front or my side window there in my little den in the front of the house which initially we knew that there was going to be something there and we asked because and specifically we actually got that house a year and a half ago thinking this is wonderful all this space and ok so it will be an access road which we were told you know will be something what we have been hearing since we moved here which is very I mean we love the area believe me we could work for you know the chamber of commerce everybody hears this coming from New York but it's very disheartening when you get this after the fact and equally even talking to our developer we got into cider mill and we said you know gee we like that house maybe we should have gotten a little more information at that point because then we certainly didn't have to choose that house you know to be built we could have purchased another lot but I don't see what you're I'm sorry so my question is I'm sorry yes I got off track so my question was could that be a bike path be put on the other side of the ditch the water the water ditch I'm sorry I don't remember the property term for it the retaining bond right where it says site land like yes just north of the road the proposed road yeah proposed road could that be put on the other side of the road like north like up it's a 50 foot wide right away there I believe so everything has everything has to go within that 50 feet so you could put the path on the other side of the road but you'd have to move the road closer to the property line there's only so much space so the question is would you rather have your house or would you rather have the road oh no see I thought that they could be separated but that was my question so I guess they can't so we have to be within the 50 feet so we thought it was better to have the path on the house side than the road so how much space do you have there to the north of the road currently if somebody else's property north of there here yeah this isn't their property oh and are there houses over there no there's solar panels solar panels another property so can you build the road next to the lot line you got the 10 feet apparently I understand selfish the problem is there's a stormwater feature just to the north of the road that needs to stay oh yeah there's a drain there the so-called ditch which we're modifying is just to the north side that's why there's not another unit to the north okay I mean there's space there for reasoning I hope you've answered your question can I make a suggestion that maybe you just I'm sorry a gentleman and he could be right next you got the picture that shows it real close again right right up in here there's another next page there's another next page there you go do you want me to run around I know driving all over the place keep telling me a couple suggestions your idea is to get all of us as far away from you as you can right I would propose that the bike path is better than having traffic close to your house as these people have suggested but the bike path is it going to still be 10 feet here because we have used 8 feet in a lot of places and if it's already going to be adjacent to the street here why not move it in close that's a couple more feet those kinds of things while I'm here and slide down this way a little bit if somebody is running this thing there's a suggestion that was bringing the bike path let's see that was bringing the bike path down into here up in here right kind of following that sewer line I won't take up your time with why that is a great idea I could list them there's 100 of them basically following the sewer line what about that let me make two other quick points relative to the 30 versus 60% traffic which way it goes no traffic studies or anything what's happened with employment at IBM in the last 15 years and what's happened at dealer.com as way employment is shifting just something to concern another point you talked a lot about about rocks boulders versus fences for demarcation and various things I live very close to Stonehenge I go through that all the time they have a lot of split rail fences they are replacing them all the time it's a but they are only used in specific places adjacent to bike paths and they don't have anything else throughout that whole area so I ask the question why are you even thinking about anything else I do I was basically going to suggest the same thing bring the path right up to the rock eliminate that make it a feet you can mitigate the situation and then perhaps even just I just being good neighbors planting along there so that they don't have it all over there just some simple planting might be nice and the road is 18 feet through the wetlands you could keep it 18 feet all the way to Summerfield that would also discourage traffic we talked about it earlier yeah 10-12 feet wouldn't the bike and pedestrian committee need to be informed if we it's okay to reduce the length of the bike path there from 10 to 8 feet and to bump out the way against the road do we need to it's still a bike path we're just there or not is there any reason to request permission from the bike and pedestrian committee no it's just in charge but a serious answer is that it wouldn't be terrible to make sure they don't have any alarm bells going off it's already that way alongside or mill the bike path connection well it's not 10 feet from the road it's right next to the road well if you're going to take it back let me know what you're going to do I'll be at the meeting to support it and we already discussed decreasing that area from 18 that's at your discretion if you did that you might not need to reduce the width of the path I think you're going to pick up what was the argument was it 24 there or 22 there wait was there public safety public road not argument but 20 exactly so 18 is a very narrow road but to accommodate the wetland right so it's sort of minimized and balanced against protecting the wetlands picture two parking spaces is what 18 feet is so it feels very narrow so the LDRs allow 18 feet where it has an alternative benefit in situations where there is no significant impact of making it a bit wider the LDRs recommend 20 feet minimum I think less is more so less path less road my only fear now that I'm thinking about this is if people are barreling down summer field if there's some sort of curb or something between just for that little piece at the corner if there's a curb or something between the road and the path if somebody's barreling around the corner I'm getting around to it if somebody's going left they might come over into the path that's a good point turning radius with 18 feet in two cars we could put some removal ballards or something to protect the path that would be great that would be great I can tell you right now the DPW is not going to mean favor of removal ballards but a curb would be fine can we have a bigger discussion on the extension of Cider Mill Road because honestly that's my big sticking point on this project we talk about not wanting to impact the people on summer field at the end where I'm not trying to punish them but you're talking about eight units here but you're talking about four here for a road that should have been built initially and will eventually be built when the project to the north gets developed which most likely will so eventually this will get built and there's factors we can do to mitigate traffic going through there that we can put in place now neck downs other features but I just think that going to the amount of traffic for a winding way through isn't going to reduce the amount of east west traffic flow it's not, you're still going to get the same amount of traffic you're not going to suddenly have people saying well I don't have to do this because this is built on a lot more traffic is going to go I just think that the amount of traffic that you're going to increase through here for this neighborhood interconnectivity is a negative impact I think that the people that were here to begin with probably did when they said that side of mill 2 was going to get built envisioned this road was going to be part of the connection of that phase and we had to have, we asked to whether we can open this up for this level we were told we can and I think it should be done at this point and I agree all the strong feelings, Matt, John, Jennifer six and one half I mean I guess I'm inclined to agree as well but I do see the other side of the coin Matt was conflicted earlier I'm still conflicted too I'm not six and one I'm 70-30 that it should be done now it's going to get built eventually I can see why I can see reasoning particularly the wildlife quarter leaving it alone but the wildlife quarter it's going to get built so you're talking about a collector street that's designed for traffic flow as opposed to dumping it into a small meandering I'm not disagreeing I'm 70% agreeing with you Matt are you 50-50? No, I'm 55-45 you didn't live on Winesap and weren't on the board was that? we'll need to go to city council first for what? because right now the city council has not accepted that right away the lawyer opinion said that you could require us to build it if it was city owned land so the city would have to accept the right away all the way through and at that point time then you could require us or ask us to build it and obviously the elephant in the room is the current 109-year approval wait a minute yes that's too hard it's currently private property and we don't own it, it's owned by somebody else oh you don't own that piece? no sir, I do not own that piece the city has an irrevocable offer of dedication to take over that right away which we well then we should execute and obviously if we go back the 109-year plan certainly is a good plan for us if we go back to it there's a lot of improvements that are being attached to this, the left turn lane on Dorset Street is being sold on us which is expensive this piece of road is expensive the bike path all the way through the project that 10 feet, that doesn't exist in the 109-year unit it's really open space so it's getting to be a math issue for us you add enough stuff and we'll go back to the 109-year plan and we still have the right 109-year plan to come back in the future and do this one piece that's in the residential so that's a real item for us maybe not for your consideration definitely for us no but it's also for our consideration when you hang that knife above our head I understand I have a question just a second the gentleman here had a comment before just a question on the sewer pumping station now that we're adding more units it's grabbing bed to that pumping station is that going to be adequate size the size for Sightemel 1 and Sightemel 2 but it was for Sightemel 2 with 109 units it has enough capacity and we've proven that so he's an engineer public works will make sure that with 109-year plan which was approved in 2015 does that take into consideration that wine sap was only half developed at the time of the approval or do the people who have now come into wine sap lane have a chance to weigh in on something that was approved and didn't negatively impact down until they moved in that's approved it's done they could go ahead and do that tomorrow yeah so it really is going to come down to they've agreed to many improvements many modifications of the plan and so at some point requiring them to do one more thing is going to simply make and say let's go back to the 109 including the vision village residential area to the north so it's going to be 109 plus a village residential segment that was there's going to be a street there one silver lining though 109 units is definitely smaller than 142 they still have the right to build on a section that you're not thinking about there could be 159 but then they would have to come back before us so we could make them do it I guess I don't understand why such an opposition from the builder other than cost of the pavement to do that if you deleted the whole bike path which basically doesn't go to anywhere right now and build that one section you're equivalently coming down to the same cost factor correct that's an awful big bike path that's 10 feet long it's a short piece of road again very pessimistic that we can get a permit to build that section build a piece of road do you mean yeah it crosses a class 2 wetland we need a wetland permit from the state of Vermont and we need to show why to the state we need to build that road well it's time to come here that's a pretty good why a pretty good supportive letter for your urgent plea to the state which I know you'll make passionately about why you want the road the end of wine side I'm putting another two ways to outside over at Summerville so the traffic is not going to be going down the road this is a bigger issue the wetland is a bigger issue you're going to be crossing a wetland to get to the new phase 2 this has been very helpful other comments from the public sounds like we're continuing sounds like it's February 6 because there is no January 16 correct just to make sure that the applicant is okay with this if we continue to oh my gosh it's like three pages up on my nose if we continue to February 5 we need all revised materials by January 26 good you're sitting in front of your client so you're going to say yes of course okay and is it February 6th right February 6th move that we continue preliminary application SD 1729 of JJJ South Browinton LLC to February 6th second move in second we continue to February 6th on February C.I. thank you very much yeah nice job guys yeah well done yeah this is a good job minutes for December 19 everyone's had a chance to read them sorry good catch very good catch it's a good comment upstairs I want to go make the comment if Marlowe was the draft person were you the draft person on the who was it on Sue never mind just fussy fussy stuff say that I'm crafty it could be fussy it could be fussy that's okay alright I'm going to be fussy roll it back a little a minute wait should we be Mark Mark were you in on that meeting okay thank you what's that meeting the point was you said that I said on it was on the it was on the thing that you approved over my objection which was letting a reopen the reopening the opening case okay let's go to that one reconsideration of Finney's effect beginning on the bottom of page 3 beginning of page 4 right at top of page 5 Marlowe 12 times problematic not clear cutting doesn't want to be constrained that wasn't it it's the next paragraph after that they would have to be spread around already built regular units and actually the point was they would have to be concentrated in the area where they're not already built regular units right they would have to be concentrated they would have to be concentrated that was my objection right or designate rentals as affordables already built units and that's why we've been asking for a plan laying out where they're going to go and being told that they don't have to do that until they hit 270 and we just functionally agree with it and I think that if they want to get the bonus density for affordability they have to be factored in from day one not once they hit the bonus density because that means that they could stop building a 270 or 269 and then you're like you don't have an approved plan because then you have a partially built out plan exactly and you and I make a minority of two yeah well that's alright so Frank would it be alright if I change the minutes to say Mr. Cookman question what would happen if they got to unit 270 hadn't built affordable units where would they go they would have to be constrained rather than to one area they would have to be confined to only the unbuilt area and you could say Mr. Baron obstentia agreed I said so right there so so uh yeah Mr. Frank yeah so Frank he wasn't just two okay so you agree with what I meant and not what was written right any other questions to the minutes no other changes to the minutes because then they can say okay I'll understand a motion to approve the minutes I move that we approve the minutes from December 19th second moved and seconded that we approve these minutes all in favor say aye aye thank you very much and of the meeting at 10 30 who oh any other business yes any other business yeah before the meeting closes right no other business thank you take care if you're concerned with procedure not because you had something there'll be meetings in front of my neighbors