 to peek at it. I'd like to introduce fellow board members. Mark Bear will not be here for the first half hour, but he will be joining us at 7.30. I'd like to introduce Frank Cokman, Jim Langen, Stephanie Wyman, Dan Albrecht, and Quinn Mann. Also here from the city are Steph Marlekeen, who's the development review planner, and Delilah Hall, who's our zoning administrator, and we depend on them and they do an excellent job. So I just want to acknowledge that. Marle and Delilah, are there any people in the auditorium tonight? Okay, thanks. So let me explain that there are several ways of participating in this meeting. One is to attend the meeting at City Hall. The other is to participate virtually, as many of us are doing now, and the third way is to participate by telephone. What is important, though, is that you register as a participant in these meetings by either signing the sign-in sheet in the back of the room or sending Marle an email with your contact information saying you'd like to be considered a participant, and her email is mking, k-e-e-n-e, s-b-r-l dot com. And if you are, yes, okay. I just want to remind people that there are, for people with hearing impairments, there are, for now and in the future, there are technologies that we have available to help with so you can hear the presentations if you're in the auditorium. So the first item on the agenda tonight is the emergency evacuation procedure, and at the back of the auditorium, there are two doors on each side. In the case of an emergency, you would exit one of those doors and either go left or right, and that would take you outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none. Yes. Okay. I see him on the screen. Yeah. Okay. Hi, Patrick. Any no changes to the agenda? Okay. A couple of announcements. Thank you all for attending. Those in the phone and watching online and those in the audience, this meeting is being recorded and I've already gone over the sign in. So I will now turn to any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda. Hearing none. Sure. I'm sorry, did I? Okay. Yep. I did skip that. Go ahead. Those will be effective. Right now, we are working on some formatting issues. If you were to print the LDRs that were approved by city council, you would have some blank pages and some like, you know, number three comes up twice kind of thing. So those will be up and ready to go by 21 days after, but they are available now. There's just some formatting issues. Thank you, Marla. Thank you. And I trust that board members will get hard copies when those are available. I will only be making hard copies if you request them. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other announcements? Okay. Let's turn to number five on the agenda, our first project tonight and that is continued site application SP 21039 of South Village Communities, LLC, to provide a replacement plan for trees and shrubs that were improperly removed. The plan consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path between Aiken Street and Spear Street, east of the existing paved recreation path at 1840 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? Who is here for the applicant? Patrick O'Brien. Anyone else, Patrick? No. Okay. Please raise your right hand. I'm going to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you. Okay. Why don't you give us a three sentence overview of what you've proposed and then we can dive into the staff comment. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So thank you for describing the location. I can go over that in further detail if any of the board members wish. I was in front of you several weeks ago with this presentation and there was some questions and concerns that had to do with the invasive species that were going to have to be removed per our active 50 permit. And if there were enough trees on that plan to cover that area when those invasives were taken out. And so there was a request, I think, by the majority of the board members for me to go back to the landscape architect and also me on site with our city arborist, which I did do both, and see if there was a mechanism or an additional plantings that could be proposed that would, for lack of better term, replace those invasives once they were removed. And that is the plan that was put forth in this application. Thank you. So the staff comment, there's only one staff comment, and it is the question, is the planting plan acceptable to the board? And I would welcome any board feedback or input. Chairperson? Yes. May I give a brief presentation as it relates to the changes that we proposed? Sure. Okay, thank you very much. So we're all looking at L 100 machine. And to put this into perspective, the area that these trees are planted within is about 260 feet long, and at the widest point about 110 feet. That encompasses about about a half an acre. The previous plan didn't have any plantings within the dark squiggly line. That dark squiggly line basically represents an area that is the majority of which is invasive species that will need to be removed. So what we did was we went back and originally the last plan proposed about proposed 37 new trees. This plan proposes 55 new trees. And as you can see, for the majority of them, they are clumped together. We've got 28 evergreens and three different species. We have pine spalsum and hemlock. We've got 16 deciduous trees and four different species. We've got maples birch, a catalpa, which I don't even know honestly what it is, and some flowering lilac, some lilac trees. And lastly, for the wildlife, we have some fruit bearing trees, service berries, and pears. So we have a greater mix of trees. We have more of them. But more importantly, per your request, what we did was we planted additional trees within and just outside that dark squiggly line. And a couple, something I wanted to point out that is important to note, and that is not all of that area needs to be removed. There are some trees in there that are native. So what we did, you'll see just to the left of the plan below the landscape legend, we have a note that says approximate location of planting. The purpose of that is if we go out there, we wanted to have some flexibility to say, well, we know that it shows that we're supposed to hemlocks right here, but there's some nice native trees there. So we're going to leave those and we're going to move over 10 feet there. So that's the intent of that note. It's just to give us a little tiny bit of flexibility. So we don't have to be boxed into a situation where we have to cut down a native tree. That's obviously not the intent. So really, that's it. If you weren't here for the last meeting, but you were here for the first, this is the third meeting. The first meeting, we did show some trail network, some benches throughout this area, but in meeting with the South Village Homeowners Association, as well as the stewardship board, they felt that given that there's already seven miles of sidewalks, bike paths and quiet trails at South Village, that there was already plenty out there and they had requested that those be taken off the plan. So that's why those were removed. Thank you, Patrick. You're welcome. Questions or comments from the board about the planting plan and its acceptability at this point? That was presented. It looks good to me. I think we're at a bigger stretch of forest. The little side path would be of interest, but since it's a pretty small spot, I'm fine with that change. Yeah. I would have to say that I was struck by the comment that one homeowner said that that the previous trees didn't fully screen, so that leads me to believe that this will be an adequate replacement. So that's my opinion. I don't know about other folks. I think that's... Oh, okay. Thank you. I stand corrected. A neighbor had commented to me at the time that they did provide a screen. Okay. All right. Thank you. Probably depends on, yeah, what a floor, but okay. Other comments from the board? Are we ready to close this SP 21039? Yes. Patrick, go ahead. When you guys are discussing this in closed session, I would like to make a request, and that is if you were to go back to the application I had asked for a condition of approval that gave me, not basically me, gave the city arborist the ability to make a substitute for some trees. And the reason I asked that is this year is even worse than last year in regards to sourcing specific species of trees because of the supply chain. So you'll see on my original letter there is a request that basically said if I can't get a certain tree, may I please go to the city arborist for a substitution? So if you guys could speak to that. And then the second thing is I know you're all busy, but it would be really great if you could deliberate on this and render decisions sooner than later. And honestly, it has to do with the supply chain because I already have some other landscape plans that are out to bid. And I keep getting warnings that I should place my orders now because there's obviously a shortage of nursery stock and trees. So I just don't want to be in a situation where 30 or 45 days from now I get approved and then I go to place an order and all of a sudden I have to make a whole bunch of substitutes because of these trees and unavailable. So in the event that you are inclined to approve this, I just ask that you do it sooner than later. Thank you. Does anyone? Yes, Frank, go ahead. I'm sorry, Patrick, there was just something I didn't understand in your presentation. Is it possible to put the plan back up that we were looking at? Is it possible to put that back up on the screen? And I'll ask the question in the meantime. I thought you said, yeah, there it is. I believe you said you didn't want to have to be necessarily held to this precise plan because you might get there and find native trees that there would be no reason to remove. I gather you are not showing the native trees on this plan? So what we have done, and I'm glad you brought that up because I was going to mention it, but I didn't want to dive down into the details unless I was asked. Last meeting, I think a similar question was asked, and that was one of the reasons why there was a request to have the city arborists come out and take a look. In fact, what I did after that meeting is I called and had a meeting with Mr. Bob Hymans, who's the specialist that the South Village Stewardship Board now hires to take care of and manage all the invasive species at South Village. My charge to him was very specific, and I said to him, I would like you to actually go out and flag either the natives or the invasives. So the city arborist, when he came out, he could specifically see which ones were which. Well, he called me back about 45 minutes later after I left, and he said, this is impossible because there's hundreds of trees out there, most of which are one or two inches in diameter. I would have to this is going to take me forever. So the point is that what you would need to envision in looking at this is that area, even though it's small, has 100, 200, 250 small trees, a percentage of which are invasive and a percentage of which are native. And I just don't want to, you know, I just looking for a little bit of flexibility. What you don't see out there is 100 or 50 trees that are more than four inches in diameter. It's just, it's just like early successional, native with maybe a dozen or so trees that are greater than eight inches that we're going to leave alone unless they're, unless they're invasives. I hope that answers your question. Well, not entirely. Are you saying you want flexibility to plant fewer trees? No, no, no, no, ability to locate them in a slightly different place. The ladder, I'd like flexibility to plant the trees one way or another five feet. Right, but substantially the same trees and the same quality of the same diameter and et cetera, right? That's correct, Frank. Yes. Thank you. That's my question. But it also sounds, Frank, like you're asking, Patrick, for a little flexibility given the available inventory to swap one species for another. For example, if the catalpa that you want to plant is not available, you're going to need to replace it with something else. Yeah, and typically the way that would happen is I would send a city arborist via the planning staff a couple of substitutes and the city arborist would approve of one of those substitutes. Yeah, I think the request is reasonable and I don't think we have any option but to or shouldn't seek any option other than the trusted discretion of the city arborist. Yeah, I would agree with that. Other board members, any comments? Is there anyone who is not, does not find this plan acceptable? I have a comment. Yes. Don, I'm sorry. Just wait for a comment period if the board is done discussion. Are we ready for public comments? Well, I was just going to say, you're a member of the public, obviously. Let's give me one minute, please. Is Noah your name? Yes, ma'am. Okay. One minute, please. Is there anyone on the board who's not okay with this? Okay, now we're going to turn to public comment. Go ahead, Noah. My name is Noah Hyman, 1575 Dorset Street. Something was said that I just don't understand. So I have about 31 and a half acres and I've had arborists come through and we've tagged everything on my property. It's not hard. It's not expensive. It's free. They're right down there off of Spirit Street. You can go in there. They will come. This is what they do. This is what they love. They will take out and tag, well, they won't take it out. I'm sorry. They will tag invasive species, which the arborists can then remove. I've done it here. I've taken it out. Oh my gosh, how much buckthorn and poplar and just honey suckle. It's not hard. It's better for the environment. And I think if we were to treat this property for the better of the environment, then we could call in the appropriate people. It's not a problem. I've done it. I know other people that have done it. And it's easy peasy. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other comments from the public? Yes. Stewart has his hand up. Okay. Mr. Moet. Hi, thank you. I'm Stuart Moet. I'm a member of the HOA Board on South Village. And I can also speak for the stewardship board. Both of us are happy with this proposal from Patrick. So it's a big improvement on what we saw before and we like it. Thank you very much, Mr. Moet. Any other members of the public who would like to comment? Delilah, are there any online who have expressed interest? Any others online? Okay. Thank you so much. Patrick, did I see you raise your hand? Do you have a final comment before we address closure? No. I just want to thank Noah. I don't know your last name, but I'm assuming he will be on the sign-in sheet. I'll reach out to him and obtain his email address and try to get the contact numbers for the resources that he has used. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions before we entertain a motion to close this hearing? Okay. Would anyone like to move closure? Take a motion to close the hearing for the application in hand. Thanks, Dan. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Stephanie. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signified by raising your hand or saying aye? Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. The motion is carried. This SP 21039 is closed. Thank you, Patrick. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. We are going to move on to the next one. I'll just call it up here. Okay. All right. Number six on the agenda. Continued master plan application MP 2102 of Beta Air LLC for a planned unit development on the five lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and an RV sales service and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the five lots resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres and consists of a 344,000 square foot manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 square foot commercial building, and an 85,000 square foot flight instruction and airport use building of 37... Why do you have to send signal with liability? Why do you have to send signal with liability? ... of the resulting airport lot at 37 Milston Road. Somebody needs to mute. Okay. Thanks. Much better. Thanks. All right. Who is here for the applicant, please? Hi. This is Art Clugo with Beta Technologies. Hi, Art. And Blaine Newton from Beta Technologies. Blaine BLANY. Okay. Okay. If you care, but if you would like to not sit at the close to each other, all the other mics are also left. Great. And if I take my mask off, is that okay for the conversation or should I leave it on? I think it... If you're comfortable with that, it's easier for us to hear you. Thank you. Okay. So remind me, Marla, if they've been sworn in before, this is still part of that hearing. Okay. Let's go ahead and swear you both in. Please raise your right hand. Do solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you. So we have a staff report which is written as a draft decision, but there's a couple of items for us to talk about tonight. And I wonder if, applicant, you would like to give us any introductory comments based on the staff report. I'm sorry. Let me just ask if there are any disclosures or recusals. Yeah, Don, I am recused from this. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie. Any others? Okay. All right. Applicant, go ahead. Hi. Can you all hear me okay? Yes. I'm going to hand this over fairly quickly to Art for kind of a technical discussion. I just wanted to give some thoughts. I'm the Chief Operating Officer at Beta have been there for two and a half years or so. And first off, I want to thank you for having us and happy to be part of this public process to figure out how we can find a path forward that's in the community's best interest and Beta's best interest. You know, when I joined Beta two and a half years ago, we were 30 people and a beat up old hanger that probably should have been torn down at the Northanger and the level of support we got at all levels of government from this board through the state offices to get that project moved along very, very quickly so that we could build what we were pretty proud of as a world class aerospace R&D center was something I'd never seen before. The level of pragmatism applied to getting that done was just awesome. And that's important to us. You know, we're a small startup aerospace company here in Vermont and our only advantage is time. It's a matter of time before the Boeing's and the Airbus's and others with billions of dollars of capital and huge talent pools come into this market and our ability to execute quickly is core to our ability to be successful and keep our promises to our customers so they can keep their promises of sustainable execution of their missions and we can keep our promise to this community to build a business that can create significant job growth. And as we started that expansion, you know, we recorded by a half a dozen at least geographies that had deeper built in larger aerospace talent pools and deeper economic incentive pockets, but it didn't matter because Kyle and Katie and I and Art and others looked around. Vermont was the obvious choice and the south end of the airport in particular for a variety of reasons. It's the pragmatism that's exhibited in the state, the connection to mission that, you know, if you, of people that live here that want to get out and experience the outdoors and enjoy the state are naturally connected to our mission of bending the curve on climate change. And going back to that collaboration, the ability to find a mutual solution and run at it hard at all levels of government and at all levels in the community is unmatched in any place that I've lived or worked and it's really why we're here. And, you know, Art has laid out over the last several meetings I've listened in. I haven't been here. Our master plan to build a cultural and training center to train pilots and technicians and invite the community in. And what we believe is a pretty beautiful large scale for Vermont. Final assembly facility that is aligned with our sustainability goals and we're spending investing significant dollars to make it net zero and to blend in with the beautiful landscape here. And, you know, that facility is key to our ability to keep pace on our time on that race that we have to get to market quickly so that we can build aircraft and test them with the FAA and deliver them to our customers and create the hundreds of great jobs that we know we can and also bend the curve on climate change. I'm going to turn it over to Art here but I hope that we can find a resolution that allows us to move out tonight on building this facility in this campus here in South Burlington. It's where we think we have the best chance of success and we hope we can find a resolution that is in the best interest of the South Burlington community and of Beta. Thanks. I'll turn it over to Art. Thank you, Blaine. We are all very excited about Beta's presence here and are interested in your growth. So, go on. Frank has his hand up. Sure, Frank, go ahead. Just before you get into it with Art, I wonder, I was sort of fascinated from a little bit I know from I have a neighbor who worked with Beta. Would you explain exactly what your manufacturing and who your customers are? Yeah, for sure. So, you don't have to identify, though, but the industry is happy to. We've been really proud of the customers that we've been able to court and, you know, we're a propulsion company at heart and so we're building what I call insanely reliable electric motors, batteries and the power electronics that power them along with the charging stations here in Vermont. That's really the core enabling technology and where the value lives and the job creation is in electric aviation. The rest of the things that go on an airplane, the carbon fiber structures or the avionics or the brakes, that supply chain exists and so in Williston we'll be building, currently building the motors, the electric motors and the batteries and the inverters and in this facility we're talking about here, we'll be taking items from the supply chain, taking our motors and kind of stuffing them all together to do final assembly on the aircraft and so there'll be aircraft, electric aircraft flying zero emissions out of the tailpipe rolling out of this facility in 2023 if all things go as planned here over the next little bit. And our customers are initially will be sending aircraft down to San Antonio in 2023 and 2024 for the U.S. Air Force testing. They have a training facility in San Antonio right now where they're training 85 airmen and women to fly our aircraft and we have an on-site simulator there that they're training in literally as we speak. So our initial deliveries will be for Air Force logistics missions and Army logistic missions followed as soon as we're certified in late 2024 with deliveries to United Therapeutics who's in the organ distribution business and an organ generation business and then UPS directly thereafter and so UPS is looking to optimize their network in an environmentally sustainable way. They're flying around in 40-year-old turboprops today and they see because of the environmental benefits and the cost benefits provided by electric aviation as a way to increase customer quality and reduce their environmental footprint. 60 percent of UPS's carbon emissions come from their airline and they're were the first option that they have to start to bend that downward in a reliable way. And so those are our initial customers and we're in conversations with a number of others that we're pretty excited about. And then later downstream we have a customer named called Blade which is regional air mobility for the passenger markets. But yeah happy to go in any amount of detail as you'd like. They're pretty passionate about it and excited about the partners that we have to make this a reality. Just a quick follow-up sorry Dawn but are you doing something with pilot less aircraft? Are you? Are you? Is that part of? Yeah we are building a manned aircraft and so the part of this master plan is to train to provide a factory school for training for the 7000 pilots and 7000 technicians we're going to expect to need in our fleet across the U.S. by 2030. It's entirely possible that the Air Force and Army will look to to build this as a remote piloted aircraft but in commercial sectors we see this this as being certified as a manned aircraft. So you're building the aircraft not just the engine right? Yeah we're we're yeah we're putting the we're producing the aircraft and assembling it here in at this proposed development at the south end of the airport. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Dawn I think you're on mute. Sorry. Thank you. Are you publicly traded at the current time? We are not we're privately funded a business as well as we we we took a pretty pragmatic approach about this or many of our competitors have gone public and raised billions of dollars. We've kind of kept our heads down and and raised money privately but also have earned or keep with with development projects with the Air Force and United Therapeutics. Okay thank you. Any other questions before we move on to the staff comments? Okay so the first staff comment involves the traffic impact study and we we are expecting some results tonight and I will turn it over to Marla to speak to those. There was some numbers that appeared erroneous. I actually caught up with the applicants traffic engineer today. There was some weird glitch where the numbers at the beginning of the table got pasted wrong but they got added up correctly by the end so that's not a problem. There was a question about the trip generation in the first phase which is the office in manufacturing building and there was a question about trip generation in the red phase which is the commercial building at the front of the site. If the questions of the technical reviewer pan out the applicant may have overestimated the number of trips by somewhere between 50 and 70 trips and so my question to our technical reviewer was would that change the final answers? He said well it might. So couple things. One is you know this is a master plan. One of the master plan review criteria is whether they meet the total number of trips or to establish the total number of trips allowable beyond which they would have to amend their master plan. So the board can decide whether to require them to make these adjustments that were from the technical review or not and if not then they can keep the number of trips of 553 that's recommended in this memo. That does give them a buffer from their actual proposed 526 or a buffer of 50 to 70 more if the recommendations of the technical review pan out to be correct. And then the second piece is that well sorry this is very complicated. If the recommendation of the technical reviewer about the red phase that commercial building pans out you know that may affect single warrants at that time. What the board has done in the past for traffic studies is they've just said update it. Once you've built your first phase and you come in for your next phase do a little update see where things are. I think that would be in this case appropriate to you know kind of true up the numbers see what's happening on Wilson road see what's being generated by the development and also to evaluate that comment of the technical reviewer for that red phase. So that would be my recommendation for that and then the third recommendation about the trip generation of the manufacturing and office which is in for preliminary and final plat now. Sorry I'm just kind of gathering my thoughts because it's I want to make sure it's not confusing. So if we jump ahead to thinking about the final plat that's being reviewed tonight that plans that includes the traffic signal. Reviewing the materials that were submitted embedded in one package that the applicant sent us VTrans provided their letter of intent and they said we are not intending to approve the traffic signal for the office of manufacturing building though we acknowledge that it may be warranted later. So given that VTrans has the ultimate say of work on the Wilson road it doesn't really matter whether the board says traffic signal is warranted for the office of manufacturing or the board says traffic signal is not warranted for the office of manufacturing. Since the technical review thinks that the trips are overestimated the VTrans has said we're not going to approve a traffic signal for the first phase and actually in speaking with the applicants traffic consultant today they have also amended their study to say traffic signal not warranted in the first phase. I would recommend that we just say no traffic signal in the first phase. Please come back and tell us whether it's needed when you come in for the next phase. Thank you Marla. Applicant what are your thoughts about that? That sounds like a very reasonable plan we're certainly happy to take that as a condition of the decision. Okay great thank you. Any board questions or comments before we move on? Okay hearing none let's see where's the second comment. This comment relates to parking and the recreation recreational amenity in the red phase. Marla I'm going to need you to do a cliff's notes on this I wasn't quite sure I had a handle on this. Could you just give us the elevator speech on this please? Well how about we build this recreational amenity? We met with them on this and we talked about it and this is something that we all kind of agreed was a good idea and so staff's position is down to the details but ultimately the decision is of the board to decide whether this recreational amenity meets the standard that parking shall be to the side or rear with these exceptions and one of the exceptions that's listed here is the board may approve parking between a public street and one or more building if the principal uses the law is for public recreation so that's where staff thinks that this is viable but it's up to you guys. So are we talking about can you show us we're talking about the the long thin pink building on this visual and so the building wouldn't be constructed correct? Not the building but the building would be in place until such time as the long pink building was constructed. And this is right along Williston Road and so could you point with your marker where the parking would be for this please? I have a question what makes this recreational and the previous question is has the board ever approved such a the recreation amenity clause with another project? And we recently approved that addition for the hockey arena um but I don't know that they've that there's precedent for it on a private site. So it's kind of a pocket park or is it bigger than a parking park? It's like it's itching to present so why don't we turn it over? Okay thanks. It is bigger than a pocket park it's probably a little less than 100 by 200 so what's that half an acre? So it's a little bit bigger than a pocket park but the intent here is to provide a feature that makes makes those sidewalks in a lot of ways more usable because the sidewalks don't go anywhere east and west. We've created these landforms these these paths for for folks to come out and just really hang out as well as a place for some public art create some interest and and a different type of park than what we have elsewhere on the master plan. This would be very similar in a lot of ways to the well received I believe there the the geese or the goose or the just just across the street here around the wetlands where people like a couple of benches you can walk around out there take a short walk sit on a bench or in this particular case these landforms vary in height from say zero up to five or six feet yeah six to eight feet so they're fairly substantial you can go sit out there read a book or just generally hang out and so this felt like a nice way to bring some additional recreation amenities into the project closer to where people would be accessing the property and not have to go so deep but it's temporary correct it would be temporary and it would then be replaced by the commercial building which is what the master plan would call for at some point in time in the future it's intended to be a bridge and a bridge in a way that has more use than maybe some of the other examples around town okay thank you Frank did you have a question or was it Dan it was I'm just I I just want more I'm torn a little bit because to me the location of the building the first building is because you wanted to be able to roll right out on the tarmac and then we have this regulation that says you can't put your parking in front of the building because we're part of part of me would say if this was a normal lot layout is that large building would go right on Williston Road itself to create street presence and a true city environment but it is what it is because that's where the air you obviously don't want to have to truck your airplanes a couple hundred feet just to get to the tarmac space so we're trying to accommodate a quasi airport operation because you obviously need to test these things and get them out on the runway so we're trying to finish it should also be you know we should consider Dan that this is an industrially zoned area we have the airport industrial and we have the mixed industrial so this is intended to be a dense industrial area where we can create mixed moderate to high intensity uses and what what we've tried to do here is provide that bridge in a very thoughtful creative way in working with staff we looked at a couple of different options and this seemed to be the one that passed the the test to the the standards that are in the the LDRs it's certainly not traditional based on you know what we've seen in South Burlington before but it's it's a good creative collaborative way to reconcile the challenge and and the hardship that is created by having an airport and trying to do a manufacturing facility on the airport right that's the challenge um Marla question are there sidewalks to the west and east of this lot yeah I might might worry about this and this is somewhat and I get what you're trying to do are here and I'm not you're doing the best you can with what we're stuck with and this reminds me of these little slivers of sidewalk that we occasionally see and all that so I get it I just sort of like well first of all if we're going to sign off on this it needs to be there needs to be signage that it's available for public use and public use encouraged right because if it's a recreational amenity and it's hard because it doesn't even connect with the sidewalk there so so Dan as you're thinking about this you know I probably should have pointed this out earlier but to the left hand side of the sheet is actually where the bus stop will be so for those of our employees and those folks that might be taking the bus they will it's a little bit off the left side of the paper they'll the bus stop is there they'll have an opportunity to to walk through this either on the way up to the the facility or when they're waiting for the bus they've got something a little bit grander than the glass right and it's good it's good for your employees and that's great my sense is that this recreational amenity concept was probably thinking that we would have parks where the public you know would where things would be screening and where the recreational amenity was for the broader public benefit if essentially we're giving you a waiver that there's not a building screening the park that's all that's all i'm pointing out i don't think i'm going to die on the ldr you think that ldr was probably intended for true parks rather than small private spaces well definitely the private the private space thing yeah like and i don't the ldrs are probably silent on this it's the same thing with easements if we're granting easements and tax write-offs and open space easements but the public doesn't have a right to use this property or there's no signage or no parking then what's the what's the purpose other than finding a way to get around the ldr i don't deny this is going to be pretty and over time maybe some employees of the businesses in an area might go oh hey i can hang out on here don't worry it's cool i read the i read the board's decision but without some without some without some signage and marking it's not really a public amenity it's the same thing with a little path yeah when the campus is all built down and people are coming out there to hang out in the cool space or see your museum display all about how beta started you know in the early 2000s we're a ways away from that and so i just worry that this will be kind of sit there and just kind of sit there because there's no dang connectivity on the sidewalks that's all nobody's walking on these sidewalks anyway and there's no bike path it's interesting because a lot of times when we think about recreation we think recreation is a very active thing you get out there you kick a ball you throw a ball or a frisbee recreation actually has a variety of ways of being experienced and for some people it's just sitting there hanging out and we are connected to the broader paths you can see the path just to the right of that page it's going to go up to the viewing area it's going to connect to the paths that go over to the airport rec path system that then connects to the broader south growing system and and certainly last but not least is we do have businesses as as you pointed out mirror bells that has a really terrible experience right now right up against a bunch of cars and some construction i'm not sure who's doing the construction but you know to be able to provide them an opportunity where they can grab or if i want to grab a cup of coffee you know a scone and just go hang out then there's some other place to do it besides what's currently there it's it's not traditional then by any stretch i certainly understand the the challenge that the board has on this but again and looking through the the way the ldr provision is written and and with the work that we did in staff to get here we feel like we've come to a pretty good place for a short period of time or some period of time that this will exist and we're happy right anyway you know wayfinding or signage those sorts of things certainly you said the magic word because we still don't have that we still don't have this at some of our parks and open space wayfinding and signage so the same thing with that path it's a great little concept so we we need some signage in there so people know like oh yeah i can go on this you know without having to look up an ldr a drv decision um i would you can use to describe this space because i've understood i understand there's something about airport funding and you can't use it at the park and what could it say i'm kind of half looking at larry yeah and i was gonna say we probably need to um we understand that the goal here is to have wayfinding with that i'm sure we could work with the airport to figure that out the land is not and larry if i go astray pull me back here um the land is not changing ownership we actually will have an easement to use that property and develop it in this way and so we're doing that consistent with what the lease will be with the airport we're not stepping out and creating um an encumbrance for the airport against any f a a guidelines that they have uh there's something i can you hear me don't yes i can this is you know a moment in history because i don't think i've ever wholeheartedly agreed with art in any other public meeting before but i and i agree with art in this sense if this is anything like that area and if i'd appreciate if you make the representation he suggested it was i'd like to hear how it's going to be that way if it's anything like the public space with the geese in across from city hall it's terrific it would be terrific that's a delightful space it's it's it's unique in the city i think and it you know it pass a recreation i'm going to reinforce this point pass a recreation of this of that quality there's still recreation that would be my input on that and i'd like to hear what kind of amenities is going to put in there to reinforce that the thank you frank uh you know it's it's a crazy world isn't it uh huh here we are we've been doing this for a long time yeah this is awesome uh so yeah one of the um benchmarks for this idea was the the park right out here across from city hall the other benchmark was a park that paul and and staff had reference down in middlebury i can't remember the exact name of the park but this sort of passive experience and so the the plantings are going to be very similar if not the same to what we have elsewhere on the property to create um some cohesiveness and then uh you'll see that there's benches there we're actually going to salvage some fantastic boulders that have been found in the site work that's happened to date we'll pull those forward so there's places for people to actually kids if they want to climb or sit and lounge against we've got a space in there you can see it in the upper left hand corner just adjacent to the just below the parking where there'll be public art these the landforms are intended to be very sculptural and peaceful in nature and it's always a challenge right when we're right up against wilson road and that's why the height plays such an important role in creating this passive park element and that you don't feel like you're you're sitting right up against a car unfortunately wilson road is a little faster than market street and so we have to find some creative ways to to make it more desirable for people to come and hang out and we think we've done that this is a early sketch frank where we'll be working on the uh so some renderings for this as well and we're happy to share those with the staff in the drb as we move through the final process of this park this amenity so this would be proposed just to walk back on what you just said this would be going in with the first final plot that's right yes right so if we close we're close there's no more information you can submit well i would understood i would just kind of off you know if there's interest in watching the development and what the final renderings look like we're happy to share those outside of the proceedings yes more live one more question because obviously other than duty and as a recreation art has you know a commercial agenda here is he right that this avoids legitimately and not wink wink um the the parking restriction is a bonfire is a bonfire there's an avoidance right that's what i'm saying in order to approve the minimum amount of parking between a public street and one or more building if the principal use of the lot is for public recreation in my opinion it certainly is for public recreation the word lot is used but i don't know that i don't know that that necessarily matters in this situation because this is a master plan not an individual lot by lot project um and then the minimum amount of parking between a public street and one or more building i think that's met because they've demonstrated that the parking can't go between the building or it can't go behind the building okay so i have a question um how what kind of time frame do you see that how long will this last and be there because i can envision if it's as nice as you say it is a backlash when you go to take it out and replace it with a building so they either get all the phases approved in 10 years or whatever they constructed um within that time lives on forever or they amend their master or until they amend their master plan so if you know they build their first phase and this goes in and then they move to Switzerland then this is what we have and if they actually go forward with their plan they build a commercial building in that space which which might um stir up some controversy with people who enjoy it and but i guess that's that's the way it is well we could leave it you'll try to leave it ugly and then they won't mind right all right any other questions or comments yeah i have i'm sorry to do this but no go ahead frank with the use of the lot i don't know if we can just how comfortable everybody is just brushing past the word lot we're talking about a lot of 37 acres that's the lot the principle use is certainly not recreation i'm reading it again i see i see what your concern is jim anything any lawyer thoughts principle use of a lot i'm not sure jim's still on so frank one way to manage that if if that word is important and i certainly understand what you're saying is that as part if we substitute and you're the attorney so i'm going to defer to you on this but in concept that the word lot was substituted for parcel as we are defining the the lease parcels not the legal subdivision into parcels the lease parcels this is dedicated in the lease that we are constructing with the landowner for this particular use and is not part of the other lease parcels that make up the master plan the pud that's interesting what if you just left it out of the i mean right now is it distinct as it sits there if as a real estate matter is it distinct there was it just no what's it no no property well you know you know you have a you have a subdivision plan in front of us what if you altered the subdivision plan to carve this out for the time being and came back in whenever you're ready to do it or do or not and you know i mean is that is that the moral is that off the wall here i think the board found its way there we do have more parking than we need we're building more parking than we need because we have to put the infrastructure in place the way the infrastructure is designed so we just decided we'd build the parking it's certainly nothing that would prohibit us given where we're at to say those spaces that are right up against the amenity are not exclusive i'm not sure that solves it and you know this is building the plane as you fly it right but a little bit which is one of our favorite favorite things to say in our office but if then you have all this parking that isn't on the lot that's still in front of the building you know what i mean like if you were to carve out the 10 spaces that are immediately adjacent to be on the public recreation lot then you've created a problem for the rest of the parking but but then isn't the right if you create that lot then does that lot behind a lot have the same obligations in terms of a building in front of the parking that this first one would right as you go deep like how does that actually apply when there is a there is something in front of it um it would still apply because the requirement is not for parking to be to the rear of yeah i don't i don't think i think the parking requirements are on a lot by lot basis not on a area basis we're arla i got a quick quick question here yeah the overall purpose of this is screening that's the whole purpose of the standard right we didn't want oceans of parking being the stuff we see as we drive along the road street activation too isn't this analogous to the stuff on kimblav because it's not really a campus but then we'll do this nicely crafted landscaping along the bike path don am i unmuted now this is jim yes hi jen way in please great well i missed frank's initial concern so i i didn't follow um it seemed like we took a turn here but i'm i'm i didn't follow what the the path about liking the the amenity and then and then i didn't and i couldn't hear frank yeah my my reluctant concern and it is reluctant because i do like the amenity is marla points me to what art is relying on and it requires that the principle use of the quote principle use of a lot the republic recreation and i'm trying to figure out how we get to argue that the you know that the lot is anything other than the 37 acres they are determined to make it to one lot uh i i mean in normal but you know if you can what if you can lawyer us out of it i'd appreciate it who not on that right now marla said not on the fly right now um okay well you see what we're looking at yeah yep i can see the yeah i can see the screen and art and art just to summarize if you missed that too hard to say well if we create a lease parcel from the owner to the lessee isn't that a lot that i sort of uh you know and you know part of my me says well that's sort of mumble mumble that depends on how much i like the amenity but that's not a basis so which we should be making decisions you know yeah okay so i as we try to work towards ideally closing this tonight with all the work that staffs put in it and the drb and and the whole folk whole host of folks on our team that have tried to bring this to closure how do we get this across the finish line that's a great that's a great question marla i would turn to you for your thoughts did someone else have a question yeah the question the question was what is what are the grounds if they exist for us to waive the front of the building require i don't think we can no that's specifically prohibited remember we went through this um you had a deliberation with legal counsel does legal counsel have a view and principle usable a lot why don't you ask me that sounds very i appreciate that perspective frank that sounds very much like a continuation which is going to set this whole thing sideways yeah that would be my concern too but i don't understand the input data i guess the only thing i would say is you know beta make your best offer and then the board can deliberate and see if they can approve the offer that's on the table and if your best offer is slightly more provable maybe they go that way and then there's always the reconsideration option if they can't get there i think you have the best offer on on the table we worked our staff has did a great job working with us we felt like it was collaborative we were all negotiating in and bringing this together in good faith frankly the only other place that we have to go at this point is a place that we haven't wanted to go and certainly in respect that the drb deliberated um with council but we have a separate council opinion that says you do have the latitude to waive this we purposefully stayed away from that so that we could collect collectively collaboratively find a way to do this because we don't fundamentally believe anybody on your side of the table doesn't want to see this project move forward and if it takes council to council to get this done somehow we need to be able to bring this to closure we've got a project that we need to stick a shovel in the ground to meet those commitments that blaine outlined just a little while ago i i have a question if you if you had the money i don't know what your financial situation is but if you had the money to build that little pink building that i think will be a daycare eventually actually it's a separate building the daycare which would be across the street in the master okay it's just okay building is in the planning phase right now okay that that pink building the commercial building is separate why can't you just build build the um the pink building the commercial building as part of this would that solve the problem what's what's being asked in there is for us to spend rough so for that building it's roughly a five million dollar exercise for no tenants there is not anybody right now that will use that building we're building space that we need behind that so there's the carry cost on the building right right just to sit there and and be empty but uh there's also cost involved in creating this park this lovely little park there is but these requests and we're happy to accommodate the park we think it's the right thing to do but to spend five million dollars on a building that the market won't absorb at the moment is taking five million dollars that should go towards research and development and manufacturing of the propulsion system for the airplane and the aircraft that we're trying to develop i get it marla let me ask you another question what do the new ldr say about this front of the building stuff and particularly its wave ability so somewhere in the ldr that says this is a non-wavable provision says that explicitly yeah okay let me give a quick thing i do like the idea of it's essentially the whole the whole airport consists of lots of less less ease right um and we do know that this is a separate phase i do like the idea of carving it out somehow you know because if there was an existing building there we wouldn't be having this discussion you know like it was we're more than happy to leave the existing landscape building there for the foreseeable future and just landscape around that we were trying not to do that because for a variety of reasons but there's a building there that we're happy to leave but the parking isn't fully behind that building and it would exceed the 50 i believe it's no more than 50 percent of the parking can exceed the the past that frontage we would need a waiver from the drb in order to accommodate that and i thought you don't need all the parking we don't we we're building the parking because we need the infrastructure storm water power all the other things that are coming through that area and so just practically it made sense to build that parking yeah now which then the public would be able to use when they right into the amenity okay uh marla help us out decide whether you have enough information make your decision and deliberations i think can i actually i want to ask one more thing um how comfortable and you may need to turn and look at larry again um are you if the board were to conclude that this idea of carving out the lot was the way to go how comfortable are you that that would be okay with not just you guys but the airport as a separate lease lot well i'll speak for the beta side and then let larry speak for the airport side but the airport's been a fantastic partner in getting this project to this point i would see no reason why we wouldn't be able to find a way between the two groups to to make that happen but again i i would defer to and i'm not suggesting that that's necessarily the way to go i just want the board to know what the options are when they're deliberating understood so larry you've been sworn in before as part of this hearing so go ahead the lease negotiations but i can assure you that the airport would support working with with with beta to make this you know uh work out if that was the direction it took thank you larry so board do you do you think we have all the information we need to deliberate and make a decision um i just wanted to clarify i think i heard this earlier was um to get um the city's attorney's opinion about this lot discussion that would be new information and that wouldn't be an option if we closed tonight no okay okay then i would so we could close tonight and you could still get counsel's um legal opinion about this okay um any other comments from the board okay uh let's ask if there are any members of the public who would like to comment are there any um online delilah i would like to imagine something okay go ahead noa i'm trying to turn my camera on here do you want my camera or it doesn't matter it doesn't matter okay um one of the things that i heard tonight was uh mentioned of the p u d's and the ldr's on willison road and to my knowledge um a temporary park uh is nice but the building for beta should be on willison road that's what the town is required and that's what's in the p u d's and the ldr's and i think it's a d rb's responsibility to enforce those i keep hearing about talk about the parking and yeah the parking is great and it'd be nice to have this like little uh half acre park a half acre we heard 20 minutes about a half an acre park and i find that like ridiculous to be honest with you and um i've heard the dr be asking the lawyers to lawyer lawyering it out lawyer it out frank that i think that's what you said and that to me is just it's unbelievable and it was also sorry about it i'm sorry frank i'm talking thank you uh you could you could talk after i'm done um and the beta reps are not your council they are people who are trying to build in our town and you are our representatives it is important that our representatives represent this that's the city of south brunton i find it very frustrating because i've i come to these meetings i'm the treasurer of of voices of the environment super PAC in our town and i find it very frustrating that consistently our representatives take advice from people who are trying to make gain in our community and not protect our community from people who may or may not um have um a other than financial motive for example some of the things that i i never heard about tonight were well well when beta is up and running where is all the spent fuel going to go where is the fuel going to be stored how will it be stored where will it be stored how close to the airport will it be stored is the reason why we want to push things one direction or another just for environmental reasons and i think that i really asked the drb please think of those kind of things before you make any decision tonight because there's no rush there's no reason to make a decision tonight our our town is packed we have the best situation we're holding you are holding all the cards our property is worth so much there's no reason to just give it away for nothing thank you thank you mr hyman thank you are there any other members of the public who would like to make comments none okay thank you um so i'm sure can i just offer one clarification please sure sure go ahead um it may not have come across in our comments earlier but beta is an electric aviation company we have no fuel the building we are building has no fossil fuels in it either for the operation of the building or for the operation of the aircraft it is a net zero building we have a zero emission aircraft that we are assembling on this property thank you for that clarification can i can i respond yes go ahead but please make it brief we've a pretty full agenda tonight how was the electricity stored mr hyman this is not a back and forth question and answer session we welcome your comments but it's not really an opportunity to ask questions back and forth thank you my i apologize then thank you all right um i think it's time to entertain a motion to close this hearing motion to close the hearing thank you quinn do i have a second okay thank you is there any discussion okay all those in favor of closing uh the master plan application mp2102 uh signify by saying aye all right aye opposed no okay thank you the hearing is closed yes i just want to let you know um i received a text message from mark he said that his meeting is gone sideways and he isn't sure if he's going to be able to join us okay i appreciate that thank you all right moving on to agenda item number seven continued preliminary and final plaid application pardon me st 2128 of beta air llc to consolidate five existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a master plan to include 30 344,000 square feet of manufacturing and office building improving approximately 2,400 feet square feet of private road or feet of private road and constructing associated site improvements at 3070 williston road i just have to call up my um my version on my ipad bear with me for a minute i have comments on oh come on okay there it is right um i assume um Stephanie is recused for this one as well who is here for the applicant hi this is art clugo beta technologies okay thank you art and do you have anyone else with you yeah blaine newton beta technology okay and and we have members of the design team here as well are they going to testify if needed yes okay um why don't you all raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury thank you okay um why don't we ask you art to give a very brief overview of the preliminary and final plat application and then we can move into the staff comments we'll do thank you i thought you did uh or staff did a fantastic job on the write up describing the project i suppose um the subtle nuance here is that we are we did submit additional documents for a phase one um and we actually we submitted those last time um and we provided clarifications this time so um happy to answer any questions and just work through the the staff comments here okay great thank you um so this this is also written as a um decision but the comments are uh in red and numbered so the first comment on page three um we need specific information on the area of manufacturing space and office space in the building yes that was um provided to staff supplemental earlier today that breakdown is uh just you know for the purposes of this conversation 163 000 square feet encompasses roughly 12 000 square feet of office space 102 30 132 000 square feet of final assembly space and 20 000 square feet of storage space thank you um comment number i think these are not numbered correctly on page six that's okay there's a number um and i i this is a long one it's detail i struggle with it so marla i'm gonna ask you to paraphrase it please okay maybe it's clear now that we've had this whole recreational amenity discussion but it's unrelated all right um so originally this proposal was for the entire 163 000 square has now decided that they would like to build this building in two phases um the first portion which is roughly half the building would be um mostly the manufacturing portion of the building um and then the second half would and that's sort of to the rear as you're thinking about from willison road and then the second phase would be um the front relative to willison road and so this staff comment is asking whether um the first phase the rear um could as a standalone phase as the board direct us at the last hearing meet the standards that pertain to desirable transition from structure to site um common materials architectural characteristics um harmonious relationships to terrain existing buildings and roads um what's interesting about this is given that it's a master plan staff kind of feels that there's the additional level of being consistent with the master plan doesn't it have to be consistent with the master plan the standards that we're looking at in this report don't use the word master plan but i would argue that you know the master plan presents the project and if it's not consistent then can i provide some color on that marla yeah so um it's an interesting concept master plans are a land development organization tool they're intended to create a roadmap for how the area would be developed how the project would be developed our intent would not to be not to have a sterile um all buildings are the same very consistent with what we've already done we would hope that the that staff and the board would support a variety of architecture that would meet the intended use of each of the buildings which are different we have a final assembly plant we have a cultural center we have a child care and we have a commercial building proposed each very different uses which should ideally translate into very different architecture so in terms of establishing the quality of the project we're doing that through the use of the land planning principles that have been applied we're doing that through the use of the environmental principles that have been applied and using the comprehensive plan as a guideline for how this fits into the context of the community and believe that this project the final assembly project whether it's built in full or built in two phases certainly meets all of those thresholds and established standards for what it is that we're trying to do thank you so at the end of your comments marla and board staff i quote staff recommends the board include a finding that the first sub phase is inconsistent with the character established at master plan but that this preliminary and final plat meets when both phases are constructed i believe there's a word missing marla but that this preliminary and final plat meets when okay when both phases are constructed so i mean there's there's these three sort of potential so the first question in the first paragraph is is this building consistent with the standards when only the first sub phase right and if it's not there's three bullets that sort of suggest how to deal with it and then and then there's a couple additional paragraphs so i guess the first question to the board is um do you believe um whether do you believe that the first sub phase meets the criteria um that are listed above in the staff report marla the the the black wolf is a south facing wall but where is it where is it in relation to wilson road it's roughly 45 degrees to wilson road yeah 700 feet set back off the road perfect thank you i mean call him spade and spade he's really going to put up an ugly wall for an indeterminate period of time that's casting in and as far as just light but can anybody cast it any other way yeah i would say that it's it's far from ugly we've spent a lot of time designing and elevating the the building to meet beta's standards which are extremely high from an architectural perspective if you've been out to our facilities these this is quite a beautiful building whether built in half or in full and i think that when everybody comes out they will actually see that for themselves we forwarded several renderings to staff as supplemental information it might be helpful to look at those renderings i would also i think it might be frank that um we're we're treading into a very subjective area in terms of aesthetics and so um you know if we were to compare this building in context to what we're trying to accomplish and some of the manufacturing contemporary manufacturing facilities that have been done this would hold up extremely well and when compared to our neighbors um although it advised by staff not to use that as the uh barometer because it's a very low barometer but we are elevating significantly the architecture and the experience on an underutilized undeveloped piece of property um from wilson all the way back to the airport i'm just talking about the wall art not the building it's a manufacturing facility and one of the challenges that we have frank and certainly um i'm sure you would appreciate this is that we're building carbon fiber aircraft we're going to have highly sensitive automation equipment in this building these buildings have very limited exposure to the outdoors for a variety of practical fundamental functional reasons and uh you know staff's comments here that maybe we need to put windows in are contrary to what this facility needs exactly are they recessed that's that's not a flat surface is that right that's right so what happens there is we're taking a metal panel and we're inserting a four inch vertical rib that stands off from that metal panel to create shade and shadow and experience as the light travels across that face to create some visual interest in the building in its own way think of it as a dna strip or some now let me interrupt you it's actually not bad that's not what i was visualizing yeah so is that what frank calls the wall yeah okay all right yeah there were three that were sent and in whatever order so they provide just a progression and different views either a straight on view what the view might be from the parking as you're coming up the ramp against some landscape amenities both as the ramp split and then as you travel from the parking lot up the steps what that experience would be like as you come up to the entrance what we're calling the north entrance to the project is there any view that shows um sort of that corner that like because like you said it's 45 degrees to wilson road so what we're seeing is the part that's on the left of the 45 degrees is there any view other than what's in the packet that shows what's to the right of the 45 degrees if not it's on page 38 of the packet but it's not like a pretty pretty rendering it's just a elevation page 38 of the packet yeah oh right right right right right right i don't know if we have one but what happens on that end and it shows up in the landscape plan right is that and once you get to where phase two will be there's some planting that happens in there so that that corner starts to fade away and disappear behind the landscaping that'll be in place until it gets moved once phase two is constructed so just to be clear the image that you just showed that frank said he thought was attractive that is half the building roughly that's correct that same sort of pattern continues to the right and then at the very far right when phase two is built will be that entrance that marla referred to in her comments okay all right so it's not like you're just building half a building and leaving just a a wall plain wall there it's it's artful it is and that that extends around the corner we're taking that same level of detail as we turn that corner on what will be a temporary wall we'll have that same sort of fin treatment those fins will be removed when we extend the the plant for phase two so there you can see that elevation right there at the top of the page that is the wall that separates phase one from phase two and that same sort of vertical articulation is being used to create shade and shadow patterns along that elevation now i understand okay now i now i know why there's all the lines in the diagram i wondered earlier all right so um what do folks think can can um do you think this meets the requirements or should the applicant be required to address those three bullets in so a quick question for you yes yes i know for myself it was really helpful in reading both those provisions they're very short they're one sentence each or actually i think yeah there's one i'm not sure if the the developer review board is actually referencing those standards but they're quite important as you look at what staff's comments are and how we work towards closure on this item i'm happy to read it i have it in front of me or you know happy to let staff or or yourself read it now go ahead art so great thank you uh provision 14.06 b3 provides without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings so 14.06 b talks about scale it doesn't talk about surface treatment or any of the architectural elements it's just does the building sit within the site as we've described before we have a two-story high building along williston road we have a three-story high building along the airport side where the lucky recipients of a site that just happens to slope down 20 feet and it accommodates very nicely the building that we're proposing the second provision 14.06 c one provides the development review board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials in architectural characteristics such as rhythm color texture form or detailing landscaping buffers screens and visual interpretations to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural architectural styles those are the two standards that we're trying to apply to the renderings that we just looked at thank you I think they meant them yeah John this is Jim so do I okay so other folks or are we are we um in agreement that they meet the um criteria does anyone not agree with Jim and Frank okay do you all believe we have enough information to move on I'll take the silence as a yes so let's move over to number two on page 12 and this this is a request to document the value of the excess excess landscaping costs have you already done that or um is this something you can provide us with we have not done that yet we have not um bid out the final bid for the final design of the landscaping with the technical drawings those are being developed right now and we'll be finished up here in a couple of March 11 so what's that not not quite a month from now um but what we would note is that we're happy to provide the subcontractor bid for that and allow the DRB and staff to calculate whatever that delta is and that delta would be applied forward so we're completely open book happy and and willing to share those numbers with you when we have them thank you uh Marla does that work I can't hear you you're getting the unfortunate effect of being concurrent with another application that has a similar request um I wonder if the board would be interested in allowing them to I guess I guess the provision would say something like they can count the excess landscaping as long as the other phases meet the provisions of the landscaping plan already you know like if I'm phrasing it very poorly but basically as long as the other criteria of the landscaping for each phase are met then they can count the excess rather than they automatically can count the excess and therefore not put any landscaping around a different building yeah we're happy to if you're talking about the form and the function of landscaping that seems very reasonable if you're saying that that the dollars we that that wouldn't be the dollars if you like the things about you know are the transformer screened are there enough trees relative to the parking spaces that kind of thing yeah happy to do that can board members live with that okay that I'll take your silence as a yes moving on to number three this is about retention of the 32 inch and 34 inch maples rather than removing them and and the recommendation from staff is that we require the applicant to revise the grading or add small retaining walls to preserve both of those maple trees and discuss whether advanced sidewalk construction methods should be enlisted to retain the three locus trees the value of mature trees is far greater than the value of new landscaping which of course we all know and appreciate what what do board members think about that I'll kick it off I think it makes perfect sense those are mature trees and I think it it makes sense to try to preserve them I don't know about the locus the three locus but what do others think the idea of taking down a healthy assuming it's healthy a 32 inch maple is repugnant to me right right does anyone disagree go ahead i agree with frank and you yeah I like it language and okay does anyone not agree okay uh does that give us and you Marla what we need um you said you're you're said you are less sure about the locus and I'm not sure what that means okay um if I may just to close the maples um we have redesigned the the grading to preserve both of those we still do remain concerned about the 32 inch but we have redesigned it to accommodate staffs okay thank you art what about the 14 to 22 inch locus trees along wilson road happy to share some thoughts on that or are you asking okay go ahead art so that's a completely different challenge we've placed the sidewalk per the city sidewalk standards and dimensional standards that set the placement of that sidewalk once you set that sidewalk it starts to impact those trees and so our you know from our perspective we really have two options one is to not put that sidewalk in on the right hand side of our entry drive which right now it doesn't extend anywhere but at such time that the network was extended and that sidewalk would need to go in that we would do that to preserve those trees as long as as possible the only other real alternative unfortunately is if the sidewalk has to go in and it has to be in that location then those the roots are going to be damaged those trees are going to die and it would seem that um the benefit to planting trees now and letting them grow in their new location would outweigh leaving those trees letting them die and then having to have you know smaller trees five six seven eight years down the road and i'm not even sure what the the length would be that those trees would survive so those are the two options that we have you know from the owner's side or the applicant's side we'd prefer to put the sidewalk in per the dimensional standards start extending that's that network now and put the trees the new locus trees in where they were proposed on the landscaping plan don thank you please um so what we meant by advanced sidewalk construction methods is um we're aware of sort of a geogrid that can be used in place of the subbase for a sidewalk for the section where it's adjacent to a tree so that's it's sort of instead of destroying the roots it'd be five inches of concrete and then the geogrid and then keep the soil underneath are those the cells that we've heard about no because those would be for a new installation okay and i see that jeff hodge then who's a professional landscape architect is in the room he's sort of making a face so one of the consultants said they've never used them you need to hit the button first i'm not familiar with the geogrid solution chris i don't know if you've done that before i mean the the tricky thing with these trees is most of the roots are in the top 12 inches of the soil so normally you would put in about a foot of crushed down to prevent frost heave i don't know what the geogrid would do but yeah this is a solution that i was reading about that they use in palo alto california when they had driveways that went through sort of areas in the chore trees yeah they don't have frost though yeah i'm just not familiar with that and then you know i i'm not gonna push this too hard and i appreciate jeff you know being willing to have this conversation the other thing that we've gotten from the director of public works in the past is that sidewalk grades are a little bit more flexible than roadway grades so you know if the idea was that the sidewalk grade had to come up 12 inches in order to not dig down that would be acceptable to the city provided provided that the condition was written in such a way that it wouldn't slow down the project we're happy to explore all the alternatives for those trees to find a way that works for the city it it's the guidance that we've had and what we've looked at it would seem the practical way would be to put the sidewalk in and then move trees but yeah i appreciate the point that you're making that you know since this isn't going to be a sidewalk that's used very much for a while um you know are you creating a better solution by putting in trees now that will be mature by the time it is used um oh jeff what's the lifespan of a honey locus you know they can be pretty long-lived um not maybe not as much as oaks or maples but you know 60 years or so 70 i don't feel as strongly about the locus as i do about the maples and i appreciate their comments that maybe getting new trees started earlier um will avoid having to see the locus die a natural death and um waiting for new trees to grow but that that's just my opinion yeah i agree with you don't okay other board members does any does anyone um is anyone opposed to that strategy i support the same as you don okay thanks all right okay let's uh let's move on if no one has anything else to number four um which is storm water grading as a condition can you live with that arc absolutely it was just a lack of coordination on our part those the drawings have been coordinated and the comments have been incorporated into the revised documents okay great thanks all right moving to page 16 number six this takes us back to the traffic impact study um staff has recommended so where are we with this marla um this is where to understand that v-trans and vhb right so we've kind of resolved this yeah okay perfect okay moving on to number seven um and this relates to comments from the water department yeah there was there was just some miscommunication there um south brilington water department okay great thank you that's good news and um let's see moving on to page 20 number eight um we need data regarding short term bike storage have you provided that already yes okay it was that we needed to know the breakdown of the building in order to calculate what they did right sure and we have that just now so that means i haven't done the math um can you present what you're proposing for short term bike storage part yes if you have the supplemental information um it would be on page five of six at the top of the page no promises that the pagers are in the right up yeah uh dan i'm stepping up for a minute okay once she gets it up that you've done the math right things crossed so this is the math in the first of the two phases they're they're saying they're required to build 10 or required to build 12 they have 10 um they're required six long term and they're proposing 16 the ldr's allow you to count long term towards your short term requirement up to 50 percent um and those long term are inside the building and those i have seen so where on your plan are the short term because i the reason i made this comment is because the phase two short term spaces are in a place where you're it's not adjacent to the phase one i guess that that's right what we we have two entrances we have a north entrance and a south entrance if you will along that south elevation along the north entrance which is the phase that we're talking about that again i'm sorry sorry to interrupt oh i knew the gavel thank you the power yeah so the the short term the outdoor spaces if you will for the north entrance are just outside that north entrance board this is one of those situations where we say you're confident that you've got it right you probably did we'll look at it in as part of our review right and you included some diagrams in the minutes not the minutes but the write-up that we provided at the last hearing there were a series of diagrams for the bicycle parking and the both the long term and short term are called out for each of the entrances in those diagrams along with a table that was similar but not broken down quite the same way as the table we just looked at thank you all right so marla what i see now are red comments in the decision and i'm i'm assuming that those are kind of contingent upon what we discussed tonight correct could you show it to us please the zoning permit for the first sub phase must be obtained within six months of approval the zoning permit for the second sub phase must be obtained within 12 months of approval the applicant may request a single one one year extension what do what does the board think about this sure so what we had talked about i don't recall my apologies whether it was the hearing number two or hearing number one but we had a discussion about how the rolled out of the phases might work so it was probably done under the master plan but functionally what what's called out for here is if we were to be approved to move forward tomorrow then construction and operationalization of the facility would not happen until April of 23 which is which then we require sooner than that before we even knew like this we had the discussion about automation and how we were hand building our first version of the aircraft and that we would be learning over the next year or so about what sort of automation would be required when we build phase two the decision as it's drafted is asking us to make that decision to roll out on this building before we've completed construction and operationalized the first phase of the building what we had talked about before was a three and a half year window that we had to pull the next zoning permit for phase two originally i asked for something longer than that but in discussions with staff and the board through the hearings that got brought back to the three and a half years the applicant we're requesting that that three and a half years be reestablished so that we can construct operationalize and plan the next phase of the assembly the office piece with the park that's pretty well done the great lawn it's the assembly piece that we need the time to be able to do that thank you our so marla what was the rationale for number eight as you've written it okay and just for clarification we would ask for that three and a half years to be from from substantial completion not from when the zoning permit for phase one is actually i don't think we can do it that way then can we change the three and a half years to four and a half years or five years can can can we live with that so keep in mind the master plan is a 10 year right we don't have to decide that now either so our say it again just so i get it all down clearly you're planning on occupying the first phase in april of 23 correct okay and you would like another year and a half after that to figure out what you want the interior of the second phase to be that's right and then we probably have a year of design on that and i do believe this was discussed at length that i think the first hearing during the master plan discussion and i think it went from five to three and a half based on staff and board discussion but i don't recall exactly but i think what art was trying to articulate is we're going to start pretty slow it's kind of crawl walk run we're going to get into this space build these aircraft really by hand iron out the processes as we're doing that we'll determine the exact specifications that need to go inside that box the second half of the box to begin to scale to the numbers that we believe we need to to meet to to deliver against our promises to customers and in doing that to it'll take us some time to understand what those requirements are in the planning of that next phase inside the box so to speak and so what we're asking for is is time for us to to make that understanding otherwise we'll have to roll out with really incomplete understanding of what's necessary which frankly is not in the best long-term interest of us or or job creation in south burlington and so i think what we're looking for here is and i what i thought we'd come to at least a conceptual agreement on previously was three and a half months three and a half years post substantial completion which was a compromise against the five years from today i believe um i apologize i think the reason i lost all that is because we ended up scrapping all that and saying 10 years for the master plan and then i forgot everything that happened before that okay and and certainly 10 years would work without any so if that's if you want to be consistent and align those two then that that makes a lot of sense and probably uncomplicates a lot of this so is that can we live with that board and marley can can you live with that beyond precedent well and sorry i'm just trying to also recall the context of um i think um and i don't know how this speaks to kind of it and not being a normal approach um previously but since they've done additional work on building out the first sub phase to make sure that it would um comply um across the board with the ldr's as a standalone um that we were comfortable with just that 10 year um larger bucket without parsing it out further um i think that was also part of the maybe the reasoning there if that's the direction we're thinking thank you quinn marlin did you say that would be unconventional or what was what was it you said yeah i think that would be pretty unprecedented i mean i haven't seen an approval that gives 10 years for the second what do board members what do you think of of um the applicant's proposal a small section of parking and the recreation path on the east side and the sort of great lawn area with the amphitheater seating and viewing area and that sort of thing that's correct and um one of the thoughts i was going to offer on just some of the wording as we tried to stay away from amphitheater because that has other larger context to it what we really have is a multi-purpose gathering space it's smaller it's not a music venue which is what a lot of people think about when they hear amphitheater right away and and that is concert yeah right exactly okay you're you're seating with a lot of topography right area yes so board members are we okay with this dan's okay any is anyone not okay well just sorry just for clarification for when we make a final decision about this it sounds like the applicant would be okay from the five years from um whatever date we were talking about from approval that is an option that would be an option okay just wanted to would did you say would yes okay good so are folks okay with that uh before we turn to public comment are there any other questions from the board do we need any more information marla do you have anything to ask okay i have two questions if i could sure before public comment so on item number nine in the draft decision i just wanted to check in and make sure that we're we're good there relative to the water wastewater demand we had previously submitted an allocation request of nearly 5 000 gpd against the total allocation and just wanted confirmation that staff had received that and you're talking about condition number nine condition number nine correct yeah so you want to modify okay this is the part where like we write a draft decision and then they have the opportunity to say oh that's not what we wanted great so yeah if you want to go into that great yeah and that was uh provided the calculations there for you in the supplemental information that was sent earlier today that's something you can so you're saying that phase one would have less than 25 900 gallons per day considerably less yes what would that number be it's 4880 and the water and wastewater are the same so weird input and output board i don't have a problem with that if you guys have opinions about it we can certainly talk about it but i'm fine with it anyone have any problems with it okay any other quest quest go ahead yeah just one more on condition 14 i was unsure of the intent it said prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the phase including the artwork the applicant shall meet with the public art commission before yeah prior to issuance of a zoning permit so i believe that was intended to to read prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for phase two not for phase well we didn't know which phase the artwork yeah it would be for phase two wait a minute all right isn't isn't uh isn't assuming you get to do your temporary recreational space isn't that part of phase one it is and that would be your i guess what i'm i'm saying here frank is we're more than happy to to do that it'll be in both honestly we'll have something in phase one we'll have something in phase two what i didn't want to have happened which is the way this was constructed is that we've already allocated some amount of money as previously discussed in our other hearings didn't want to hold up the issuance of a zoning permit because the we weren't able to get a meeting on the calendars with the public art commission which is what this is written right now but we cannot or cannot count on public art being in this temporary recreation space if it happens to be permitted you can count on it what we can therefore we can write that in um so one thing we've done on city center projects that have this public have this art component is um we've said that that can be done prior to issuance of a ceo instead of prior to issuance of a zp excellent um how would the board feel about that it's okay with me so no it applies to phase one i'm fine with it okay okay anything else before we turn to public comment no other clarifications thank you thank you um are there any members of the public would like to comment Delilah are there any that you see i don't see any thank you so no members of the public comment okay so um i think this would be an appropriate time to entertain a motion to close the hearing make a motion to close the hearing for the application demand thank you dan do i have a second second thank you uh any discussion okay we're going to take a lot of lawyering to get to the conclusion to make sure we can represent the public problem a lot of lawyer i i missed that frank say that again please it's okay was that a joke it was oh all right i'm sorry all right any other discussion okay all in favor of approving no closing not approving thank you thank you thank you all in favor of closing preliminary and final plaid application sd 21 28 of beta error say aye aye hi post no okay so thank you um beta crew for um um helping us understand your project and for hanging in there with us thank you you're more than welcome and we definitely appreciate the effort i do have one last uh tug slash request here and um i know you're really you know it's it's it's tough there's a lot of work on your plate this is a very challenging application and appreciate you working through this with us uh completely understand that you have a statutory right to i believe 45 days marla to issue a decision they do we would um respectfully request that we we receive and the board render that decision sooner for many and and more of the same reasons that the previous applicant stated in that it is just um in terms of what we're doing and the quantity of steel and the type of electrical equipment um you can just un imagine what the supply chain issues are like and six weeks is a really long time and potentially very impactful to what we're trying to do here so in in whatever latitude that the board and staff can find to move this along quickly we'd be very very appreciative we've heard that thank you okay um so turning back to the agenda we have minutes of january 18th and february 2nd i apologize board i didn't actually review them um but i did have that to review the attendee list um but i didn't review for things like misspellings or miss attributions or anything like that shall we postpone those until the next meeting i am not going to have time to review them it's up to you guys to review them okay all right um do people i'd like to postpone the next meeting because i haven't either okay all right all right let's do that then okay so i guess that's it for our meeting tonight um i will not be at the next meeting i i'm i'm going to be away and i thought i could participate remotely but that's not going to be possible because i'll be traveling within my travel so um on that date so dan i'm hoping you'll be able to be there and what day is it again it's wednesday march 2nd it's the day after town meeting day i'll be here great we have a very full agenda that night it is one two three four five hearings of medium-sized projects gee i'm really sad i'm not going to be well i'm really sad that we're not doing the minutes because it's going to be a freaking long night there's always the 10 o'clock deadline but all right we don't have to vote to close to to end the meeting today do we so um everyone get a look at the moon it's beautiful and um thank you for good work tonight thank you don