 virtual participation online and participate virtually. What we're going to try to do is have board members' faces visible and then ask other people who are attending virtually to not have their camera turned on unless they have a question or it's their time to present. That way, you'll know that there are board members alive and participating, but it won't be really confusing with all the little pictures. So I want to first talk about emergency evacuation procedures. In this auditorium, there are doors at the back on each side of the room. If you exit the door, an emergency can go either left or right and exit the building. Virtual attendees, a couple of reminders for you. Please keep your microphones muted and your cameras off unless you're actively participating. If you wish to participate during public comment periods, turn your camera on and raise your hand and you may unmute when recognized by the chair. And the chat function is for administrative matters only. Please try to avoid talking to other participants in the chat because it's not part of the public record and it can become very distracting. Okay, let's turn to the agenda. I've already covered the emergency evacuation procedures. Are there any additions, delusions or changes in order of agenda items? This meeting is being recorded. Excuse me, who said they couldn't hear? Dan, can you hear me now? Hello? Well, I am on the other side of the room because my car fixed it so I could, so I could use my TV screen, please. This is snazzy. And by phone, I can sign in. You can email Marla at mkeen.sberg.com. Are there any comments or questions from the public that aren't related to specific agenda? Our first project, agenda item number five. Continued site plan application SB21039 of South Village Community's 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 18 40 Spear Street. The revised plans were received on January 7th and are now in sufficient time for review. Staff recommends continuing this meeting to February 15th, 2022, which is the first available meeting date. I would a motion to continue site plan application SB21039 to February 15th. Thank you. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of approving the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. If you're here, we will see you back here on the 15th. The next agenda item. Continued master plan application MP21-020 of Beta Air LLC for planned unit development on 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 7,047, no sorry 747.92 acres and consists of 344,000 square feet of manufacturing and office buildings, a 37,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 square foot commercial building, and an 85,000 square foot flight instruction in airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot at 37 Welleston Road. That's a lot of numbers. Who is here for the applicant? Okay. Now, this is a continued hearing. Do they need to be sworn in again? Unless there are people here who did not get sworn in the first time, okay. Anyone here who was not sworn in at the previous meeting? Yeah, attorney. Is someone here? Did someone say they need to be sworn in? Yeah, it's attorney LaRosa sitting in for Jeremy Farkas. Who was at the last meeting from MSK attorneys? Sorry. Who was here? I'm sorry, I was having a hard time hearing. I know who you are, but who did you say was here last time? Alexander LaRosa from MSK attorneys. Okay. You were not here last. I'm staying for Jeremy Farkas. Okay. I wanna swear you in, raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. And are there any disclosures or conflicts that people need to share? Yep, I'm recused from this item and the next one as well. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. I'm recused from this item and the next item as well. Okay, thank you, Stephanie. Sometimes it's hard to hear with masks. Can I just ask because you have relatively large team and Sue is gonna be taking the minutes remotely or after the fact, because she's at the city council meeting right now, if there's people other than art who speak, could you just say who you are? So, Sue has an easier time with the minutes. Awesome, thanks guys. Okay, this is a continued hearing. Could you please give us just a brief introduction to your proposal and where we are now? And if you need to remove your mask so we can hear you, you can do that. Is that okay? Am I allowed to do that? Sure, is your microphone on? Should be on now, can you, can everybody hear me? Is that good? I need to be closer though. I can hear you when you lean towards it. Okay, awesome, well thank you. Good evening and good to be back. Even though we had a little snow last night, but all good. So a brief introduction into the project. You did a fantastic job. I know there was a lot to read there but fundamentally what we are doing is we're redeveloping 40 acres on the south end of the airport. It's currently a brown field development. We're going to be redeveloping that to accommodate the assembly, primarily the assembly facility, 344,000 square feet. It's intended to be a campus so there's an entry drive that helps to tie these pieces together. The aircraft assembly facility, the childcare, future commercial building as well as the cultural center and general aviation hanger that you mentioned previously. We are moving along pretty well here in the permitting process. We're looking forward to closing the process as quickly as possible. We're moving along also with our construction documents and are submitting the appropriate documents for building department review and look forward to moving into construction once all of our permits are in place. Good, okay, thank you. So we are going to move through the staff report and focus on the, they're not, for some reason, the comments are not numbered. Yeah, so I did it a little differently. The number is the same as it was before. So if Delilah, you wanna scroll down just a bit, I can kind of walk the board through how this is formatted. So you see how it says, oh, too far, SC1 regarding dimensional standards, staff comment one regarding dimensional standards. And then everything under that is still about staff comment one. So the red comments that are below that are staff comment one, and then it goes on to the next page. And we go staff comment two, and there's some black comments, and then it goes to red. So starting with staff comment one. So my searching the land development regulations for SC, probably. Oh no, tell me you didn't do that. I did, I didn't understand what it was. So thank you, okay. Under dimensional standards. We're, the question from staff is the area of the master plan and increasing the master, the area of the master plan without rewarning this whole project. So I'm happy to read the staff comments unless you have a resolution to present to us. Actually, I don't know if it's the resolution, but I can certainly talk through the points. We had hope to follow up on tonight. And I'm not sure whether Marla had a chance to distribute to the board similar to last time. We do have some prepared responses that came in by email and she's looking at me. Yeah, you gotta send me stuff by noon if you want me to be able to get it out. I didn't get anything as a 430 today. Well, it's not intended to be supplemental, it's just intended to help narrate the conversation, give people an opportunity to follow along. Similar to last time, we also have hard copies for those. I'll leave it at the six foot end of the table if somebody wants to grab them. So great, staff comment number one. Do you want me to sit tight for a minute, Marla? No, unless you want us to hand those out, you can just go ahead with your presentation. Okay, awesome. So the applicant's request is similar to last time in that we believe the 2.83 acres that's in discussion for the geothermal well field should be added to the current calculation. So you would take the 37.6 acres currently provided to you by staff and add that and it would be a 40.4 acre master plan. The geothermal was part of the original project submission back on 1015 of 21 and through a series of discussions and work sessions, it was inadvertently removed and since the geothermal is a key component to the sustainability of the project, it's been in the project from day one. We talked about it even as far back as a sketch plan that we feel like we shouldn't have to eliminate this or delete this and then have to re-warn in order to incorporate this. We don't feel that the 2.83 acres for the geothermal is a material change to the project. And then separate from that, if it was not included in the application because it's a non-continuous piece of the project, we're not sure how it would actually be permitted. Would that have to be a separate application then? Are we now stretching out the permitting process to accommodate those 2.83 acres? We're a little unclear and we're asking for some guidance and some direction there from either staff and the DRB or staff and or the DRB. Well, I'm gonna turn to Marla unless board members, any board members have any suggestions. This is a little above my head. So does anyone wanna weigh in or should we have Marla explain it to us? Well, could I ask a question? Sure. It sounds like you're saying that you wanna increase the area of the development by the 7, 8% of what was actually worn. Is that right? That roughly correct? The 2.83 acres versus? It is, yes. The area does represent that. Again, the geothermal well field is all underground. There are no buildings on top of it and there can never be any buildings on top of it. So there's nothing that is actually seen in terms of development. Well, wait a minute. There can never be anything on top of it because you're gonna use it as a geothermal field or because the regulations say so. Because we'll need to have access to those geothermal well heads for maintenance or if something happens in the future, we can't realistically build a building on top of it. The other part of that is that it's in the RPZ. So it's in part of a restricted area by the FAA that would not allow a building to be there otherwise. Thank you. So those are your reasons that it's not material. Do we all agree that if it's a material change, it should be reworn? Other board members, I guess I thought that was the way it went. I know that's not what you wanted. Yeah, that's the way I think it goes, right? Pardon me? That's the way I think it goes, but anybody disagree? Marla, Delilah, you know? I guess I would ask what's been the practice of the board? I know it's a hassle for the applicant, but. Me? What surrounds the air? What could the, if these 2.8 acres, which I guess is what it is, wasn't included in the project, what could it conceivably be used for? It can't be used for anything. By anybody? Correct. And the reason is? Because it's in a restricted zone dictated by the FAA. So if we required that you reworn this, what would that entail? That's a big deal. No, it is a big deal, okay. Because we are now under the draft regulations that were warned on November 10th. And so the master plan process is one of the elements of the LDRs that's changed significantly. Alternatively, if they didn't want, I think the easier path forward, all things being equal, would be to not reworn it, keep it as it is, and permit the geothermal well field as its own project. Okay. And that's doable. Yeah, it does create this other funny wrinkle. And that's the dimensional standard that's mentioned in the staff report. So without the geothermal well field, but with the 37.6 acres it's warned, they don't actually meet the dimensional standards. They have too much lot coverage. But that 37.6 acres includes this area that beta isn't proposing to do anything with. The airport has met with me and said, we're gonna put an apron there to expand our aircraft area. But it's not beta's project, it's the airport's project. So beta has included this area. If beta were to exclude that area from their master plan, essentially reducing the master plan area, my first question would be, is that a material change in the board's eyes? And then my second question is, does that meet the dimensional standards? And the answer, Art has already looked into this. It does, if they were to exclude that. So if the board feels like adding it is a material change that would require a warning, my recommendation is don't add it, reduce it, and then do the geothermal as its own project. Okay. That gets them to a yes faster on 93% of the project. Okay, board, what are your thoughts about that? Thanks, Marla. And we'd be okay with that. Okay. Board, sounds like a pretty creative. Well, I wanna make sure that we're comfortable with the idea that reducing it doesn't require a warning. So we're not actually reducing it, right? Wouldn't we use the numbers that were included? Because we meet the dimensional standards on the overall, we don't meet the dimensional standards on the building, and I believe in correspondence that the DRB has the ability to waive the dimensional standards on the actual building coverage, not on the overall site coverage, but on the building coverage. I don't believe you do meet on the overall coverage, excluding the well field, but including the apron. This isn't his first radio. He's got this. If I recall, there was a situation where if we removed the entire apron from the project, kept the area, kept the area outside of that, the building coverage was good, the building coverage was a little bit over, but the apron area, or the overall coverage was a little bit less. There was another scenario that we're working through that Art might have shared with you where it was a little bit different where it did flip flop. But if you take the apron area out, that gets it to be building coverage a little high, but overall coverage is good. Right. So as they submitted, as warned, oh, let me say, let me step back one step. The board has three things they can't waive, right? We know this, this is 1502A. One of those three things is lock coverage, exceeding the maximum lock coverage in a zoning district. The other one is set by less than five feet and the third one is parking in the front. But so if the applicant is proposing to exceed total site coverage on a zoning district by zoning district basis, they're dead in the water. This project consists of two zoning districts, the AIRI and the IC. All of the elements we're talking about, the well field and the apron are in the AIRI. As warned, they're at like 50.3 in the AIRI coverage. They can only have 50, that's a no-go. If they add the geothermal well field, they're at 49.1. If they take away both the geothermal well field and the apron, they're at 49.2 or something. So either of those scenarios is an approvalable project from the perspective of lock coverage. But the one that's warned is not an approvalable project. So the, pardon me, the way to get to yes, so we don't have to re-warn is to, I'm sorry, do what? So would be the way, if the board agrees that adding the well field and the material change that would require a re-warning, then the way to get to yes without re-warning is to remove the apron and not include the geothermal well field. But I wanna make sure the board agrees with me that removing the apron also does not require a re-warning. It gives the network, it seems that there's an unusually high burden being placed on this element of the project being material. And that seems to be the cleanest path forward is to move in the direction which was intended with no impact to any of the other regulations that exist that we're trying to support. It should be noted that in trying to create a net zero, very sustainable building, the geothermal or human cooling system is way above and beyond what any normal project would do. I do have some calculations, they're slightly different on them, but I would still ask, you wanna try to understand what is material in this instance, because it doesn't seem to pass that material path, traditional material path. Yeah, I think that gets to the corrects on the question, I think that's well-phrased. Okay. So, board, what are your thoughts? How do we get this to a passable condition? Well, the environmental court has been pretty generous allowing what looks like a pretty big change as in material. The question for me is, what is the purpose of the warning? The purpose of the warning is to let people who might be interested in persons know what's going on. Is there any other purpose to the warning? I want us to let them know what is going on, but the other is to let them know if there's any potential impacts to the neighbors through the warning process. And since again, this is underground, nothing can be built. Excuse me, excuse me, when whoever's speaking, directly to the microphone, it will be a big help. Yeah, my apologies, I turned the mic off when I was talking to Chris earlier. Would you repeat the years, Brian? Yes, certainly. So in parallel to your point, which is that, the purpose of a warning is to let the neighbors know, abutting properties, know what is happening. The key purpose there is to also let them understand whether they're being impacted by the project. And since this is not an above-grade project, there's no change in views, there's no lateral impacts, this is a below-grade component to the project, it would seem that the warning, there's no benefit to those individuals. All the information on the geothermal well field was already provided in the previous information. It just happened to not be on one drawing out of the many drawings that we provided. Well, but it wasn't warned, so persons who might think they're impacted by it wouldn't have any way of knowing, correct? For example, and I don't know, I mean, this could be a completely ignorant observation, someone could correct me, but I assume developing a geothermal field involves piping underneath and subsurface piping, hypothetically, that could leak gas, that would be hypothetically harmful. Is that ridiculous or is that plausible? Somebody with marks for these please help me out here. Well, I'll turn it over to the technical experts, but at least from the layperson's perspective, there's no gas in that. Well, what's in it? Where's the heat, what's the source of the heat? There's no just heat from the center of the earth? Well, yes, actually. So, gosh, Frank, you're asking a question, is that to when I was studying geotech in grad school, which was like 15 years ago, but I think it's, I think it's like water, right? Right, because the underground remains around. I need you to pull the mic closer to you, so. It's like a thermo, it's like a radiator, you know, you pump the water down and it gets hot and then it rises and it heats. Fundamentally, you're taking groundwater, you're taking water, you're heating something that's in this pipe, it's a closed loop system to the temperature of the ground, and then depending on the time of year that temperature, that fluid that's in there is gonna be warmer or colder than the environment and it's used to either cool or extract or add heat. It's just, it's a closed loop system. I'm happy to. Go ahead, Frank. Frank, did you start to say something? I got something on this, Frank, here if you can pass the baton to me. I guess one of the questions, I mean, it's not, when things are worn, it's not only the presence of the physical building, it's also, oftentimes people are more worried about construction activity. So it's one of those things of like, I get the point that in the end, that stuff would be underground and not that visible, but there will be construction activity when they're, now that's the other thing that, you know, oftentimes neighbors say, oh, I don't necessarily mind something being built here, but you know, can you not work on the weekends or can you watch the blasting activity or whatever? So I think that's the other standard we have to think about in terms of adequate warning. What are the closest residences? What's the distance from the? It doesn't matter whether it's a residence, it's just, I'm just bringing up the larger principle of, it's the construction activity itself, not necessarily the end result. Well, one more question for staff. Frank, go ahead. No, I think materiality is a question for us. And I mean, it's a practical question, it's a fact-specific question, what matters here? And who could be, who needs to be advised of the impact? That's what I meant in the first place when I said, people need to know what's going on, obviously, so they can assess the potential impact against themselves. And you know, a question that is for staff is, is there any arguable impact on nearby properties of the construction of the geothermal field in any way, either join the construction period or as a consequence of the result of the construction? I don't know the answer, I'm asking the question. Hi, Dom, this is Jim, I've joined and been listening in. I agree with what Frank just said with the caveat that I think it's sort of impact that's different than, you know, the proposed change here. So, I mean, it's already been warned about this project, so people are on notice of the project, it's whether this change would make a different impact. And I'm not sure whether this helps or not, the geothermal well was warned under the preliminary final Platt SD 21 or 21-28, yeah. Pardon me. In the location that it's in? That's correct, yes. So we didn't mention it in the warning and I don't think that it was, I still haven't found it on the plans, I don't mean to be a jerk, but aside from the plan you submitted that showed that area, I'm not seeing it on the plans? It should be shown on the site plan, not on the master plan, but on the site plan for the preliminary final Platt application. Okay. And referenced in the application. So if I go to, I'm jumping ahead to the packet for agenda item number seven, and I'm on page 10. Oh, I see, there is an area that's shown as a geothermal, yeah, see that? Just didn't stand out to me, I guess, because it looks like a construction hatch or something, but I don't mean to criticize, I'm just saying it didn't stand out to me. It's also discussed in the narrative as well, I think we have a section talking about it. So does that mean it was warned? I mean, it was in the, yes, it was in the project and it did not rise to the level of one of the, I mean, you know, these private descriptions are a paragraph long. Sure. And we mentioned as much as seems appropriate, but it did not rise to the level of something to mention in the preliminary and final. So now that we've established that it's been warned, you are still exceeding the area of the master plan, aren't you? Right, because it was this 2.83 acres wasn't in the area of the master plan. My recollection, I don't have that one in front of me, Marla, yet, I'll get it, but my recollection was that we were with, in the requirements for the total lot coverage, we were over for the building coverage by less than 1%. If, in what scenario? In the, including the 2.83 acres. Those numbers are the ones that are on the screen right now. I have the wrong glasses on for that, I'm sorry. I have my close up glasses on for this. So, I need some help here. Where do we go next? So it wasn't included, the area of the geothermal field was not included in the warning for the master plan. So essentially, if we were to include it, then the project description changes from an 85,000, blah, blah, blah, and airport youth building on a 40.8 acre resulting airport lot. Instead of 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot. And what does that mean? What is the implication of that? I think that's what the board's kind of chewing over, right? Which is that increase in material change? Marla, I have a question about, is there a state standard on a warning language that a application is not considerably adequately worn if it does not mention every element of a project in the text of the agenda? Yes or no? No, I wish there were some state standards, but there are not as far as I know. But in many respects, it's good that there's not because then staff would be required to write agendas that were so lengthy as to be ridiculous. The purpose of the warning is to notice the public generally speaking of what goes on. There are some warnings that are quite minimalist that just say PUD application, blah, blah, blah, and not list every element of a project. So, but it puts the public on notice that generally speaking, something's happening at this property. It tells them what type of application is and it tells them the address and sometimes the name of the app. And then it's up, it's incumbent upon the abutter as well as the general public to go, oh, I wonder what this project's about and go look at it online or go to the town office and go, hey, there's a geothermal field there. So just because it didn't detect, yeah, if there's no state standard saying what agenda language must include, then the main thing is was it on the copy of the plans that were submitted with the application? That's the question. Yeah, I agree with that, that's the question. But haven't we decided, pardon me, that it is on the, it was on the plan, on the sheet? Right, so if it's on the plan that it was adequately warned. That's where I am, this is Jim. Okay. There was no fast one pulled on the public. There was no bait and switch. Well, there wasn't, there wasn't, right? Because the original, yes, if the public went to the hearing, they, the last hearing date, and they heard this is going to be continued. And then they have every opportunity come to tonight or read the staff report for tonight and see if there were any issues brought up that they were concerned about. It wasn't in the original package for the master plan. Could I make a suggestion that we move on? We hold this item. We come back to public comment, see if there is anybody that has public comment. Well, that, that, no, and that begs the question. It may be that there's nobody who has public comment because it wasn't adequately warned, we get kind of circular. That doesn't, that doesn't fly for me. No, I understand that, Frank, but I believe there's several members of the board that have said it is, it was warned. So I guess that's the first question is, is there concurrence from the board that it was warned? And if it was warned, then what are the next steps that we want to take on this particular staff comment? All right. I guess first I thought it sounded like it was born and then it sounded like it wasn't. Let me frame a question that would help me out with your, with your patience. If someone saw the warning and went online to look at the plans, would the 2.83 acres be on the plans and identified as a geothermal field? That's the starting question. I'm separated the geothermal field for the 2.83 acres. Frankly, I don't think the sheer acreage, I will tell you, in and of itself is material depending, unless somebody can say why. I'm more concerned about the geothermal field. Right, the master plan. Can you answer the question? Someone who was diligent and went online after seeing the warning of the general location of the project where they find the geothermal field? That level of technical detail would not have been included in the master plan. That level of technical detail would have been provided in the preliminary and final plan. The area of the project would have been shown on the master plan, but the level of detail that you're asking for would be in the sister application that we have in, as Chris mentioned. And with the person who just read the published notice, I found that by going online. I believe so, but I suppose that would be dependent upon the person that actually read the notice. That's what I'm saying. Assume a person read the notice where they find the geothermal field, both the area and its use online. They would. And do you agree with that, Marla? Yes, now. Originally, no, right? Because it wasn't shown on the plan originally, but now they've noted their error and they submitted a revised plan, so we've posted the revised plan. Okay, so. Oh, wait a minute. Well, someone who looked in the first instance would not have found it. They could have shrugged, walked away, and then what happened? They would have to have come back without further notice and found it. Actually, the well-filled was shown in each of the applications. The area on the master plan, the single boundary that defines the project area, the one drawing would have been adjusted slightly to not include that. But the information was there in both filings. Right, I agree with Art. Delilah, I pulled up the 1221 packet to see what was in it and the plans, I don't know if you wanna follow along or maybe the board doesn't care. The plans for the preliminary and final plot show the geothermal well field. The plans, as I correctly stated, for the master plan, don't show that level of detail. Oh, I can share. What a good idea. Instead of me asking you to follow along. Yeah, so this is the plan. I'm gonna zoom to a reasonable scale and then I will share my screen. So, sorry, bear with me. So this is the plan that accompanied the originally warned master plan. And then there's a couple sheets, but you can see that the pink is the project area. I don't know if you all remember, but there was a member of the public who asked about the project area, so we use this plan to kind of describe it to him. And on the other sheets, aren't that specific? Frank, do you have a question? Is it 2.83 acres within the pink area you just showed? It's not, that's the source of this conversation, is that it wasn't here. However, in the preliminary and final plot that was on the same night, if you go to the site plan, the pink area is sort of where my, let me see, drawing tools. Sort of here-ish, ends here. And this triangle hatched area is the geothermal, and it's clearly labeled as geothermal. And this is a challenge with master plan documents and the scale of them and the non-technical nature of the, it's a depiction, because if you were to scale the actual outline of the project location shown on the project location map and overlaid it on this, half of the well field would be included in that area and the other half would not. It's not clear. The boundary would not be at the lower edge of the well field as it's shown on the screen right now. It would be cutting right through the middle of the well field. But the whole idea of a location plan is to provide a general reference not to provide specific detail on where that actually occurs. So, board, let me- Go ahead, Frank. Yeah, I'm still, I'm sorry to be struggling so, but would the reader of the original notice for this hearing going online have found this plan that we're looking at right now by digging through the information online available to that person? This information has been available in each of the submissions as well as noting in the narrative that geothermal was part of the project. Yeah, I have to agree, Frank. This is Marla, if I were an average person and I cared enough to wonder what's going on in each of the areas that's shown in pink, I would probably have flipped to the other plan set because there's no detail in the master plan plan set. So if I wanted to know, oh, what's happening in this portion of the pink area or in that portion, I would have to have flipped to the other plan set. And then I would have seen that there's a geothermal well field. Well, then to me, that's the, to me is warned. Are we talking about in order to find out something in the master plan, they would have had to look at the site plan application too? That level of detail, yes. And that's true of, you know, whether it's gonna be a full building or a canopy or, you know, a sidewalk. Right, right, but suppose the master plan was warned in one application and wasn't on the same night as the site plan because an application has to stand, the adequacy of its warning has to stand on what's in the application itself, not by, oh, the member of the public could have seen it in the site plan. Am I right? You can't just be like, we can't assume that the public person would have looked at a site plan. So the question is, if we're talking about was the master plan application adequately warned, we can't say they could have looked at something else. Did the master plan text talked about it? And it's really about what were the documents in the master plan itself? I thought you were saying that the site plan was included in those documents, no? I think it was the site plan application versus the site plan engineering document. Right, the level of detail required for the master plan application does not go to that level. That level of detail, to say that area is a geothermal well field is not required part of the master plan application. However, the perimeter area of the master plan is an important part of the master plan application because it's one of the things that you have, that establishes when you need to amend it. Okay. Can we reach agreement among board members that this geothermal well area was warned? Well, it sounds... Was adequately warned. Does the narrative of the master plan talk about a geothermal field and where it's located? The narrative does discuss a geothermal well field. The narrative is not required and did not say where it would be located. What was the schematic included in the master plan application? Does the schematic or any kind of drawing show the areas of ground disturbance or the areas where activity will take place or is it just a parcel boundary? It's a project limit boundary, not necessarily a parcel boundary and it doesn't necessarily show the limits of disturbance because that's not the intent of that diagram. Right, a master plan only needs to... So the definite for, and this is a question for Marla, does a master plan need to show the general location of all activities or just the general locations of a building? But does a master plan require to show the location of utilities, which is in some way this is. This is a form of piping underground, et cetera. Right, the master plan at South Burlington regulates that does not require that sort of information. Okay. Quinn had a question. Road, buildings, blah, blah, blah. Right. Quinn. Marla, I'm just clarifying what you said. Defining the property in the master plan or the area is one of the things to determine if it needs to be amended. And so we're still back at the point of that 2.8 acres was not in that original area that was shown in the master plan application. But Art also said that the way that that was split, it would split the geothermal field in half. So it was partially included in that parcel boundary. Is that what originally shown? If we were to rely on the master plan diagram to define the technical nature of the project, there's likely to be other things that are not correct besides the geothermal, because the nature of the master plan is to talk about a concept on how you are going to plan and develop a site. It's not the technical detail that has to be approved separately specific to the project within the master plan. But the perimeter. So yeah, that's what I'm wondering is, yeah, the perimeter is still one of the primary portions that's supposed to be defined in the master plan and that's being proposed for lack of a better word to be expanded still. I mean, that's been. Yes, that's one way to say it. I would suggest that we're trying to align the information that has been presented that there was again, through a series of discussions on both sides of the table that we ended up where we are today. So I don't know if this is gonna be helpful or not, but I'm gonna say it anyway. And maybe Delilah, I can bring it up while I'm reading it. I'm gonna read, yeah, I think I can just bump you. I'm gonna read 44.64 of the state statute that I've highlighted here on the screen. This is about public warnings. And the state statute says no defect in the form or substance of any requirements, form or substance of any requirements in subsection one or two of the subsection shall invalidate the action of the Recreation Municipal Panel where reasonable efforts are made to provide adequate posting and notice. So this section is all about notice and if you basically do what you did your best to do the public noticing and the most of these things are about where you shall notice it, who you shall notice. If there's any defects, but you made a reasonable effort, then it does not validate the action. Excuse me, Marlon Reagan, the next sentence. And we go back to the point of materiality, don't we? However, the action shall be invalid when the defective posting and notice was materially misleading in content. So thank you for bringing this section up. We now have by statute what our standard is for making the determination. Was the notice, was the defect, let's assume it was a defect, was the materially means misleading in content. Right. That's the question. So that's where I started and that's where I end up. Is it material? I'm not entirely clear about it. My tendency is to think not, but it's still fuzzy to me about what the implications are for coming up a couple of acres short. That's what you're talking about, right? The master plan that was warned as short on acreage, is that it? Yep. Yeah, so how was that materially misleading? What does that other couple of acres affect for anyone who would get the notice? Nevermind the difficulty, nevermind having to amend it, but how would someone conceivably impacted by 2.83 acres shortage in a 40 acre or a 37 acre project? What's the difference hypothetically to anyone in the area? Board members, Jim, you're another attorney. What are your thoughts? I think there's adequate notice here. I'm really not bothered by this. Okay. I don't think this needs to be rewarned. Okay. And I'm inclined the same way after hearing us thrash it out. Okay. Because no one has said anything that rises to the level of materiality so far. Okay, so are there any board members who believe that this was not adequately warned? Hearing none, we have reached agreement that we believe it was adequately warned. Let's put that to bed. Now how do we fix this? Okay. Great. So I sort of wrote the staff report in two ways at the same time. I anticipated that you would either say, if not material, we can go with the additional 2.83 or you have to remove it and the apron. So you picked way one, way number one. So we'll just go with that. And the staff reports all set up for you to keep going. Hallelujah. Thank you. Okay. The next page under staff comment to floor area ratio, there's a staff recommends the board focus on the explanation of unplanned square footage, not on the calculated FAR. If it pleases the chair, I think we skipped, there was a height waiver request item before that to close out staff comment number one. In the table, in the table, maximum height flat roof. Staff's comment was staff recommends the board decline the height waiver request as part of the master plan but allow the applicant to make the request on a phase by phase basis. I don't see where that is. Well, it's on the screen. Did I? There wasn't the staff report for the previous hearing as well and there was no discussion of it. So that's why I left it not read. I see. Not everyone was good. Oh, this is unchanged. So we're all good with this. Well, in the interest of moving forward, it's done as an impact the main project that the SD 2128, yes, but I would say that the purpose of the master plan is to provide predictability for the applicant and that if the city is considering, as has been discussed previously, the adjustment in the height waiver to recognize that current building standards don't allow a three-story building to be built within 35 feet, that that also be part of the master plan so that when we come in for future buildings, it's a by right and not something that has to be requested. And if that seems like too big of a hurdle, then for tonight we'll work with staff's recommendation. So I staff recommends the board decline the height waiver request, I see. So this is a recommendation to decline the height waiver request as an overall master plan waiver. But when they submit, and this is what the board has done on other projects, when they submit an actual plan for an actual building, then they're free to request the height waiver. So this is not an issue for the master plan. I think Art's asking that the board grant the height waiver request without seeing the buildings. Right, what I'm really saying is I'd like to have the discussion, I just don't want to take an hour on this point that I'm okay with staff's comment and recommendation to move forward. If this seemed like something that the board would have inclined to move on, that the waiver request then great and if not, then we'll move with staff's recommendation. So does anyone, thank you for that clarification. Does anyone on the board have an issue with this? I would like to support the staff suggestion. I don't think it belongs as part of a master plan. Waivers should be building specific when we see the details of the others is more to it. We got a whole building to consider, right? So I would decline at this stage and they're free to request it when they come in with an actual bill. Okay, and that's what you thought we agreed upon. Okay, any other comments about that or shall we just let the language stay? I know that doesn't help you. No, we're happy to let the language stay. Okay. We'll take it up at the appropriate time. Everybody good with that? Okay, now back to the explanation of unplanned square footage. Can you tell us about that art or team? Yeah, so staff did a great job here providing some alternatives to our request at the last hearing, which was a variable FAR depending on the zoning district. We understand why the staff is looking at it this way. And if at the board's discretion and pleasure, it could find its way to the 15% as recommended by staff then we're happy to also accept that and continue or consider this item closed. Okay, everybody okay with that? I think you need to discuss it. Okay, so there, we all went through in great detail what floor area ratio was before. They're proposing 509,000 square feet of building. You can say your floor area ratio is the floor area ratio that results from 509,000 square feet of building or you can say, well, in recognition that things change and because we don't wanna see you every five minutes, we'd like you to actually make some progress on this project. Maybe we'll give you a cushion. Mm-hmm. So staff provided some cushions. 15 is a big cushion. Five is small cushion, 10 is a medium cushion. But then all of these things go hand in hand, right? Cause there's the floor area ratio, there's site coverage. There is trip ends. And so if they're gonna be, there's water and wastewater. So if they're gonna be increasing by 15%, is the board going to also accept coverage greater by 15%? Is the board also going to accept trips that are 15% higher, is that, you know? So I think that needs to be thought about carefully. And maybe we go through staff comments two through five and cause they're all about that same like cushion. Mm-hmm. And then go back to it, I don't know what you think. Okay, all right. I think in that light, Marla, although the trip ends that are allowed per the ITE and we're way, way below that as we talked about at the last application, we did do some of the analysis that was asked of us at the last hearing regarding the cushion and of 5% on the trip ends and trying to understand whether that was a material impact or not. In the write up that was emailed to you, the analysis is included and it shows that it's not any material impact and doesn't change the level of service at all. If the goal is to have these things aligned, then I would adjust the request to the 5%, which is what the current analysis shows. And then at a future date, if we did want to take another look at that, that we'd come in and just talk about amending the master plan, which is certainly something they can do. So the 5% cushion you believe you can live with for now? Yeah, definitely. And it's where the analysis, if we're looking for something that is aligned all the way through, that would be the best approach. Okay. Board members, Marla, what do you think? Where I wish we had Mark's experience with this kind of thing, but anybody else, feel free to pipe up. I have nothing to base an opinion on. Dan, if you've seen this in your other work, did we lose Dan? Dan, are you with us? Yes, I'm here. I can't say that I've seen it in my other work, but... Okay, thank you. I mean, to me, it's hard to deal with things like, I know floor-to-air ratio is a proxy for things, like to me, the greater concern is less about the exact square footage and more about the number of employees is something where I'd wanna be sure that the applicant had to come back and modify things. And as long as there are a lot of coverages staying the same, I'm less concerned about floor-to-air ratio. Yeah, Dan, you're spot on. There's a lot of municipalities out there that are actually moving away from floor-to-air ratio. And they're aligning trip ends with square footage because there's a direct correlation between the impact on a community that trip ends have, much more so than floor-air ratio has. You can have a very dense building that's very small that's gonna have a lot of trip ends that will impact the network at a much higher rate than a very, very large building that is far less dense and has far fewer trip ends. And so there are metrics out there that published LDR standards that say, if your trip ends are below three, then you can actually have an FAR of 0.75 on a similar project. If you were to look at our trip ends against that threshold, we're actually at one per 1,000 square feet, which is about as low as you can go. So in a lot of communities that are adopting that methodology, the floor-to-air ratio would actually be upwards of 0.75 for this building. We're not asking for that, but I certainly appreciate the perspective that you just brought to this, Dan, because floor-area ratio as a proxy is not necessarily a good one. Okay. Thank you for that perspective. So... As John McLaughlin would say, I stumbled into the truth. Sorry, never mind, go on. So we're going with 5%, or I should say, you're going with 5%. Okay. The applicant supports staff's recommendation for a 5% cushion as shown. All right, staff comment three. So staff therefore recommends the board allow up to 50% total site coverage. Does 5% cushion cover this? This is complicated, I'm sorry. So here's what happens with the standards, right? You can give us the 5%, but if we can't meet the other requirements when we bring a building in, none of it matters. Okay. That's the test that we're going to have to be held to. There's no jeopardy here in where you're at right now. So are we good with staff comment three? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, next page, open space. Based on discussion of the board, staff anticipates the board may wish to exclude the sculpture lawn and entry plaza from permanently maintained open space for the purpose of the master plan approval. But staff also suggests the board might consider a condition that the rec path be maintained as a public space. What do you folks on the board think of this? Do you want to show the open space plan? I believe it's page, put your post. If I may, the applicant supports staff's recommendation that that open space be maintained as public open space. And in fact, in all the work that we're doing with the landowner, it is part of the public open space. Okay. And board, what do you think about excluding the sculpture lawn and entry plaza from permanently maintained open space? I think that was Dan's suggestion originally. I think that was Dan's suggestion originally, right? That though it is space, it's not intended, it's not that sort of recreational space that's in the definition of open space. I don't know, Dan, maybe you can speak to that a little more. Yeah, I guess to recap what I said at the last meeting, it seems a little disingenuous implies motive, but it seems a stretch that area that's really employee hangout space near the building is perceived as open space that John Q, Jane Q public can access. So that's why I wanted it excluded. So I'm not going to organize a picnic there. Right. And I think the general, especially in the context of all that open space in the southeast corner of the parcel, that's to me, that more clearly is open space. Otherwise, if we approve those areas in green as counting towards the open space requirement, then every time Dick and Harry proposal will say, oh yeah, the lawn adjacent to my building, that's open space. Okay. Dan, are you on a roller blade or something? It just... I just had my laptop in my hand. All right, so we're good with this board. No comments, we're good with it. Peak our vehicle trips. We, did you say you have the traffic study it came in today? Yeah, I got it today. Okay. So this comment was about how the master plan is generating 526 trips. But the traffic study originally submitted didn't include the 526 trips. They included only the first phase. So they've updated that traffic study. Also, it sounds like from what Art said that traffic study has a cushion. So we will take a look at that, I guess. A couple comments on this B-trans is looking at this. CCRPC is looking at this. I don't know if you guys, the board saw the comment letter. The city doesn't have a general issue with their proposal, but I just want you to be aware that other people are looking at it very closely and they've raised some concerns. So we're keeping an eye on the situation. Concerns about the traffic impact? About the proposed signal location. Oh, right, okay. Right, and so the two other bodies, there are the CCRPC and V-trans. V-trans has issued and it's in the email package of information, a letter of intent to provide a permit for the as designed location of the signal. So they're on board with putting the signal. And that would be Valley Road and Shum Pike? It would be at the new main drive onto the properties where V-trans is going to approve that. And they issued an email saying that the email would serve as a letter of intent until they formally sent a letter along. And then separately, the CCRPC, they have been involved in the process since back in May or June. Now, there's a slight disagreement between them and V-trans, but they recognize that CCRPC is a policy body, not an administrative body, and that they defer to V-trans for that. We've made a commitment on our side to continue to do the right thing, and that is broad community-based effort. And so in my conversations with the CCRPC, specifically Charlie Baker, we've got some things that we want to make sure that we continue to see through as we move forward with this and other projects that we have in the pipeline. Okay. So Marla, is it fair to say that since you received the traffic impact study late today that we will need to continue this hearing anyways? Yeah, and that gets the traffic, that gets the comment number seven as well. I don't know if you guys caught this. It was, I kind of buried it, but we are currently seeking a public works director. Justin was our in-house traffic expert, so I may kick this to technical review. Okay. Assuming that it's not gonna delay anything, he's very quick. Well, that was, you read my mind in that certainly we recognize that you know, Justin leaving was probably, I don't know if it was expected or unexpected, but there's a gap that needs to be filled there. We would hope that the project wouldn't be burdened by that gap. And we'd also, as you noticed up here in the PMP our vehicle trip ends, the actual number of trip ends, the 513, is coming in lower than the traffic study that was evaluated during the original technical review that staff undertook. And so from our perspective, the applicant would request that the hearing not be continued for the technical review, but have the technical review done. If there's any modifications that need to be made, those modifications will be made prior to polling the next project or coming in front of staff and submitting that application. We don't believe there's gonna be any adjustments because we've already done the work and see a technical review needing to happen as a way to validate the third party report that we had done, but don't believe that that should warrant a continuation of the hearing. Other board members, thoughts about that? Yeah, I don't agree with that. I mean, the whole point of technical review is to examine the third party report that's been done by the applicant, right? Isn't that the objective? Isn't that what Justin would have done? And we're not saying that technical review shouldn't be done. We're just discussing the timing of the technical review. We fully support a technical review done. It's great to have another set of eyes on it. I guess my thinking is that we are, the board is responsible for making sure we have all the information we need before we conclude a hearing or close a hearing. And so I guess my opinion, and I'd like to hear other board members, I think we need to wait for that information. The other thing I can offer is that if it's as great as you say it is, and everything is great, I'm not writing a staff report for the next hearing. I'm writing a draft decision, which is the same timeline you'd be under if you'd closed tonight anyway. So if you're 100% confident, it doesn't really change your timeline anyway. Pretty confident. I don't know that I've ever committed to 100%, but I'm pretty confident. That's fair. And if that's the timing, then Marla, we would certainly support that because we understand that it takes time to write the staff report and so if those... So if I don't write a staff report, if I just go directly to findings, then it's the same timeline. That's right. Yeah. Board members live with that. All right, so that'll be my objective. Yeah. And then if issues come up, I'll call you right away. Okay, moving on to the next page. This is the intent to limit these items to the paved area northwest of the manufacturing and office building. This is about zoning permits and... So I like to close things out. I think we skipped staff comment number six, which is on the water supply and wastewater piece. Just so we're... It's hard when they aren't numbered. Taking these... It wasn't read. So this is getting the preliminary water and wastewater allocation. So those... You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? I'm saying, yeah. I should have just let it go. Sleeping dogs lie. I know, I just... So I got the wastewater today and I think I got the water Friday? That sounds about right. Right, so that's closed out. Okay. All right. Staff recommends the board confirm the applicant's intent to limit these items to the paved area. What are your thoughts about that applicant? We are willing to comply with staff's comments or take those recommendations and have noted so in the write up that you have from this. So yeah. So you are... But you did mean the concrete pad? Yeah, with the only exception is that we're gonna have things like additional car chargers potentially. Those would be in the front of the building, but I didn't figure that that was an issue because they're so far back from Williston Road and there's landscaping and all the other things that you noted in your comment. I wasn't worried about not being able to meet that condition. Oh, right, because we wrote it. Sorry, I write these things and then a week passes. So we weren't gonna keep the limit to the concrete pad. We were gonna change the limit to say when fully screened and where set back at least as far as in your adjacent building. Okay, sorry. Thank you for your patience. Let's talk about phasing. Staff recommends that the board talk about a timeline for completion of each phase and triggers for the timeline site plan zoning permit or certificate of occupancy. What are your thoughts, Board, about timing? There are four phases and what should the timeline be? The applicant has requested five years from the end of each phase to approval for the next phase. It says staff will guide us. I did. I guided you in your deliberation. Where were you? Wait, you were there. Yeah, yeah, I know. Well, the only thing with the zoning permit, if I remember correctly, is that isn't there like an 18 month added on to the issuance of a zoning permit? That's like less firm. It really comes about six and a half years. Yeah, six months and then with the option of a one year extension, if nothing changes. So in recognition of that, if that's the way we want to roll out, we're happy to pull this back to three and a half years, which fundamentally then leaves us in the same place as we intended. If that helps staff in the DRB. And what would be the triggers? The trigger would be still substantial completion. So when we actually move into the building, that would start the trigger to the next phase because that allows us the time to allow the market and the business needs to align in terms of when we may roll out on the next phase. So three and a half years. What do you think board members? And what do you think, Marla? So that would be, it's just the middle period, right? So it's three and a half times three. So that'd be 10 and a half years total. What about what you said in our December hearing about the long-term lease on the existing building, the existing long skinny building at the front where Mirabelle's in the vacuum places? Can you remind us what that was? What the duration of that lease was? You had some concerns about being able to build the final phase because of the duration of the lease on that building? Yeah, the landlord has indicated that they have a long-term lease with the tenant. The tenant's made substantial investment in that. They're looking to live out that lease, if you will, as well as the nature of that space is it's not as expensive as other space in South Browingsons. So it provides a unique opportunity for incubator space for businesses that may want to spin up. And the landlord right now wants to honor the lease that they have and we're okay with that. I mean, that's their decision. So we're just trying to be a good neighbor. Does that get in the way if you're committed to a shortened timeline? Then that's something that we'll have to work through with the landlord. Marla, I have a question. Is there any reason, is there anything in the LDR that limits our flexibility on how long we can give the developer? Let me answer your question in a sneaky way. The LDR that they are subject to because of the date they submitted their application does not limit your ability to give them different durations. The draft LDR, which we anticipate will be adopted in one form or another in a couple of weeks, wouldn't limit it to six years. But they have made their application under the existing one, right? That's correct, yep. Limit all four phases. The master plan in general. So why can't we, and then if they came back for an amendment, they'd still be determined under, what, the existing LDR, the one that's going to be adopted in a few weeks? I believe an amendment would be under the LDR in place at the time. Actually, I'm sure of that. Well, I don't know. It's almost a hypothetical question. If they're comfortable with that three and a half years for each phase, that's fine with me. I don't see frankly why we care as a practical matter other than just respecting whatever the LDRs allow. Do we care in this case? And is there a reason to? I guess the reason one cares in general is because of the circumstances surrounding the master plan could change either the character of the neighborhood or the objectives of the city as evidenced by the LDR. But I think specifically, that's the question that you guys have to answer for yourselves. Are those circumstances likely to change in this location? Okay. Are we ready? Well, it's not open. I mean, we put a number on it. That all I'm saying is there's any reason not to go along with basically whatever the developer wants at this point. And then everyone's on notice, this is the possibility for this area. This is what's gonna happen here. So the change happens around this plan. Isn't that part of the point of the master plan? Are you asking me or Marla? Well, there's other people. Well, I know. I'm asking Marla as the person who's I think best steeped in. Yes. But the only answer driving that. So taking off my, Let me put it, let me withdraw that. Do we have a controversy? Are they asking for anything we're not prepared to allow? I'm not aware of any other board members. I have a question. It sounds like the trigger is substantial completion of the building. Is that a substantial enough trigger of how that's defined? Or do we need to put bounds around what that means? Or is there, is that something? That's got a pretty well established meeting. Okay. For something of this scale, it's usually supported by an architect certificate. And what it means is the project's ready for occupancy. Right. So, okay. So it'd be the certificate of occupancy is what we're actually not. Okay. I'm not sure. Do we issue a certificate of occupancy? The construction definition, the industry definition is when basically when it's ready for occupancy, and usually it's our architect to certifies that. Right. But do we require a certificate of occupancy Marla? So, before you. So let me just add some color to that, Frank. That's a really important point in terms of this discussion. We've actually asked and taken a more conservative favorable approach to the city. Substantial completion is not final completion. So as soon as we get a temporary certificate of occupancy, that would be the trigger. So sometimes if a project finishes say in the winter time, we may move into the building, but there might be some work like landscaping and other things that require a final certificate of occupancy that wouldn't be given until that work is done, but it doesn't necessarily impact the applicant's ability to use the building for its intended purpose. So that's reason that. And that gets to my point. All I'm trying to do is make the distinction between an architect's discrimination of substantial completion and the city's certificate of occupancy. So the question is, do we issue certificate? Do we require certificate of occupancy for these kinds of structures? Yes, they would be getting a certificate of occupancy for their buildings from planning and zoning. So my view would be if the temporary certificate of occupancy is fine, we all know exactly what that circumstance is, the typical circumstances here out of season for final completion. So that's fine with me. I think it's officially definite. So Frank's suggestion, I'm gonna rephrase it because I think I'm not sure I've gotten it right. Your suggestion is that they have to get final approval for the next site plan approval, I guess, for the next phase within three and a half years of the certificate of occupancy of the previous phase. Right, with an opportunity for extension, I think that's what they wanted. So they would work out, it would fatten out the potentially to five years. Could you? It would fatten out to quite a bit more than that, right? Because the CO could be two years after the ZP. You could get your zoning permit and take two years to build your building. And then you could get your, and so then you get your CO and then you have three and a half years to get your site plan, plus one and a half to get your ZP and then another two to build the building or another four to build the building. I mean, it depends on how pokey you are about building your building. Or whether the market allows you to, really what we're not trying to be pokey in this, we're just trying to recognize that the business needs need to just align and you don't want us to build a building just to build a building any more than we want to build a building just to build a building at a certain point of time. We wanna do, we've shown that we're leading with the front foot here. We're trying to make sure that we do the right thing all the way through the process, whether it's sustainability, architectural elements, context to the community. It would seem that trying to force an applicant into a time-specific date on building a building is counter to what the comprehensive plan and all of our discussions have been to date. Right, so the risk, as we stated before, is that the circumstances change. Agreed, and I think part of the risk, and we'll talk to this a little bit under the next application is when do the public components get built? What is the timing for that? That's really the, from a community's perspective, that's the risk. It's like, when can the public use what it is that we say we're gonna build for the public use beyond just what we need to manage our business and grow the business? Which, if everything goes according to plan, we're gonna be adding over 500 high-paying, sustainable, really, really good jobs here into the community in the not-too-distant future as we start to spend these buildings up. Right, and we recognize that. All right, are we ready to move on to parking? So, I mean, do we have triggers? Well, isn't the timeline three and a half years and the between what? That's where I'm lost. So what the applicant's asking for is that after a Certificate of Occupancy, whether it's a temporary or permanent, whichever comes first, a temporary or final, after that first Certificate of Occupancy, that we have three and a half years to submit for sketch plan, as was outlined in the original proposal, or submit a building for review and have it start to go through the process. And then it could take another couple of years to build the building. So we're really talking five or six years. Generally, these types of buildings, the buildings that we're building, 18 months is the outside for what it would take to construct the building. Certainly something like a hospital or something else, something very technical in nature with a lot of fit-up in it, could take upwards of two years, but generally what we're looking at would be far less than that. And sorry, just to clarify, what I think I heard you just say was to submit the application, but I think we were talking about approval within 3.5 years. It's generally... And that's what I thought. Right, so in order to have approval within 3.5 years, and then you back up for design, you've got six months for design, so then you're at three years and then you back up from there for some planning and understanding and we're being asked to make a business decision two and a half years after we, at the, which is a really short amount of time to understand in terms of the business that we have when we're essentially inventing this from the ground up to know whether that's the right thing that we should be doing. So that's why the trigger was for sketch plan or even preliminary, if you wanted to go that route that we would be submitting our application three and a half years after substantial completion. Or temporary certificate of occupancy. I have a suggestion. My suggestion was give them the five years, but give them a cap on the total. So if you don't use, you can't use the five years for every single one. So you get 10 years total and if you eat up five of it in the first one, then you could be expired by the time you get to your fourth phase. But if you only eat up two years in the first one, then you've got plenty of time left for the other ones. If you're going to create a 10 year window, they're like that Marla, that's certainly something that we would be okay with. That works for me, other people. And so that would be from insurance of zoning permit to submission of next site plan. Issuance of zoning, this is what I got. Issuance of the planning and zoning, CO or temporary CO, for submitting their next application, whether it be a sketch or preliminary. Well, but we were going to do the waiver where they don't need to do the sketch, right? That was the previous discussion. Whatever that is, but so that they, for their next application. Wait a minute. I thought you, while I go next, I thought you said they have 10 years to get them all done, no? Well, yeah, we can scrap the five altogether if you want. With a cap. I mean, does the five mean anything anymore if we just say 10? Total. I can live with that. Probably simpler. Dan, Frank, Jim. Just for clarity, they're completely built out within 10 years, is that the proposal? They've got their last site plan submitted within 10 years. Okay. And how long do the LDRs give them from submission of site plan to, is there a standard? Do they have a certain amount of time? Okay. So it's, well, it's from issuance of site plan. And that's the 18 months that we're talking about, six months plus a one year extension. All right. Yeah, I'm entirely good with that. Okay. We're going to move on to parking. And we did discuss this at deliberations. I think the, you know, maybe this changes with the 10 year horizon, but I think one of the concerns is that the blue phase is the first phase and the red phase is the last phase. And the red phase is when the parking in front is taken care of. And I think we have some concerns about that. Can I make a request on behalf of art? Sure. So his argument on December 21st was that the site plan waiver ability applied. And you guys discussed that in deliberation, but I think he's owed kind of a conclusion on that. I have 14.07 plus the site plans and that was where he was looking for the waiver, but it's a pity. Right. So help me up, Marlon. Yeah, based on our discussion in deliberation and what we've seen, I think he's got a problem with that. And it looks like it's not waivable. Could I indulge the DRB to walk me through that? Or walk me through the, walk us through the deliberations that led to that conclusion? Well, we could walk you through the conclusion and the reasoning, but not the deliberations. How about that? I didn't hear that. He said he can walk you through the conclusion and the reasoning, but not the deliberations. But not the deliberations. That's fair. Yeah, that's good. That's fair. Go ahead, Frank. Well, no, I think it's on Marlon, I think. Okay. It's a very legal issue, so I'm not comfortable. And that's okay. So if that's the case, then has the city staff planning and zoning requested an outside opinion on that? And if there is an opinion, is that something that can be shared? Well, no, A, it wouldn't be shared. B, whether or not we're requested is not something that we need to share. And C, it's a DRB decision. What the meaning of the LDR, sir. That's my view anyway. You start it, just. And, you know, if Marlon's uncomfortable reciting the conclusion, it appears to be that we can't weigh the requirement that there be no building, excuse me, no parking in front of a building and that you got to build the building. We can't give you prospective credit for being behind or to the side of the building. That's the thrust of it. And I don't, based on the material I saw, I didn't see a way around it. I would call on frankly Jim to comment as well. So thank you, but that is in conflict to what 14.07 provides, especially in a case of unusual hardship. So the determination here is what constitutes an unusual hardship. And given that, we are, excuse me, Frank, thank you. Given that we are abutting an FAA controlled area and space, how do we functionally put public parking on a restricted area? And if that doesn't qualify as an unusual hardship, and I'd certainly like to understand from the board's perspective, what would qualify as an unusual hardship? So that we can- Here's the problem so far, here's the problem so far that we don't get credit for unusual hardship because you're a PUD. And that the controlling language is in 14.07E, I think. That's correct. Yes. Is that it? Yes. While the unusual hardship can get your relief from a site plan, it can't get your relief in a PUD situation. That's the bottom line. Whether that's entirely correct, I'm not, you know, I just looked at this for the first time tonight in candor. I didn't independently make the determination but from what I've seen, it looks correct. We could review it again. And it does, you know, I agree it's a hardship, but it may be a hardship from which the LDRs give you no relief. That's a hard response, but that's what's been put in front of us. No, I appreciate you walking through that, Frank. Thank you. So with that in mind, Marl, I think you were gonna offer, there was some other discussion or path on this. There was about timing of a building or where, what was the other? So, you know, it's ultimately, what I discussed with the board is that it's ultimately your responsibility, the applicant, to propose a workable proposal. They're welcome to have offer suggestions. They're welcome to work through ideas with you, but the burden is ultimately on the applicant. We did have a idea that we thought was somewhat viable and it's completely flown out my mind at this point. Well, there was some discussion about having an agreement where if the parking issue wasn't resolved within so many years, property would be turned over to the city. You'll be much better at it. Right, right, right. Because, you know, we talked about, well, what if there were a surety? Well, a surety doesn't make any sense because the city is never gonna build a building. This is total crazy idea time. You know, we do crazy idea time in planning and zoning. But what if the surety were the land itself? And then one of the exceptions to parking in the front in the LDR is for the purpose of public recreation. So if the punishment for not building your bread building was that you lose the land and it becomes public recreation, it kind of kills two birds, right? It gives us assurance that you have every incentive to build it. And if you fail or beta, you know, it gets an amazing offer from Switzerland and moves, then we still solve the LDR problem because then we own this recreation space. Yeah, so, you know, this is Frank. And I heard that before and I pondered that. I think that would have to come, I think it's kind of ingenious, but I don't think it's something we could impose. I think it's much too close to, I don't know. I haven't put my finger on the legal rationale, maybe Jim could help me out. But I'm very uncomfortable with that or something to impose, but I think it's something we could accept as a proposal for the developer to see what I mean. So instead of having it. This is Don, I don't think we intended to impose it. I think we're recognizing that this is kind of a sticky wicked and we're trying to help the applicant, unless they can come up with another solution to deal with this parking issue. Yeah, it's not intended to be thou shalt do. It's just here's an idea. What else have you got? Right, so since the applicant is the tenant and not the landlord, I couldn't comment on that because we don't actually own the property. But what would happen if we aligned the construction of that building with the 10 year window that we just outlined for the phasing of the development? And what happens if you don't do it? I don't have an answer for you today, Frank. Well, that was, you know, then we're circling back around, that's our problem. But isn't the landlord a co-op applicant with you? Yes, but we haven't had conversations about ceding property or any of those crazy ideas or out of the box thinking sort of things. So we would have to circle back on that. What? Did you come with any other crazy ideas? Just a willingness to construct that building in a reasonable timeframe, but it doesn't really matter. We run up into this, the timeframe is not the issue, right? Because it's performance that's the issue under any time. It's what happens if we don't do it in a year or don't do it in three years or don't do it in five years or don't do it in 10 years. But really, you know, for us, the discussion is, we could build a structure out there. We're not required to build a building. We can certainly do what CVS did along Dorset Street. I don't believe that's the fundamental intent. And we don't want to do that because that's not the approach that we've taken at all through this. So we are looking to partner in this with the city and the DRV to find a solution, understanding that there is a hardship that's equitable on both sides. We don't, it's a really, really tough situation and it's not gonna happen unilaterally because there's always gonna be these questions about timing. But, Paul and Marl, let me ask you a question. What do the new LDRs provide for the circumstance? Any difference? I will check right now. I do not know off the top of my head. Is the suggestion that the new certain language from the new LDRs would be written as a condition in the permit? I'm a little unclear how you pull forward. No, what I would do is say, no, you can't build all, you can't have all these parking spaces, but you would know that you have an opportunity to come in and demand under the new LDRs. If it's a more relaxed thing, I don't know whether it is or it isn't. It looks like there's no modification to that section. All right, so scrap that one. Move on. I like the seating for public park because it brings it into compliance. It's pretty ingenious, but you need the owner to cooperate and it really makes you do it, which is the point of the proposal from the city's perspective. And the point of going along with it from your perspective is it allows you to do what you want. Let me, since we are continuing. Let me chat with the landlord here, the property owner and we'll see what we can propose. Thank you. All right. And it's not just so you know, it's not out of blue sky because I think we faced the opening of the situation with unsatisfactory outcome in the past. Okay. This has been a much more complicated review than I certainly expected. It's a complicated project. Thank you for your patience with us. I think what we'll do now is ask if there are any members of the public who would like to comment. So if you're attending virtually, please indicate in the chat box if you would like to provide public comment. And is there anyone in the audience who is interested? I think you're all on the team. Any indication that there are any public comments? No. Okay. So it's time check. I know we're gonna take a vote on continuing, but it's almost nine o'clock. We do not go later than 10. So let me turn to Marla and say, shall we continue this hearing and then take up the next project, the site plan? Or shall we move to the end of the agenda items, take the last one knowing that we're going to have them come back? Well, that's an interesting idea. I think the next item, the non-beta preliminary plot. Is a quick one. I was just gonna say is not crazy quick. It could be half an hour. Okay. You know, I think it's a sketch plan and the benefit of the sketch plan is to the applicant. So we really owe them our best attention. So do you want to do a half hour of the site plan and then move to the last item? Or the other way around, I don't mind. I don't hate the idea of going the other way around. What do you guys think? Board, what's your preference? Well, I hate to have these folks stick around and skip to another proposal and then come back to you. I guess the only reason I suggest that is, we might find that they need an extra 15 minutes and we're willing to give them the extra 15 minutes. Okay, all right. Who might need the extra 15 minutes? You guys, you might find that half an hour, you could do it in 45, but not. Well, anyway, we're spending more time talking about it than we are talking about the application. So let's just make a decision. Okay, does anyone have a strong feeling? Either way, I'm looking through the beta stuff. I like the idea of hopping to the other proposal briefly. You like that idea, Dan, you said? Yeah, then circling back to... Okay, all right. So it's a little unusual and we're certainly more than willing to help out, but moving, what's being proposed creates a level of uncertainty exactly what's gonna happen at the next hearing and whether or not we're gonna be able to close if we're not going to try to get through what was on the agenda. I understand. Well, and that's why I suggested that we, you would be better served by going last because then if we're finding it's 10 o'clock and you only need 10 more minutes, we're in a much better position than being fearful of not having time for the other application. But it doesn't really matter because if you're only going until 10 o'clock, what we've got... What I'm saying is we might go a little longer if we feel like we're close to finishing. We've been known to go to 10.07, but no later than, I mean, we're all brain dead by that point, so. I completely respect that, I'm saddened that chair, I understand. Okay, let's board, what do you think? All right, Dan, you were the one who made the suggestion. Let's go to agenda item. All right, so let's need to move to continue. I lost all my master plan, they're behind you. Thank you. Master plan application 21-0. First question, were there any public comments? There were none. None. All right, I am going to move that we continue this hearing until February 15th. So the motion is to continue MP 21-020 to February 15th, 2022. Do I have a second? Second, Dan. Thank you. Any discussion about the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Okay, so if you can bear with us. So there's no opportunity for the first meeting in February? No. It's a timing issue. Yeah, it's full of other projects. Okay, so are the applicants online? I believe I saw them. Okay. So we are going to move to agenda item number eight, sketch plan application SD 2202 of DS Realty LLC to amend a previous approval for a law currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard restaurant in one building and three homes in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing all three homes by demolishing both buildings and constructing a second principal building for educational use, adding educational facility as an allowed use and constructing associated site improvements at 916th Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? I'm here, Paul Simon with VIS Construction Consultants. Okay, Paul. Paul Boveehr, Agilery Vectors. Your name again, please. Paul Boveehr, Agilery Vectors. Okay, anyone else? Robert and Theresa Davis of Davis Studio. Thank you. Anyone else? Katherine Lang, architect, every member of the treatment. Okay. All right, would you all raise your right hand, please? Oh, no swearing, sketch. Sketch, sorry, my mistake. You still need to tell the truth, but we're not gonna say that. So thank you for joining us. And as everyone knows, a sketch plan is kind of a high level overview of the proposal. And it allows the applicant to kind of provide a conceptual overview of the plan and get some feedback early on from the board before you invest a lot of resources in the specifics of the plan. So who is here for the applicant? My name is Paul Simon. I'm here for the applicant. We'll be brief. I understand there's some time constraints tonight. We've also been in front of the board. Excuse me, let me just ask, please, I'm sorry, my bad. Are there any disclosures or conflicts of interest? No, okay, go ahead, Paul. Yep, we'll be quick. We've also taken this application in a different form in front of the board last year. We've modified that plan to actually now replace the carriage house building. The previous plan that you may recall was actually renovating the existing building. The existing carriage house building that's located there back behind the Davis studio, their primary structure is actually in the setback. So it's an existing non-conforming building. So what we're doing is actually bringing it more into conformance and we're actually able to then with the new building address many of the issues that we were challenged with before, such as ADA accessibility and developing the building to the right height and meeting all the code requirements. So I'll let Teresa provide a brief intro for the purpose of why we're doing what we're doing. And then we can jump into more of the details of the project. Okay, Teresa. Hi, this is Teresa. I'm the owner and founding director of Davis studio and we offer arts education and for youth through adults through Davis studio. When we purchased the property, we had inherited three apartment units. Two were in the carriage house and one was in an A frame. The A frame was demolished by a pine tree and had to be removed about two years ago in March. And then the carriage house, we are hoping to bring that in alignment with the other things that are happening at Davis. So we, instead of continuing having residential tenants, we would like to have the new structure that's being built be part of our educational and arts programming and have classroom space there. Thank you. So this is Paul again, and you'll see that you have up right now the existing conditions planning. You can see that the grading actually picks up quite a bit to get to the carriage house. It's a steeper grade. So what we're gonna be able to do is now bring that parking lot into conformance, do the parking spaces at the right dimensional standard, provide adequate and accessible route, right into the building appropriately, straighten the parking lot out. So it's got the access, the wide access that's required as part of a double parking standard. But we're also doing a design with, we've got Freeman French, Freeman here tonight and their plan for the architecture is similar in character to what the carriage house was. So, and it's similar in size. So we're not changing any of the character of the area, we're just bringing it more into conformance, getting it out of the setback. And we're also providing a robust landscaping plan as well. Similar to what we provided last year, we're just straightening the parking lot out to include that. We're also, it's a pretty straightforward plan just to extend that educational use to the back a lot. We don't see any big hiccups with this plan. It's really very straightforward. Because it's used as a educational use, we're under a tight timeline. So we'd like to also mention to the board that our intent is to come back and combine preliminary and final at your next available hearing that we can get on because we got to get under construction and it completed during the summer so that it is ready to go by September. So, happy to answer any questions or go through any staff comments. Paul, I just want to correct that, that we do need to have that ready by June. Yeah, okay, even sooner. So. Okay, so thank you for that. I'm looking at the staff comments and I think there were significant comments made about the housing preservation standards, but Marla, I don't see anything in red, which is how you usually indicate what the board needs to focus on or ask. Right, and part of the reason that's so extensive is because we talked about it a lot at their previous sketch plan. So this is sort of an update, but if we don't need to talk about it, it's just more like this is where things are. But isn't there an issue of what they're calling, whether it's a daycare center or an educational facility? They're calling an educational facility. Okay, all right, so they have to comply with the residential housing preservation standards. Yes. Okay. Do you have any questions about that, Paul or others? No, we don't. We understand the new LDRs may provide an exception to that. So it's just the timing of how, when that would get approved with the new LDRs that become effective. So if the exception's allowed or not, so I think we'd have to work with staff on how we address that. And when the timing of when the LDRs get approved versus when we get our building permit to move forward with construction, so. I just don't want you to be surprised. So I'm gonna explain something. This staff report was written with the draft regulations in hand, not the 2020 regulations because we have the draft LDRs and they've been warned you are, though this is not a formal application, if it were it would be subject to the draft LDR. So the draft LDR say, a licensed non-residential child care facilities exempt from the housing replacement standards. And how do the housing preservation standards apply to the circumstance exactly? To this, if you're removing a home, you pay into the housing trust fund a percent of the value of that home to allow the city to support construction of homes elsewhere in the city. And there are three dwellings. I think there's two. Oh, there's two? Yeah, because the A-frame was demolished and came down. Okay. All right. Any other discussion about the housing preservation issue? Oh, and I guess, sorry. I just realized that Delilah, I just understood the implications of what you said. Paul, just for your own understanding, what it says on the last paragraph of page three that you need to submit documentation, it sounds like because you already have that demolished demolition permit for the A-frame, we don't need that at the next stage. Okay. Okay. Moving on to page five, let's talk about the need for trip generation data. That's something we're going to need before the next step in the application project. You're aware of that and you'll be prepared for that? Yep. And we've actually provided it today before noon. So we have it if you like to show it as an exhibit. We had Lamar Owen Dickinson provide, they already had a document that was already well prepared last year. So that was just updated for sketch here as a response to that comment. So we do have the data and the numbers on that. It's something that staff can provide the board or we'll reproduce again for preliminary or combined preliminary and final submission. Okay. I do have it because you got it just before noon. Thank you. So if you wanted to walk us through it but you don't have to, if you'd rather work it out with staff, we're happy to do that with you before your next hearing. Yep. I think it's relatively straightforward. We have basically a reduction in trip numbers. We had previously before COVID, we had a restaurant use in the primary building and we basically are using educational, which is what our proposal includes from the ITE manual to support the numbers conservatively too. We're using the K through eight on the numbers even though there's some eight through 12 year olds in the primary building that would actually bring the numbers down even further than what we're showing. So we have the new educational building there. Yeah, that's the chart that's in the memo that we provided that demonstrates that our new total PM peak hour trips are at 22.92 and what we had before previously if you can scroll up to the previous page, it'll show 26.62. And then Roger Dickinson provided explanation as to why he categorized which from the ITE manual, what he's using in each part of the table there. Okay, thank you. I'd love to get together with you on that before your next application because I had some questions. Okay. Great. Okay, let's talk about parking and access. The staff comment is about exiting your property and turning left even though it's signaled. There's a suggestion that if people exited onto, is it Lindenwood? That it would limit the direct access to the arterial road, Shelburne Road, which is desirable. What are your thoughts about how possible that is? You saw my supplemental note on that too, right? It doesn't change too much, but there isn't actually a signal that Lindenwood we were incorrect in our report. Oh, okay. You know, it's funny, as I said it, I thought I don't remember a signal there, but okay. All right. So anyways, that's even more of a reason why exiting onto Lindenwood, Lindenwood would be better, correct? If you're looking for my response and maybe Robert Davis, you can respond to this too because I know you've taken a look at it. It's about the left turn, right? So if you're turning out, the queuing is at the next intersection north of Lindenwood Drive. And on, I guess the peak hours, sometimes the cars are stacking further back. So actually it does the opposite. Trying to get onto Lindenwood Drive and make that left turn is actually harder now. And it also, if we were to have to do that, we'd have to really change the programming of this site plan to include a drive out from this parking lot out north to Lindenwood Drive, which is a residential street. And it really breaks up that field on the north side of the campus and the carriage house. It's for these young kids to play in. And so it is part of the programming that Davis Studio does is not just in the buildings, it's outside the buildings. And that's where all the teachers gather and they have outdoor classroom activities. So, and that's just a beautiful space there that would have to be changed in order to provide an access drive to Lindenwood Drive. We just don't have the numbers either. This is a very small project. We're still providing the same size building that's there. We are increasing the number of people using the building compared to the two residences that are there right now, but we're providing the parking that can accommodate that. And we're actually by straightening the parking aisle out the way we are in the plan, we're providing the stacking that's needed for the left-hand turn from our project. So I don't, in my opinion, I believe we're doing everything we can with the project we're proposing. And it's a very simple straightforward project. So. Okay, thank you. Yeah. If, and, you know, just to chime in, you know, I've made that left turn many times and I just want to reiterate Paul said it, but I want to reiterate if you had to turn left from Lindenwood where what the suggestion would be accurate if there was a light there, but the light is just a little bit further up. So it cues back, like you'd never be able to turn left because it's blocked that much further. I don't know if I'm stating that very elegantly, but it would be worse to try to turn left without a traffic light than to come out of our space and turn left. And what I've found, you know, over the last five years is it'll be busy, busy, busy, and then it just clears. And after like two minutes, you're like, I'm never going to get out. And then all of a sudden you do get out. Or if it's in rush hour, you just go to the right and turn right on Swift and go down somewhere else or turn left up at Queen City. So it's really not, it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when you consider that our trip end generation as we've demonstrated is decreasing. And I think what Paul didn't really mention is losing the cafe or move, you know, although we still have a bakery there where people pick up things one day a week, that's way different than having the cafe where people were generating traffic all the time. So our actual traffic generation is decreasing. And the only thing I would want to add is I am quite confident that the neighbors on Londonwood would not be happy with that plan either. This is Frank. I'm familiar with the intersection. I think they're right about Londonwood. I think that would be a disaster making a lot of money. Well, the argument I would make is that, and I'm not saying that I have very strong feelings about this, I would just note that the experience of the site user is not the objective of the LDR, the experience of the traffic network. So we need to be thinking about it from that perspective, not just the perspective of the user of the specific site. Okay. This is Jim. This is Jim. I just wanted to add the, that's a pretty, Londonwood ends up being a pretty well-traveled bike route since the bike path attaches to the dead end of it. And so the adding, you know, sort of more car travel to what's a heavily used bike, heavily biked road. So I get the suggestion, Marlon, it doesn't seem like a huge benefit to justify sort of adding that in my head, adding an entrance onto Londonwood. Thanks, Jim. Any other comments before you move on? Okay, we are on the last page and I think we just covered the last comment. Any other discussion from the board members' questions, whatever, before we, Marla, has a question. So the last page, I didn't make it read. Probably should have, it says staff is analyzing this requirement, anticipates having further information at the time of the hearing. So under the draft LDR, master plan is required for multiple structures on a single user a lot or complex in accordance with section 3.09. And then 3.09 defines multiple structures on a single user a lot or complex. As we discussed in relation to the previous application, master plan is now a pretty heavy lift. It definitely changes the amount of effort required for a project. Staff did some pretty detailed analysis and we think that it passes the straight face test that this is not multiple structures on a single user a lot or complex. I know that sounds ridiculous, but we think that given the proposed structure being 15 feet in height, being about half the size of the principal structure, we can consider that an accessory structure and therefore not subject to master plan. Just be aware, applicant, that if this is an accessory structure, it needs to stay that way. Otherwise, you do become subject to a master plan. So you aren't today, but just keep an eye on that. Okay. Because that's the way out. Marlon, I'm in sympathy with the intent, but why is an accessory structure not count as a multiple structure? Because the definition in article three specifically uses the term principal structure. Well, it can't be more than one principal structure anyway, can it? In a single circumstance defined under the draft LDR, may there be multiple structures and that is when it's a single user complex. And so this is a single user complex. I'm gonna withdraw the question about time considerations. We can hash that out later. Yeah. This is sketch play, okay. It's a great conversation to have in a general way, I agree. Is it also because we're extending the use, right? Because we're extending the educational use from the primary to the accessory. It's the same type of use. If it was a different use, that may mean you would be required for master plan, correct? Right. Let's back into it. Okay. Okay. Okay. That brings us to the end of this staff report. And I think it's time to conclude this sketch for now. And we're gonna ask for a public comment. So let's take a moment and ask for the public's comments if they have any and then we'll take a vote. I did receive a public comment via email. It's in this up on that all, if you don't mind. Can I receive that this morning? Can you see it? Yep, it's up. Shall I read this? Sure. I am planning on coming to the upcoming meeting, but if I can't, I have a question about occupancy numbers for these businesses that are at the Davis State Studios restaurant and children's proposed development. I am interested in considerations concerning impact of artificial light exhaust from glass kilns and cars, loss of elder trees, number of allowed participants in all usage. Some concerns about traffic exiting on Shelburne Road. Could traffic exit to road with traffic light on Lindenwood Drive? Please forward to whom it concerns. Much thanks, Sarah Brotsman. So thank you, Sarah, for that comment. Are there any other public comments? No. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to conclude tonight's sketch hearing. We don't need to move. I'll never get that, will I? No, and the reason we don't is because that's a non-minding conversation. All right, okay. So we just will conclude and we'll see you again soon. Okay, very soon I hope. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Art, you have four extra minutes. Right. Do people need to be sworn in again if it's a different project? Okay, good. All right. This is continued preliminary in final plat application SD 2128 of beta error 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 a 344,000 square foot manufacturing and office building improving approximately 2,400 square feet of private road and constructing associated site improvements at 3070 Williston Road. We know who's here for the applicant. You've been sworn in. You're excusing yourself because you are conflicted? Okay, thank you. And we know who's here for the applicant. So just a little overview. This is what you've called the blue phase of your master plan, correct? The first phase. That would be correct. Okay. And very brief overview, very brief. So the blue phase in the master plan includes the phase one of the building which the drawings indicate that includes the new driveway, roadway, the majority of the parking that will be constructed as well as the Williston Road improvements. Okay, thank you. So again, these comments are categorized as SC staff comment. So SC two relates to the Erwin district standards and we need a copy of the application to the FAA. For record keeping. We actually submitted the FAA 7460 determination that the building height is acceptable within the zone. So that item is closed. Perfect, thank you. The next comment, I'm gonna read it. Staff recommends the board consider whether they are, there are any findings specific to this preliminary and final plat application that need discussion as distinct matters from the concurrent master plan discussion? Well, I guess the parking is the big one for me. Right, but is there anything about it that needs to be discussed in light, specific to the preliminary and final plat as opposed to the master plan? No, I'm not aware of any. Is anyone else? No. Okay. Did you have anything in mind, Marla? No. Okay. I'm gonna read this next comment. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the connection in terms of its location, purpose, duration, and impact to traffic patterns. Staff then recommends the board consider whether this connection is appropriate as proposed. And we're talking to access, about access to abutting properties. Yeah, I believe more specifically the concern was over a cross-lock connection, although because this is a single lot, we had asked for clarification in terms of what the actual concern was. And Marla suggested that that would be an appropriate conversation for tonight. Yeah, okay. So this, one of the things that CCRPC and VTRANS mentioned was that you were proposing a interim connection to Valley Roads and in my mind, that was somewhere left of the existing building to remain in this phase. And I couldn't find it on the plans and I thought it was important that that be made clear if that would be proposed. So currently, when you're looking at the plan that you have on the screen, Valley Road runs along the left-hand property line from Wilson Avenue all the way up past the, nope, if you come back to Wilson Road and then go all the way to the left, Property Edge. Just inside that property boundary, if you were to strike a line to the top of the property boundary before it turns to the left, keep going up there, keep going, keep going. So somewhere in there, before you make the turn onto our lot, Valley Drive actually goes straight and then it comes to a fork. Actually, I believe there's four forks, one for a dirt road to the left, which is what we're proposing to improve. The other would go straight ahead into the Mansfield Haliflight parking lot. In between those, there's one that goes off to what is called Gate 13, which is access into the Valley hangars. And then to the right, you have access down into a couple of Valley buildings. Those conditions are being modified, but they're not being eliminated. They're being modified to connect into the driveway that's being proposed. So there is no, we're not proposing a cross lot connection or anything different than what already exists. So can I ask a question? Cause sometimes we put things under things just because that's where they fit best. Things under things, we're getting technical. So are you proposing to maintain this piece in blue here? So Valley Road will continue to exist and you'll be able to drive from Williston Road straight up to here? Yes. So you'll be able to get into the site in this condition in two places. Until such time as Valley Road is eliminated. Okay. And what the CCR, not the CCRPC, cause they've stepped aside and said we're going to defer to VTrans. What VTrans original question was or concern was having the traffic, our parking employees bypassing the stoplight that we're proposing to put in go towards that yellow line and come back down Valley Drive and putting that load on the network in a place where it wasn't intended to and increase the traffic in front of mirror bells and those buildings. And what we said was that we could simply make that one way in not two way, with a one way in and a way out. To eliminate our employees from coming down and trying to exit through Valley Road, make a right turn on Williston and then head to the West. So where would the one way occur? Where I've drawn the purple circle? No, it would occur where the green, I think it's the green circle right there. The second purple circle. That's right. So that's not on your plan. There's no indication of that. So that sounds like it could be a condition. That this should be signed to be. To be a condition, absolutely. Okay, any questions from board members? Okay, utility services. What about coordination with Velco or GMP? So in the package, the response to staff comments that was sent around earlier tonight to Marla, there's a snippet in there that shows a diagram where we highlight the GMP. Velco is not the provider. So I actually struck Velco because GMP is our electric service provider here and the below ground water system in question. And you can see that they're very clearly coordinated and that there are no conflicts between the two systems. Okay. So that covers water allocations, water and waste water allocations too? It does, both of those were submitted in a packet. Okay, thank you. Landscaping and screening and preserving the existing trees. What are your thoughts about this staff comment? Right, so actually this was a comment that led to an unintended consequence if you will. In the write-up when you see that, we'll note that the majority of the trees need to be removed due to the contours of the site and having to incorporate the parking or that they were stumps showed up as trees and really in all of the numbers, there's two spruce trees, a 26 and a 40 inch that need to be eliminated due to the parking and the way that the grades will work there. There are five trees that need to be removed along the recreation path that were noted. They're not actually trees, they're stumps. So those need to come out. There were two ash trees that we were proposing to remove because they were in areas that would conflict with the design but also because the community has a ash bore removal program where we're just being proactive and trying to remove the trees before the bore has a chance to set in. Right. There were two maple trees that were noted. Those maple trees are actually multi-stem maple trees. They're not gonna last long, they're compromised, they weren't planted, they were probably from seedlings that fell to the ground and again, they're in a place where due to the grading and the development, they would need to be removed. So we were showing them as not worth keeping and we'd rather plant better landscaping in a more appropriate place as you've seen in the earlier submission. There's one maple tree that sits up against the path closer to the building, the grades are steeped there, it needs to come out because it doesn't work with the contouring of the project. And those were the ones that were noted. When we went back and looked at all of these trees and there's a pretty colored diagram that you have in your packet, it's electronically when that comes around, there's a yellow tree that was highlighted on our end that was not part of the original discussion that we think we might be able to adjust the path to save that tree. And so the staff comment was great, gave us a chance to go back and just reconfirm what we were doing. It turns out that the trees that were noted in staff's comments need to come out but there is one that we had to note it as being removed that we likely can save. And so we're looking for ways to be able to do that. Okay, thank you. So is there a need for the city art burst to review this? If so, I will have them review what art has provided for the board to look at between now and the next hearing. Great, okay, thank you. Board, any questions? Okay, moving on to the next page. Staff comment 13 through 16. Built in site furniture. Show the location of and discuss the function of this area. Is that, you want that in writing? I think we just need to come back to staff comment number 12 screening. And just to close that out, we support staff's recommendation. Okay, okay, good, thanks. So site furniture, yeah, so this is a new thing. We were hoping you could show it to us. I'm sorry, what was that? The built in site furniture on staff comment 13 through 16 here. You replaced that, you replaced, you changed your proposal around for your landscaping and staff was hoping you could kind of walk us through what this tiered amphitheater and concrete seat falls is. And whom is it for? Right, so two points of clarification there. One is that the built in site furniture, if you will, was part of the original proposal. It was just not highlighted. And the question that staff had is how, or not question, but the comment staff had was we could not use movable furniture as part of our landscape budget, which we completely agree with. We made any adjustments that were needed there and just highlighted that we also have built in site furniture, landscaping walls, steps, things that can be used in a multitude of ways. The amphitheater is not really an amphitheater and we don't want to mislead anybody. There's no plant concerts, no large outdoor events. It's not an event location. It's a multi-purpose gathering place where we can have our employees come out and gather. We can have company meetings. The public could come in and use it, but it's not intended to be an amphitheater. It's just a place to gather. Could you potentially point us to, I mean, I think this sounds neat and I think it'd be helpful to understand where this is. Is there a plan sheet you could point us to? Oh my goodness. Chris, what's a good? Land to any landscaping plan. And any of the landscaping plans. LS 200? Yeah, either two, yeah, that's probably a good one. Is it similar to what some schools have that they call kivas, which is a little gathering place for plays or whatever. No, you're not familiar with that. Yeah, it's really informal. It's an intent. Just be, thank you. There he is. Jeff Hodson with Wagner-Hodson Landscape Architecture. It's basically a terraced hillside with different levels of seeding worked in around planting. It basically is a transition from the upper level of the building to the lower. That sounds neat. Yeah. Is it maybe on page 15? Is it this guy? What is it? If you go to the comments that we... I don't have those. I think you just need to hit play. Okay, hit what? You're paused. Oh, sorry. Is it that? Yep. Yeah, so if you zoom in to the right side. Is it here? Nope, it's... That big bump right in there. It's that whole area. I don't know if you can zoom into that area. Yeah. There you go. There, so it's a series of steps and terraces, so it's that whole center portion there. Right. And sometimes the steps, rather than being step, step, step, step, there might be a step deleted so that it's a little higher in some sections, creating a variety in there so that you end up with different types of spaces that people can gather on. More tiers as Jeff Moore eloquently described him. Okay. Very good. Thank you for showing that to us. Okay. Two pages over. There's a request from staff for supplemental photometric drawings. If we go back just for a second, just to close out an item, there was a staff comment relative to the overall landscape budget that we had offered up providing subcontractor quotes. There was a concern over the pricing there. I remember that, yep. We're still more than happy to do that. It should also be noted that right now as it stands, our design is 30% value above what is required by the landscape budget calculation in the LDRs. We're still more than happy to do what we said we would do. We just want it noted that we're providing a third more because it's the right thing to do both for our employees and the community and the site. And so this comment is a little, it's a little, we're a little unsure what the basis for the comment is. Which comment are you referring to, Art? That the city arborists expressed that the value of some of the larger planting should be justified. Okay. I can provide a little explanation here. So we normally go through item by item and say, is this allowed? Is this not allowed to count? In recognition, you are 30% over. We didn't really do that here. So if we want to say, if we want to say, if we want to hang our hats on, we're well over, we should confirm that the board wants to allow credit for all of this list of things. But if we don't, and we want to approve the plan in aggregate, we should be confident that the values are, not unfairly inflated, I guess. Yeah. There's no benefit to us to inflate the values by a third of the total cost that we're doing it because it's the right thing to do for the site, for the employees. Board, thoughts? I guess this is one where I would say, do you have enough information to make a decision in deliberation? Okay. Thank you. Marla. Yes, Frank. Excuse me, Marla. Yes, Frank. I have a question. What is a soil cell? So soil cells are the latest technology for providing soil volume for trees that are located in pavement. They are structural cells that hold up the pavement so that it doesn't become compacted for the roots of the trees. And they're expensive. They're very expensive. And they give the tree the opportunity to grow to its designated height and canopy. So instead of having a piddly little sidewalk tree. Right. Yeah. I'm still trying to visualize what it is. Oh, you got a picture. Fantastic. Can we blow it up some? Yeah, we do. It's the bottom left, but not the very bottom left, right? No, I'm sorry. That's not it. That's just teasing. It's on the right. It's on the right. Yeah. Bottom right. My part of my screen is covered up. Oh, it's this guy. Okay. I see it. Oh, hang on. We're zooming in. Wait a second. It's basically these structural crates that support the pavement and you fill them with really good, healthy soil. And so basically the roots have kind of open, you know, airy soil to grow in instead of compacted dense soil. It's a great idea. Those arches, I mean, I'm looking to tell you, look like Roman arches more or less, what are they? They're just big plastic crates. And they allow space. Yes. Yeah, it's basically instead of the soil supporting the pavement, the structure supports it. And then they're filled with soil. Frank, I think. Okay, and the roots of the trees grow into that soil or where do the roots? Yep, right across through those arches. I think you were not at the meeting where they talked more about this, Frank, but it was pretty impressive, but they are very costly. But I guess they've been shown to be very effective too. Well, it looks and sounds cool if it works. That's great. Okay. Okay, moving on. We've already covered that. Actually, could it be? Um, long-term biking, bicycle parking, there was a request to have it shown on the plans. And then staff recommends a different bicycle rack, type of bicycle rack. That is what we typically recommend. Is that something you folks can... Yeah, we can walk you through that. Do you wanna walk through staff comment 18 and 23 before we get there? You don't seem to have the same numbers you do Oh, staff comment, 18 and 23. It's not in red. That's what's throwing in. Staff comment 18 is not in red. You're correct. Staff comment 23, at least in the version that was submitted to us, it was in red. Staff comment 18 had to do with V-trans and the questions that they had asked. Really, we just wanted to note that we had responded to the V-trans questions and resolved that and provided some calculations for their benefit on how we determined the length of the left turn and the length of the... Tape or length? Tape or length, thank you. So that we had completed that and provided the detailed information. The second part of that was just to note that we still believe it's prudent to put a stoplight at that proposed intersection. We understand that V-trans has the ultimate authority on that decision and we just wanted to have that in here for the record and we'll work with them under whatever there is. And then on the lighting piece, staff comment 23, some additional photometrics were required to indicate whether there were hotspots or not. Those photometrics were sent over earlier today and they show that there are no hotspots but certainly take a look at that, let us know if you agree and hopefully we can close that item as well. And that takes us to bicycle parking and storage. Marla, is there any chance we can get the email that I sent earlier? Because it would really help with this conversation. There's some good... Let me open my email. I have a little sticky note on my computer. This is be present. So I try to not leave my emails open. That's a good reminder. From art? Oh, right here it is. Oh boy. All right, is there a picture in here somewhere that I'm giving? Yeah, if you go to page five, that will start a series of little snippets that we've included to address staff comment. There you go. Excellent. So what you see here are the bike parking strategies and the red dots, the red bubbles are the exterior. So the short-term parking spaces. And the blue dots are the long-term internal interior storage, locker or shower locations. So that's what we're here. Now if we go to the next page, so that's your overall plan. And then we have a series of graphics that we provided to delineate each of the locations, which I believe is what the response to staff comments was. So here's a floor plan for level one, which is the lowest level in the building. And we're gonna walk through entrance A. So that's the southeast entrance. The first snippet there, that blue dot, shows you where the locker rooms are located. And then there's an enlarged plan just below that to show you the detailed design for the lockers and the showers. They're combined in that location. So if you scroll down. Am I going too fast? Yeah. If you're missing the blow-ups. Oh, it's on the same sheet. It's on the same page, yeah. Hang on, hang on, let me switch. So what you have is you have the overall plan and then you have an enlarged plan showing the detail for that area. So there are your lockers and your showers as part of the southeast entrance. And that correlates to the table that we had before where we had 496 lockers and 17 showers in the overall project. And this is the first part of that. So if you go to the next page, so this is the lowest level. This is down at the airport level. The actual long-term storage, the bike storage for this entry is two levels up at grade. And then if you just scroll down a little bit, Marla, you'll see a detailed plan of this. So there as you enter the building, you can see where the entry there is designated on the bottom. Just to the left of that are the long-term bike lockers, storage areas. So that's entrance A. We also have similar lockers, storage and showers, changing areas for the northwest entrance, or entrance B, which is the next page, Marla. So that's the overall plan. And if you just scroll to the top a little bit, you can see the arrows starting to show. There's your bike storage, that first the bottom blue bubble, the top blue bubble, that's your locker rooms, changing facilities and showers. And then at the bottom of the page is a blow up to show the detail for those items or elements. There you go. Great. Thank you. So based on staff comment, we believe that we've provided the additional detail requested. If not, certainly let us know. So the outside bicycle racks, are you going to change them? Yeah. So I know the one that we originally submitted, there was a comment about it not being durable, which I wasn't clear on, it's stainless steel and it's an inverted U, but to you- Cortene steel. Well, now the first one- Oh. Then we decided to just submit the one that you guys approved for the North Hanger, which is Cortene steel, but now there seems to be a comment about that. You were concerned about the rough surface for bicycles? I mean, we're not going to be super fussy about this, but I think that there was a pretty strong concern based on some experiences that you had, that Delilah had had, that those original ones, something about the way they're built makes them not very durable. So the bike rack that we're proposing for this portion of the project is the same bike rack that was approved by the DRB for the project we just completed at the North Hanger. The Cortene steel. The Cortene. Yeah. That's right. Now you were concerned that the Cortene steel might be too rough for bicycles? Where's- Yeah. I mean, it's more a question, it's super nitty-gritty. You know, the city's really interested in improving non-motor vehicle access. It's one of the four comprehensive plan goals. You know, I just want to make sure that we're not proposing something that is a non-starter, especially for such a large facility. You know, I think we're looking at this a little bit more closely than we do on something that's renovation. I don't know, what's been your experience? Have you seen these in person or are they okay? Would you lock your bike to one? Yep. Yeah, no, they're installed at the North Hanger if anybody wants to look at them. And in terms of durability, they're steel embedded in concrete. Yeah, and the building, both the North Hanger building and this building has Cortene steel details. Elements in architecture. That's why we thought we'll just keep it kind of a beta standard, so. Okay. And if it's of any interest in the package that we were just looking at, you'll see that there's a cut from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, APBP, Essentials of Bike Parking. Those are the standards that were used to design and locate the bike racks, the short term, the outdoor bike racks that we have. Okay, thank you. That's good to know. All right. Next comment. This is about the bus stop shelter. What are your thoughts about the staff comment and how would you propose to make the structure harmonious with the project and the adjacent properties? Well, as it's designed and as the standard for GMT, the nice thing about glass is you see right through it and the context of the site is the context of the site. You're not actually competing with the other buildings or the landscaping around it, which is probably why GMT went with this sort of design to begin with. Our proposal right now is to use this as our base design. This is what we're planning and installing. If we come up with something in the future that we'd like to supplement it with, we'll talk to GMT, we'll talk to the board, we'll come back, but right now we're just going to be installing the GMT standard. Board, can we live with that? Thank you. And then there's one more comment. Staff recommends the board establish a timeline of two years after issuance of the first zoning permit for issuance of the second zoning permit and ask the applicant to propose a surety mechanism for ensuring that the site is attractive should the second phase not be constructed. Thoughts about that? I don't know what it means. Okay. Marla. Yeah, so I think this would be helpful to show, Delilah, this packet has bookmarks. And if you go to the bookmarks, there's one that's called phase one plan. Phase one plan. So they're proposing to build the blue phase, as we've come to call it, into phases. So it'll be blue phase one and blue phase two. The plan Delilah has up now is blue phase one. Blue phase two is obviously all of blue phase. So blue phase one includes most of the parking, all of the access road at half of the building, presumably half of the landscaping around the building. It's actually a little bit more than half because what's tough to tell in this drawing is the building as it's highlighted is the first phase. Just below that is the second phase. But if we remember, that's 20 feet down below. So what we've done is actually landscaped around that edge so you can't see over that onto what was the old quarry, but it'll be completely improved because we can't leave it like that per the Act 250 guidelines. It's gonna have to be at least seeded in grass. So there's landscaping that's being added to be able to be harmonious with what we're proposing for the rest of the site, as Marla just mentioned. So the staff comment here is since the majority of the aesthetic elements of the building are proposed in the second phase, so that big entry canopy, the lawn area, the sort of apron in front, the staff recommends the board impose a strict timeline for issuance of a zoning permit of the second phase and consider requiring the applicant to establish a surety to improve the second phase should it not be constructed and then require a timeline. So the gist here is you have a certain amount of time to apply to build the second phase. And if you don't, the repercussion is that we can pull the bond and fix up the site. So we're not left with the appearance of half a building. And I got the sense, and I'm kind of going off script here, but I got the sense when you talked about this originally that your intention was to actually pull the zoning permits concurrently, but to get your COs separately. Is that changed? The discussion that we had was we wanted to pull the zoning permit after a period when we could use the building and understand how we were going to adjust our processes in the second building to build them too close together. So the first part of what we do is going to be for a very, it's going to be an oversimplification of it, but think about the first aircraft that we build are going to be more hand built. We're going to move into automation at some point, but in order to understand what we want to automate, we have to have some time to go through that hand build process to figure out the automation, design the automation, have the automation then fabricated, delivered, and be ready to be installed in the future portion of the building. That timeframe is more consistent with the discussion that we had in terms of the flexibility around the master plan during the previous application. We're improving the site tremendously just by what we're doing here today. It's no longer a quarry. It's no longer a brownfield. We're providing some additional drainage, stormwater management, additional landscaping. We're providing public paths. We're doing all these things as part of phase one. And when you look at the renderings, actually I don't think it plays as half a building. I think it plays as a very smart, very good looking building that's going to be a nice entry as you're starting to fly in as you're approaching the airport from that south-easterly, south-westerly direction, south-easterly. There's been a lot of care taken by the architects, in fact, to make sure that it doesn't look like half a building. So does that clarify the question? So the question is then what should the timeline be for the blue phase two? And should they be required to provide some surety to patch things up if blue phase two never happens? There's also a perspective drawing, Delilah, if you wanted to pull that up. I think it's a presentation. Frank, had you started to ask a question? No? Yeah, my question was, you know, I think the language was just loosey-goosey for me. You said make it attractive while you're waiting to do phase two, if you don't do phase two in time. And I was wondering whether you were serious about having that be actual language or you could nail it down a little more so the developer would know what he's got to do. Yes, that was this question. What should that language be, if at all? I don't know. I mean, how do you pin it down? Well, you can say you have to get a zoning permit within two years. And you know. You can say you have to get a permit in two years or else, what? But as we talked about before though, at that point the DRB is driving business decisions. And the question I would ask is, are we leaving the site in substantially worse condition than we're finding it? And what is the benefit to forcing us to do a building if we may not be ready to do that yet because we haven't been able to get through the gate of hand-build to understand what it is that automation looks like. Now that's inside the building, right? And so in order to compensate for the fact that we are only building half of the building, we're planting more landscape. We're doing a majority of the landscape minus the great lawn as part of the blue phase. I didn't quite understand how the two thoughts related. I wanna go back to what Marla was proposing. See if I could, that's where only place I was coming from. You got to improve the site in some fashion if you don't build the building within a certain amount of time. I'm fine with that. Of course, I don't know how ugly they're leaving the site. That's what I don't have a grasp of. I would take a, I hear what you're saying, Frank, but honestly it's, we're improving the site. We're taking a brownfield and we're making it sustainable. We're not leaving it ugly and that connotation is not really where we wanna leave everybody. The design team has spent an awful lot of time and effort to come up with a project that fits fantastically within the community and the goals of the comprehensive plan. All right, so the meaning of that is in your view, there should be no consequence for however long you take the build, the second build, correct? Correct with the caveat that we have to fit it inside the window that we discussed under the previous application, the master plan application, that we don't have unlimited time, that time is dictated by the framework that was proposed earlier. All right, so let's say you don't do it. What happens then? That the airport has a viable site for future development and that the landscaping, because that site is 20 feet below the landscaping where the majority of landscaping happens, there's no immediate impact to the public, there's no immediate impact to anything other than providing the airport, the land owner, an opportunity for potential future development. All right, because of my limited visualizations field, I asked Marla, do you agree with that characterization Marla? Or does something need to be done in that space? So Art referred to... Marla, can I, this is Jim, can I just add to that? So I'm trying to come up with the LDR justification for the time limit. I'm reading your comment as saying that since the majority of the aesthetic elements of the building are proposed in the second phase, we should have a timeline. Right, because the LDR 1406 talks about, aesthetic compatibility and consistency between structures and site and structure is a structure. So the question here is, if they were only proposing phase blue one, would they have an approval? And if so, then fine, there should be no limit. But if there's concerns that phase blue one doesn't stand alone, then there should be some constraints. I don't think there is a phase one landscaping plan. That I saw? There is. I don't think there is. Yeah. So let me just, we've gone beyond the 1007. You can tell you're saying. We're so close. Well, I know we're so close, but I think that it's probably not prudent for us to close this hearing anyways until the master plan. Has been closed and board members challenge me on this. So I'm wondering since we're coming back again to finish off the master plan, could we finish off this conversation then? So I would just offer before the board weighs in on your question that because we cannot get continued to the first hearing in February, delaying this application, closing this application, waiting for the master plan is going to significantly delay construction. And if there is a path to closing this hearing, then we would request that that happen tonight and that we obviously will reconvene in mid-February for the master plan. Well, let me ask Marla, is it possible to close this hearing? Someone just said something. Yeah, how can you, how can you, if the delay in closing it, can you still hear me? Yes. Everybody disappeared. Nope, we can hear you. Oh, that's because I disappeared, all right. I don't understand how you could benefit from advancing construction by closing this hearing if the master hearing isn't closed. How can you do, if the master plan hearing isn't closed, how is that possible? The master plan is going to obligate us to things beyond, this is a set subset conversation, right? The master plan is going to obligate us to things beyond this project. This project as proposed, as submitted in this application fits inside the master plan without requiring any waivers or deviations. And so theoretically, we should be able to close this, move into Marla and pulling forward with the decision with the board still leaving the master plan open. But this can't be, if the master plan theoretically were simply denied, you couldn't proceed with it with this plan, right? I don't believe that's the case, but I'll defer to staff and I guess staff, the chair's pointing towards staff. You know, we haven't really analyzed that question. I will remind everyone that the board has 45 days to issue a decision once the hearing is closed. So, you know, I don't know that rushing to close this gets you anything because I'm not going to rush to write a decision when the master plan isn't issued. That doesn't really make a lot of sense. I'm just for supporting the chair's suggestion. Okay. Delilah did find the blue phase one landscaping plan. It's hard to read because there's a hatch for the grass that's a little, makes it look like a big black blur, but I think if you zoom in, you can kind of see that there's some trees along the front area that would be part of the first phase. Yeah, the vast majority of the plant material is in the first phase. It's more hardscape and seat walls and things that are in the second phase. Okay, thank you. Unless any other board members object, I'm going to say enough is enough for tonight. I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but I just, I don't feel comfortable. I wouldn't feel comfortable going till midnight and closing this hearing without the master plan being done. So what I would suggest is we continue this to the 15th of February and at that meeting, focus on this last issue that we were talking about. Hopefully it'll be very quick. Hopefully the review of the master plan will be very quick and you'll be on your way. I guess I would ask if the board has any particular things they would like me to focus on regarding this phasing question. I will do my best to write this as a decision with a cover memo kind of thing. If this is the only outstanding issue, if anybody has any things that come to mind that I should focus on, I'd appreciate hearing them now. I think the question you- My thought here is, I'm sorry, this is Jim, I mean, if we're not asking for additional information here on this issue, that we just, sounds like maybe we just need to discuss it. That's, yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at. I'm not sure we can't, that I'm not sure we can't close, but the applicant realizing that the decision is, the decision is probably not going to be written before the 15th. I would just reiterate the question that you said of if this can be, if phase one would be approved on its own, because potentially eliminating that need to put in a mechanism and my understanding as a component of that is the percentage of the landscaping budget. So I don't know if they've showed that kind of calculation on both phases or any other kind of requirements to answer that question. It sounds like that would be the preference of the applicant to not have something that makes phase two contingent on a timeline or something else. So whatever those requirement hits are, that if the applicant, if we could be comfortable with that phase one is approvable on its own, feels like the cleanest thing. That's a great point. So are you suggesting that we break this into two phases and approve them separately? No, it would be one, but it would, if we kind of say that phase one could stand on its own and be approved if it came in on its own, then having a mechanism, because that's the concern here that if phase two doesn't get done, there's a surety there that's on top of the 10 year surety that we've talked about for the master plan in general. So if kind of phase one is approvable on its own, it removes this kind of need that staff has identified to have a surety in place, because then we have a half done project that wouldn't have gotten approved on its own, right? So I don't, is that making sense? And I don't know, it sounds like the applicant would prefer not to have something that's dictating business decisions and that, you know. Yeah, and you asked a good question. I'm just trying, I don't have access to the internet yet, but I was going to check our construction costs for phase one and just knowing what the landscape budget calc would be to make sure that we met that. Even if when I pulled that up, if it didn't, we would certainly commit to making sure that we were meeting the minimum landscape budget for that, such that we would be in compliance with the LDRs should this application hearing be closed tonight? Well, I don't think that we can do that as a condition because that'd be new information, right? But I think that's something we can work on collaboratively and get you to a decision, a draft decision on the 15th because it sounds like that meets everybody's objectives. You know, it is not just landscaping costs, there's other numbers that need to be crunched as well, but I think we can crunch the numbers and then have a sewed up application and then we're still on the same timeline anyway. Yep, that makes sense. So, hearing that, I'm going to make a motion that, or I'm going to move that we continue preliminary and final plaid application SD 2128 to February 15th. Second. Thank you. Any discussion about that? All in favor? Oh, sorry, thank you. Are there any public comments? Any online? No, okay, thank you. All in favor? Wait, did someone say, yeah, aye. Chair votes aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. Did we hear from Jim? Sorry. Yeah, I'm an aye. Okay. Was that a reluctant aye, Jim? Yeah. All right, that's a laugh. It was, I understood what you said, though. I mean, we could end up in the same place. Okay. Good night, everyone. Thank you for your patience. Shall we do a minute? This conference is no longer being recorded. This conference will now be recorded. This conference is no longer being recorded. I guess we ended the meeting, so much for that. Let's do minutes next time. It's late. Okay. I'm just worried that we forget what happens if we don't do them quickly, you know what I mean? I understand. It's way too late, though. Okay. I had no idea this would be so common. The first part was really tough. Yeah, but you know what? I think that these discussions really make a difference. Okay. Good.