 No, Austin is great. Austin is like a foot, about five times the size of Texas. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, he smiles sometimes. They do kiss in the nose. Don't let them know. Yeah. No, Austin. Good to be here. I'm American from New Hampshire. I'm from Vermont. Vermont is, except the independence movement. Very good thing. We're going to do it together. We're going to do it together. You don't have that stuff. But you don't have that Vermont experience. I'm just saying, no, we're not going to change it to move on. John, this is what the plan is. Austin. Austin. Austin. Austin. Austin. Austin. Austin. We need to get Mark going. We're not ready. We need to get Mark on the phone. So just double click on Go To Meeting. I'm double clicking on it. There you go. Meet now. There's a regular phone. There's not a committee meeting. It's the owner of the phone. So we're going to have to use the regular meeting. Let us know when you have audio. They're waiting for Mark. Mark's not in yet. Mark, can you hear us now? Do you want to start on the screen? Okay. Okay, welcome to the South Brooklyn Development View Board for Tuesday, December 4th, 2018. The first item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuations from the conference room. If there is an emergency, we can either exit where we came in. We've got you, Mary Bart. If there is an emergency, we can either exit the way we came in or out these two doors here. And if there is an emergency, we should all meet and make sure that we're all safe and together and we'll determine that by signing the sign up sheet. So please make sure and sign that be okay if there's an emergency. Next, additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items. Are there any additions, deletions or changes? Comments, questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Anybody have any comments or questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none, announcements. Hearing none, miscellaneous application MS-1806 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for Alternate Compliance with the Interim and Multi-use District Building Envelope Standards Section 8.06H for a 20,200 square foot 105-storey hotel building at 1068 Wilson Road. Who is here for the applicant? Oh, to just point out, we're kind of worried. Okay, I guess for the, so we have one board member who's on the seeing eye of Sarah on here. So I'm going to turn that to the screen. And then we're going to hand you the HDMI cable. Okay. And I think that leaves Mark connected and he's just going to have to look at the video screen. Mark, is that true? You can still see the video screen. One mute, Mark. I think that sounds right. Yeah. It sounded very final, didn't it? It did, right? I think we should have it. Well, it would be nice since Mark is sort of the resident architect. That's right. We'll wait for Mark's confirmation that he's available. Yup, we can hear you. Thank you. I'm Peter Smyer from VHB. I'm a civil engineer and I'm a business application. Raise your right hand, please. You promised I'll have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm a penalty of pleasure. And are there any conflicts of interest with the applicant? Mark, no conflicts of interest? No. Great. Thanks. Peter Smyer from VHB here on behalf of the applicant. And I have with me Ralph Biggers from BMA Architects also here on behalf of the applicant. Good evening. So we are here tonight to seek the board's review of our proposed use of the alternate entry standard in the T4 district for proposed building on this site. The site itself lies within the form-based code district, so our application for site plan and the project in general is an administrative one. So we're not going to dive deeply into the project here tonight. We're just seeking the board's review of the doors. I thought I'd give a quick presentation, just one minute overview of the project so you could understand context of what's proposed and get a sense of what the project entails. So brought up here on screen the overall concept plan that we've been working with. The project itself is the existing Holiday Insight at Exit 14 off of Williston Road. So the existing Holiday Inn building is roughly in this large gray L area where you see and there's an existing addition and conference center restaurant that's there now. The site is in the T4 district where there is a proposed city street. I don't know if you can see my pointer moving here, but there is a proposed city plan city street that comes into the site approximately where the existing driveway is and heads east to the properties that are on the north side of Williston Road. As part of the project it's proposed that the applicant would build part of that road, depart more or less the lines of the entry drive and then progress from there could be made on the adjacent properties that aren't owned by the applicant, but this would at least set up these properties for continued development of that city street. The project itself as a whole involves renovation of the existing Holiday Inn building. They'd remove the old conference center and restaurant and put a new end cap on the building with Port Couchere and hotel rooms above. There would be a plaza space located to the east of the building that would serve as open space under the form-based code district. Then in the front of the site adjacent to Williston Road there would be a proposed 100 room Hampton Inn five-story building with a six-store rooftop bar deck that would be located along the ramp and Williston Road and would be adjacent to this proposed city street so that would be meeting the build-to requirements of that proposed street. So the project itself involves furthering the goals of the city center it involves building the street to the new, the standards of the bylaw, streetscape furniture patio spaces, open spaces and and so that's kind of the overview of what we'd be looking at here. The existing parking and landscaping in the sides would be formalized. This is pretty much all parking now but there would be the parking patterns would be interrupted by proposed landscaping and plantings. So the building itself is all one use. One of the things that is interesting about it is it gives energy to this corner of this gateway area into the T4 and into this proposed city street so we are excited about locating this building here. However because it is a hotel and because the Hilton brand itself has certain requirements for how folks access their building, access to their hotels is important to them, it's important to the brand and so there are some challenges with the form-based code as to balancing the hotel's needs with the public entry standard of the form-based code. So that's why we're here tonight is to try to get a read from the board on our use of that alternate entry standard and that will feed into our administrative application which we plan to submit in the future. So that's an overview of the project. I think here from here I'll turn it to Ralph who can go into the doors and the building in more detail. Did you have a chance to read through the staff comments? We did, yes. I just want to make sure that on the doors, the red comment on the doors. Just in general the staff comments to make sure you understand the context of the board's review. Yes. And I'm going to focus primarily on Excuse me, sir. You want to swear at me? Oh, I did. Thanks. Yes. Ralph, I have the elevation views and I have the movie. Okay. I think let's walk through it first to kind of explain what the whole gist and direction is of this this entire corner and then let's talk about specifically about the entrances and how that relates to the hotel use in particular. And then I think to wrap it all up, if we do the movie, I think that will kind of pull it all together and give you a really good sense of what's going on with the site. Right now as you know it's a holiday in that's getting ready to be renovated. It's the typical old style of design with a bit of and I think what you're understanding here and that what the people do and what I think you're looking for is an energizing urban node that basically anchors this corner that's on this really very high density interchange with a lot of visual access. Maybe not physical access, I think is what's talked about in your regulations but here we're really predominantly talking about visual access from the interstate and as people drive by. So that's a very important area. I think the duality of the two hotels is going to do a lot here. It really makes the site very dense to where it does have a nice urban character. It's going to be a perfect I think solution to what I think the city is looking for to anchor this corner. And what we've come up with is really a vernacular language where we've got really trying to address that kind of cityscape look. So it's not a replication of typical corporate pieces but more of an urban organic mixture so that they're related. They look like they're within the same family but they definitely look like different buildings and components that really create that richness of that urban fabric that I think you're trying to look for. What's going to happen here is even though Williston Road is the primary thoroughfare this new street we'll call it I guess Dorset Street extension for now that comes across that's really what we're looking at is the primary facade for this Hampton Inn. And even then I think the primary focus point is actually the that interchange between the Hampton Inn and the Holiday Inn where you basically take a left then as you come into the site where we're focusing something inward onto that. So it's very pedestrian oriented and scaled it has some good visual access and right there where you come in and you take a left at the corner between the two hotels that's an important note and that probably right now we've got a pedestrian streetscape on the other site that's probably going to get more defined by VHB but we're dealing right now with the architecture and how to really focus on that streetscape, that Dorset Street extension and so we really took a look very hard look at your guidelines and what the intent was really behind what you're trying to achieve is with engaging the pedestrians and trying to get them to walk the entire building and the site and to really get it to engage and so we're really doing that on that Dorset Street extension side with video with the breakfast area folding out onto the streetscape with the nice tables and umbrellas and splashes of color very engaging so we've got several doors that normally there'd be only one access from the interior of the lobby to that point but we've increased that so we've got two and we've actually got a third major access point that really draws you in there which is actually the Port Couchere itself where the drive-thru is underneath the hotel on that side but we've opened it up to the Dorset Street side from a pedestrian aspect so it's not even doors just wide open it really draws you in so it really engages that nexus where those two buildings come together I think a lot of the discussion here in the review has been on the Williston Street side where the meeting rooms are and we've added another entrance in the middle and those are limited entrances they're definitely open to the public but it's really it's a hotel so one of the hotel criteria especially here in the last few years is that there has to be visual control and access for security reasons this really started several years ago with the Aaron Andrews situation and then if you watch the news here in the last day or two it's there's more of that so it's not going away one of the key aspects is to have visual control from the front desk to see who's coming into the space these entrances on the Williston Street side in particular would be accessible to hotel guests with a card key access anyone that accompanies that guest would have access there and if there is an event going on there like a meeting or a specialized gathering the doors would be open for that so then anyone could get in you don't even need a card key because they know there's a lot of people coming and going but one of the things the hotel that Hilton in particular would be concerned about is if that was open all the time so that guests can come in the back so I think that probably addresses that point especially since the intent of the guidelines is to engage pedestrians so they walk around the entire building but we're not really in an extended block upon block of streetscape we're at the terminus and you don't want people to turn around I think is what your guidelines say but as soon as they go a few more steps when they hit that interstate that's not going to be conducive to continue going so there's already a natural barrier there so I think what this does with the meeting rooms it really draws people in on a more of a demand basis rather than just on a to seeing it and wanting to go there but yet it is accessible and it has that visual access that I think is so important that you feel like you can go in it has a hint of what's going on down on the Dorset Street extension side I think the other thing that kind of plays into this is that your regulations really deal with trying to engage the pedestrian to get them to come into a site but because this is a hotel it actually has a reverse effect we're actually contributing the pedestrians so we're getting people there's going to be a hundred hundred and fifty people staying here every night that are coming here parking staying in the room they're the ones that are going to be emanating from the building and engaging in the streetscape so it's not a matter of drawing people in we're actually the contributors to that to that streetscape which I think is a really important point to make for this kind of a node so I think we looked at this to try to how do we meet the spirit and intent of the guidelines because I know what you're trying to achieve but I'm sure you didn't have this building in mind when you wrote the regulations so we're looking at what's the best here because we want to be part of that and we think it's a good solution and I think we've hit on a number of points here that I hope address what you're looking for that's basically it in a nutshell so right now what I've got to kind of show you how we resolve this or what our solution what our idea is for solving this is a quick little video that starts along from across the street on Williston Road and actually comes into the site so you see a lot of glazing we've actually got about some between 40 and 50% of the first floor is glass so it really draws you in visually as you don't even have to go into the site you're just driving by it's someplace you want to go there now this is going down the Dorset Street extension again a lot of glass and then a big punch of glass where we have visual access in the lobby the Chinzano umbrellas outside the atmosphere then a big portal to draw you in pedestrian to draw pedestrians in and then of course the cars come on the other side so we separate that vehicular pedestrian conflict so that you have both events happening right there to energize that corner I'm really excited about this building sometimes they come together a little bit better than other buildings this one I think really gelled and I really would like to see this in 3D visual 3D so do you have any questions at this point parking is underground parking for the Hampton is underground yes it is there is a parking level underground it's five stories one level of parking underground and then a partial 6th floor for an engaged rooftop experience that's meeting rooms or bar there's still some discussions going on with healthness to what that can be the access point that you're talking about on the front that's card reader only if somebody came up during the and did not have a card are they, is there a buzzer to be able to say hey I'm here let me in no you would naturally go around that's why we tried to put so much emphasis on that intersection that node it draws you in and just like if you were going to an event if you go to a seminar or something I get it but but the the form based code calls for us to have public access through there so my question is you've already got video there right not there could be video, yeah there could be video so why wouldn't you just put a buzzer I mean we're talking about very little money you could put a buzzer and then you have a public access okay okay that would fix it for me I have very fundamental questions for which I apologize in advance what is the specific provision of the LDRs that are at issue here how does what they want to do violate it on face and exactly what is the fix so the yeah should we switch back to our stuff please yeah section 8.06 8.06 8 allows alternate compliance for entrances in the T-4 so there are specific requirements for buildings within the T-4 to have a certain number of entrances per length of building face and then a maximum spacing of those entrances there is a provision for the board to grant variants grant a difference from those standards if it meets this list of criteria that are outlined in the staff notes most of them focus on meeting the purposes of the transect zone in a manner greater or equal than the standards in other ways what standard are they proposing not to meet on its face the minimum number and spacing of entrances public entrances public entrances so having a buzzer does not meet the criteria that's why they're here well so in that in the table the key cards swipe that means the criteria for being a public right it would be an operable entrance which is slightly lower standard than a public entrance so what they would be required to have is the four doors on the new street and one on the south wilson road facade what they have is two doors on the new street and it sounds like from what Ralph is saying that they're not actually going to have one on the south facade though I had understood that they were not a public entrance the public entrance has to be open to the public during your hours of operation you have an entrance okay we looked at that as being a public entrance because as you described it because when there's an event going on there it's going to be open not always when the hotel is open right so that general public just like if a retail store is closed it's not going to be right but that's when the store is closed when the hotel is open during regular business hours when there's not an event that door would not be open right but the hotel is like four or five buildings in one it's an apartment it's a restaurant it's a meeting space it's an auditorium it's an exercise facility and all of those aren't necessarily active and open all the time so it's just like this is a part of a retail it's like if this was a retail store and it's only open from 8 to 5 from that time it would be open so people can come and go there'd be other security barriers on the inside to keep people from going in to have a card key access from inside the building to get up to the guest rooms for example and you've seen those before like even in elevators where you need to swipe something so as long as those spaces are engaged and active it would be open so we looked at that a little bit differently because there's so many different uses in a hotel and a hotel is kind of a different animal compared to like just a regular store or a business or something like that but we're open to your interpretation and open to what does solve it for you Marta can I ask a question does the word communication in that paragraph mean like a buzzer or intercom or does it mean some sort of architectural term like it opens up into does that mean like electronic communication or a buzzer video camera I mean if it's open all the time into a vestibule that has a buzzer then we would consider that an operable entrance the board may take issue with that but that staff's opinion that if it opens into a vestibule that can communicate to the front desk saying hey I'm here it's pouring out I don't want to walk all the way around the building can you please let me in we would consider that an operable entrance Mr. Larkin would you like to give testimony I would like to thank you thank you thank you sir good evening Joe Larkin I just want to jump in and part of this is just a dialogue from where I stand we're happy to pursue whatever comes out of this meeting tonight if it requires a vestibule great solution if it requires a buzzer great solution part of this is we're sort of learning this on a fly and having never worked with this before I just wanted to jump in and Ralph and I can fully communicate on this point so what I would like to say is I'm hoping from this meeting to have a good direction and a clear direction that solves the challenge that we have tonight so so the way I see it got a little table right there on the right four doors minimum is what the requirement is without DRB approval they're asking for just two doors on the new street and what we're now saying is that the one on the south facade is adequate if it's a vestibule and a buzzer so if you could actually physically get into the building and then into a vestibule into a large vestibule that could be some kind of a holding area or gallery or something there's this opportunity to exercise some creativity and flexibility should they feel the standards or otherwise exceeded so staff felt that they didn't with what was presented to us that they didn't need a waiver on the Williston road facade I think with what Ralph is saying now they may it's sort of a medium the board has the authority to define what that means as part of this authority under what if that door is okay it doesn't have to meet the strict standards because the board has the ability to wave the strict standards under 8.068 if those six which you indicated three of them do would it come into play that that facade is actually at the terminus of this area so it's not like in the middle of this engaging streetscape it doesn't necessarily encourage walking around the building because there's no reason to walk around the building there so it seems like that requirement is placed there for a different reason than we've got here but you know better as to how you wrote the intent of that planning commission will do to declare we've got the rear board as the judge we're not the authors of the legislation that's the other group I may be misreading but I'm looking at H the alternate compliance for entrances and I'm looking at D 3D any proposed alternative shall be incorporated along all facades of a building for which alternate compliance is being sought and shall be distributed along the entire facade in a manner which meets or exceeds the average frequency and maximum spacing as required by the BES here I guess with the 67 if you put that chart back up you know you were at 67 feet which I guess is within the allowable spacing but you're going from four doors minimum on new street to two doors this standard is to allow them to vary from that if they incorporate the proposed alternative which is as described there seven and a half foot high windows repeated materials lighting scones surface materials on surrounding walkways if they repeat those alternatives around the entire building the board has the ability to waive the frequency and spacing standards that's not how I see it I'm reading D what does the second half of D mean one of the things we have to consider whether the proposed alternative the proposed alternative shall be distributed meets or exceeds the average frequency so the alternative is those other features that they proposed we read that as the architectural elements need to be repeated around the entire facade and not entrances correct because from the interstate side there's not going to be any physical access but we need visual access because we need to engage that that perception of people driving by that there is something that's going on here to engage them to come in and interact with the site and that's how we looked at it and so we went the extra mile to increase the amount of glazing we've got between 40 and 50% make them larger more canopies, more awnings more of these architectural elements that really identify with the scaling elements of the pedestrian areas because it is at the terminus it's not in the middle of one of these street facades it's the anchor at the end and there is no reason to really proceed beyond it from a pedestrian standpoint but if you think it needs to happen we'll figure out a way to do it I think there's a stretch to read it as you do it seems to me to be plainly talking about something physical but not just visual because I think it talks about a building that's not located here that's in a different area that's why I think it's the intent of the code was not written with this building in mind and when you look at this on a major interchange of a highway it kind of changes things a little bit and especially that it being a hotel and so that we tried to comply with that one is that this isn't the end of the form-based code district the form-based code district does extend across the highway and then the second point is that the office interpreting the standard D is the way it was intended to be interpreted whether the language is poor I don't disagree with you but the way he is reading it as the alternative being the architectural features is intended to meet or exceed the number of entrances is the way it was intended to be interpreted I don't know because I've talked to the people who were there go ahead Mark I just wanted to say that in terms of I think it was John that had made the comment that the public entrance on the south facade which faces Williston Road that it didn't become an actual vestibule with a permanently open door that then goes into more of a controlled door with either video or key card access I could see that not being more of a public entrance at that point because you think about this, this is more turning into an urban environment hotel location it's not really but it's turning into one I understand like you go to a normal Hampton Inn or it's a template Hampton Inn type place you have a main entrance and all the side entrances go to parking lots so you're going to have just a key card access I'm envisioning that this location the way it's looking people would be staying at the Hampton Inn they'd go out that south entrance to go over to Dorset Street to go to Barnes and Noble to go to you know the mall to go to go that way and they may not drive because the whole purpose of this development and this redevelopment is to make it more connected so when they go out there and they come back they're not going to want to walk all the way down the side of the building into the porch sharing into the main entrance and they want to go back into that area through the side of the building which is more of an urban hotel where you have a main entrance but then they can exclude the city block and there's other public entrances in and out of hotels and that's more of the way I envision this so I'm okay with this layout because I also appreciate the difficulty of controlling a hotel environment and I actually think it's a very nice and pleasing city skating the connectivity in and out of the hotel with some semi-private private areas out to like the breakfast area with umbrellas and tables but I do think that it's important to make it feel more like a public entrance just more inviting use not just the door in the middle of the facade on the south entrance so if they solve that I'm okay with their proposal for this alternative solution because I think they've got plenty of plays and plenty of doors from a perception standpoint I think that's really what the intent of the code was and this location is difficult I think they have solved it pretty well that's what I think if Mark is saying, I think I heard him say I didn't hear it too well, that what he wants is a more fully engaged south entrance then I absolutely agree with him and it's standard too under age now it is the intent I mean speaking in the broadest possible terms and not picking this I think what would be told is a variety is concerned is to make sure that any alternative we approve is consistent with the intent of the general design standards here we have a statement that I think states your visual your visual argument it is the intent of the section in concert with other standards section 8.13 to establish a regular, consistently pedestrian friendly environment in the applicable district the presence of regular is designed to foster a built pattern consisting of attractive engaging and interactive built forms keyword being operable Marla's point that basically it's a club entrance selective is not that so again underscoring my concurrence with Mark's broad point about making the south entrance a bona fide public entrance in the most conventional sense so it can't be the key club it has to be a key club kind of entrance it has to be restricted if I'm going to a hotel I don't want just anybody walking off the street that's not going to happen I'm a little worried about even having a buzzer because you walk up, you look fine I'm busy at the thing I'm trying to take care of you I'll let you in it depends what you're walking into it depends what's on the other side of the door there's a conference going on somebody walks in, it's bad can you please let me in I don't want to walk around all the way that's cart and horse you redesign the interior so that going through that public entrance doesn't produce that effect so there's a hallway that leads only to the a more public area only to the lobby yeah so the way they've got it designed now blazing, it leads into the restaurant on the new street side and to have to make a hallway that is just for, I mean it's becoming a much bigger thing than just a vestibule and a buzzer only because they want to change the standards no we have the authority to say this is fine this is creating a a pedestrian friendly environment, regular consistently pedestrian friendly environment in the district we have the authority to say that these standards for review are met and that therefore, I mean frankly we could be fine with just a key card entrance without a buzzer you know like I say a buzzer worries me well I'm looking at the standards it doesn't look to me like it means that standard which standard does it mean for both entrances is designed to foster a built pattern of engaging in interactive built forms now to me that's inconsistent with a quasi public or essentially private so operable Marla explained operable means specifically not open to the public that's what I heard operable is open to the public during business hours no public entrances are open to the public during business hours the standard for commercial build non-residential buildings in the T4 requires public entrances the only reason the whole business about operable entrances came up is because it was mentioned in a sort of a squishy a soft statement in part 2 of 3.06H so I only explain that because it was a term that was used but operable entrances are not an applicable standard for non-residential in the T4 whole problem with this is that the pork is on the north side north side and I assume that Hampton Hilton wants it held over there if it was on the street side you would then have the lobby right behind the pork co-share and the front wouldn't be a big problem but now if you put it on the street side you've got a bigger problem you've got a smaller window to be able to build in it's not going to work as well parking issues parking you're going to have all sorts of issues they've solved the problem they've done this well the issue is can we find a way in the regs to make this work for them first I have to draw thank you Brian I had the definition of operable entrances pointed out to me it's much narrower than I was reading it I would draw that particular objection there's also an entrance on the east side 180 it's there's two entrances on the east side and there's another entrance on the pork co-share and there's now an entrance on the south side so there really are four entrances it's one of those doesn't count because it's not on a public street right yeah so there's lots of public access here it's a question of can we do a buzzer or something similar on the south face so that they can maintain security internally I think that might be a viable solution is to make that an entrance a public entrance to a vestibule or a large holding area that then can have some artwork or it's basically going to be a pre-function space for the meeting rooms to that space that access from there to the hotel would be controlled so we just have to move the control points further inside but it does then solve your your objective of getting people into the space off the streetscape if I'm reticent on this project it's not because I think it's a bad design or doesn't look good or may not in fact serve all the purposes you're talking about what I'm really mostly concerned about here is we've ever been asked to interpret this section before so this is a the problem we have is that we have a precedent setting issue now this board has an entirely great history of being loose on meeting standards for waivers you know somebody comes in they come in with a plausible argument and the gut feeling is wow what the heck rather than anybody actually looking at objective standards in making the determination here we have a set of standards that appear to be objective before we bless what you want to do I think we should be looking one by one at the objective standards and saying does this mean how does it mean so that we are not right out of the gate messing around with what are supposed to be objective standards and setting a terrible precedent for going down the road because frankly it's my experience developers pay attention to this stuff and say well you gave it to the other guy can we condition it that their safety is a different issue when you're talking about hotels I would be reluctant to do that based on our experience in the form based code in general every single applicant to date has said we can't possibly meet these entrance standards we've approved seven projects in the form based code district this is the first one that's come to the board for alternative entrance standards which means six out of seven have found a way to do it so I would be reluctant to say because of safety because of concerns about people entering because that's the same argument that all the other six applicants have made CVS did some rearranging of their floor plan entrance the big box stores I think are your biggest issue right because that's a solid box perimeter that doesn't engage the streetscape so I could see how they would really have a problem with this point to clarify there would be that we're not we may not necessarily be seeking to use the alternative standard for safety alone we're offering a streetscape inviting streetscape and a rhythm on the building as a basis of the standard redistribute the requirements maybe trying to do something that makes all the architectural commercial sense in the world and I don't mean to denigrate that motive what I'm saying is from the standpoint of the way this board operates what we should be doing is saying to you please explain to us how one by one alternative meets each of these standards so Frank the staff notes do go through each standard one by one shall we do that before we do that Joe had a comment Mark has a comment so let's get a couple of comments before we dive into that I think I learned something from the last couple of comments I'll wait and see what this goes Mark you want to state your points well I think I'm not sure how clear it is when I speak so that's why I texted them to you it's been pretty good tonight Mark yeah I was basically just saying that honestly if they turn the south public entrance into more crowns both visually and functionally I would support their proposal for this alternative solution for public access and I think how they resolve the interior circulations up to them and affidavitations come into a vest field and then either use a key card or buzzer to the front desk and get access it resolves it in my opinion as you are going into it and then there is a corridor that goes you know traversely through the building north south look at that you're right thank you yeah good point alright so now let's Marle if you'll step us through the points standards for review the board finds that in making this determination the development review board shall consider the following standards and they're phrased as the board finds the alternative design advances the specific objectives of the central district of the comp plan in a manner that is equal to or greater than the standard contained within the BES so then I've exited the objectives of the central district of the comprehensive plan and identified that staff considers that this proposal specifically furthers objectives 41, 42, and 46 which are to create a cohesive dynamic diverse in people oriented city center sense of place, harmonious design established five streetscapes and 46 is minimized overall demand for parking through design that fosters pedestrian bicycle and transit use so does that make sense couldn't you so but you can follow along right where Marle was just pointing that the objectives the specific objectives of the central district of the comprehensive plan are numbered there 41 through 47 and she notes that specifically 41, 42, and 46 are met by the proposed plan but it's a comparative standard that's called for here does it do it as well as or better than meeting the district requirements of the entrance code or the entrance criteria so that's up to the board to decide whether it exceeds all of the standards are in a manner equal to or greater than so maybe take it as a whole the board can form its judgment on that point what does the location of this door have to do with demand for parking did you say 41 what were the ones you thought were cited 41, 42, and 46 so it is not that or exceeds the demand for or the goals in terms of parking it's that the overall project exceeds the goals of minimizing overall demand for parking but it's the alternative design of the entrance that we're talking about right so having a as Mark mentioned south facing entrance that allows people to go out to the planned Wilson Road streetscape you could say it exceeds the goals for parking because it encourages pedestrian movement instead of car movement but that's required by the basic standards right what's that the building envelope standards don't we have to have a comparison but they could have a door that's just a hole in the wall right like Mark was saying if they make that door look like an inviting entrance because the BES only says there has to be a door well operable no public entrance public but this is less than public as public is defined in the rags right so you have to decide if the other features exceed the publicness I guess so to me that was a little weak what about B I don't find it weak I think it's well well exceeded any other comments from the board on A I agree Bill and John you agree right okay B is the board finds the alternative design advances the purpose of the transect zone as stated in the LDRs in a manner that exceeds is equal to or greater than the standard contained within BES so the purpose of the transect zone is generally a multi-use mix dense downtown built environment typical of areas adjacent to and supportive main streets housing retail other commercial uses parking facilities are allowed the built environment can be a mix of freestanding and shared walled buildings multimodal oriented with emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism parking shall be hidden away from the street all of those buildings staff considers are met without strict adherence to the entrance standards without strict adherence to the entrance simply missed yeah well and again back to John's point if we had Port Couchere on the south side we'd be having parking and entrance and it wouldn't be as pretty I mean so I mean once they get done the south side entrance is going to be a whole lot prettier than a driveway going through this so in my view this exceeds the standards in the they could turn that driveway into a public street which I assume has a problem because otherwise I think you probably already would have done it but if if they had the easement size this project would be under control you'd have you'd have all your doors you'd have four doors but it's by side so you'd still have the problem with the primary facade you'd still have to put the south door on right and the primary facade is they're proposing two and it would have had to have four so we're really focused on the south facade but the primary facade is also short by two doors but nobody's asked any questions about it so apparently it's so wowing in its appearance that no one even noticed it and I noticed how that affects the maximum or the average distance between the entrances I don't consider that the end of the inquiry but I guess what I'm getting to is that we're trying to create something that kind of looks like a public entrance but it's really not a public entrance and I'm wondering whether it's even worth trying what do we gain by making it this semi-public entrance that has to be then policed by the hotel at some point in the interior of the building. Well you gain what Mark was talking about I mean that's a valid point you know you come out the south side so you can engage with Dorset Street but people can come out the south side without people being able to get in the south side so easily I thought what we were talking about is them being able to get into the south entrance and then encounter security further in the building and I don't know really what that buys you because you can still have egress even if the security is right at the entrance. Well it buys you a little more weather protection but it also buys you the chance that people who aren't supposed to be there are availing themselves of that protection. So I think Mark's point was and I speak up Mark well not if when I get this wrong Mark's point was that it's you gain a more visually appealing access point and I think Mark's point was that it's the visual appeal that he would like to see improved correct? Wrong? Yes I also have one question I think I think you mentioned it during your presentation is the top level like a rooftop bar not right now okay so what is the top level where I'm looking at your rendering and I see people out on a balcony that's I'm going to let sure so this is sort of take project development so it will be designed as a rooftop bar sort of we're trying to decide sort of is that going to be sort of a full restaurant full bar could we use more meeting room up there you know we haven't determined that yet we haven't spent a ton of time on that design yet so but it's laid out to be you know most likely open to the public restaurant bar we haven't decided on ours So you already got Mark? South entrance becomes more important both from a if you have a public element that you're going to go in up to the ability to access it from the actual street becomes more important absolutely Mark we definitely have thought that through and we want to be able to kind of control that as well so we'll have to if we do increase the number of entrances we're going to have to make sure that we also spend some time on thinking about that so one of the things we liked about the current design is that everybody passed through the lobby and that provided some level of spot checking if you will and making sure that you know sort of we have one point of access so this would create a design challenge one that we'll have to think through you could imagine I agree with you but I'm just saying if you have a public element that's like up in the top of the building that's more focused on the front of the building because you go up the elevator to go to it that's something you guys have to figure out from a functionality standpoint but as a board we're trying to encourage pedestrian flow and if someone walks over from you know across the street that was a double train out and they want to go to the rooftop bar rather than going to Trader Joe's or Trader Duke's they walk over now they have all the way down the street you can go to the lobby back through the building to go up the elevator it is an interior circulation control issue for you guys to work out I would say I would want that to be a more public entrance which is what this district and the zoning I think we can solve this I think we can solve this especially with what Hilton's looking for and what you're looking for and what they're looking for I think there's a solution there to really what I was getting to was what if you had a dedicated elevator from that entrance that only stopped at the rooftop bar just hit the nail on the head right there that's the key because what you don't want is someone coming off the street and ending up on a guest room floor without having gone by the front desk that's where the problem started and I'm sure we can solve this and get you that visual prominence on that side that you're looking for and solve the security issue it's not going to be an easy solution but there have been more difficult problems to solve here than that so that's the extent of our problems I think will be alright I have another very parochial admittedly narrow point to raise but deeply filled and it's the musician's perspective you're coming into the conference area right you're going to have bands in there it ought to be an easy unloading point and an easy access point that doesn't require steps and that makes it possible for your entertainers to get in and out so I agree with all of that my only hang up with any of this is just hours of operation if we have to match the hotel hours of operation to meet the public entrance point that's where we keep getting hung up when we read through it so we agree with all those things we want the guest to come and go with ease we want you know sort of other folks get you know people visiting musicians all that to come and go with ease we just want some level of you know control and security too so you're planning to come back with something of a redesign that takes into account some of these points I would prefer from an expediency standpoint to come to a resolution on what the specific criteria are so that we can then have a more streamlined approval process of that if it clearly falls within that if there's still some question then I could see coming back to a full board that if you're okay with that so you do have to come back to the board regardless if it's a continued hearing it's in front of the board and the board has to approve something specific so if they close the hearing they can't take any new evidence so if the read from the board is that they wouldn't approve it as designed then it's to your to continue and come back so if we make that entrance on the south side a what you call a public entrance it's open all the time to a contained space like that pre-function room that would solve the criteria that's up to the board but I think in my opinion it also has to have a more inviting visual aesthetic look to it not just functionally go into that single door into a pre-function room that's controlled but I think once that becomes a public door that kind of comes along with it from the function standpoint because we would want that then it just creates some security issues but I think what you're looking for is for that to be a public entrance if we can agree to that and then along with that we've got to make it more visually approachable. I'd like to jump in with a hypothetical just so I can have a takeaway as we discuss the layouts we had we had a cafe on the corner and that cafe would be its own stand-alone entity it became a little bit of a challenge for layout but let's say it wasn't that cafe would have business operating hours of its own it would have its own public access for certain hours of the day but it wouldn't match the hotel use this is one of the challenges of a mixed use concept so I would pose the hypothetical what if that was a cafe that would inform sort of my design that was a stand-alone operating cafe that sat in that meeting room as opposed to a meeting room with no access to the rest of the hotel with no access to the rest of the hotel or limited access I think you want to have limited access because that someone is in the hotel mind to go to the cafe you don't have to go outside and then I pose it because it creates some solutions but it creates other problems and so I would love to hear the feedback or maybe not tonight is it not necessarily solving for like that wouldn't solve for the we still want the guest to come out and get to Wilson Road but in that case getting in would only be between 8 and 5 so that does, as you're inferring it does change the rules a bit because then it's a mixed use building and it has two tenants and those tenants each are considered separately so the cafe door would be open during cafe hours and the hotel door would be during hotel hours so it sort of changes the rules on what we're talking about if there's two different uses would there then need to be two doors on the south one for the hotel and one for the cafe the form based code does not how do I want to phrase this the form based code does not consider the BES table does not consider what's happening inside the building so the standard of one on the south south facade would stand it's just a form, right it's just a form, right if you don't have a south access for the musicians they'll hate you but to the point of the hypothetical question I'm looking at the definition of public entrance and it says it needs to be open during business hours, it doesn't say the business hours of the primary business on the site so the way I read that is yes you could have different operating hours for that entrance than you do for the entrances on the east side of the building that's my interpretation we would interpret it the same way that was going to be the goal of the hotel as well that when there are seminars, functions meetings, events going on those spaces the door would be open because otherwise it becomes really problematic from just a usability standpoint so I think that's inherent already there so in terms of hypothetical yes cafe with its own hours of operation would be fine with that same thing with the rooftop bar right right and in terms of that an elevator that wasn't just a single purpose elevator but that with keycard access you could get off at the rooms and without keycard access you can only go to the top and then the restaurant has its own security issues to solve if this hearing is continued may I suggest that the board deliberate a little bit between this hearing and the next instance of it and maybe talk about Ralph's point about that conference space being a second use within the building can you elaborate a little bit more just so the board has information about how that conference space operates if they want to discuss it outside of this hearing I'm sure you all have been to different seminars and events at hotels when you know there's an event at the Marriott you go to the lobby because you don't know where it is so that's how people get into it but those spaces are only active when there are events going on so when you're able to get into them when there are not events in the meeting rooms so if you put a door a double door between the elevator lobby and the food prep I'm sorry this is not obvious I guess you'd have to go down to this blow that up a little bit see that elevator lobby right there and there's an opening just the left of the cursor between it and the meeting room if right there if you put a doorway there and closed it off for your meeting room now you would have segmented that section of the building off and now it could have its own hours right? Yes it'll fall somewhere in that area beyond the elevator because the elevator you want really open and accessible to the common areas the hotel, the lobby, the public spaces under that scenario would you still allow people to hotel guests to exit through that yes they can always exit they can always exit and they can always get in if they're a hotel guest because they've got their card key I think the best answer is still to find some way to allow people to get in off the front of the building and get out of the front of the building south side of the building too many fronts the south side of the building but I think they have the right to change to set hours for their meeting spaces we're agreeable to that to make that a public open entrance especially during the daylight hours you're I mean like buzz I mean you don't mean but or have a vestibule or have a closed off area a finite area that you can get into before you have to use a card key or a buzzer that's probably where the common ground I think is from a hotel security standpoint and to meet the criteria that you're looking for for the letter of the criteria I think that's solves it the way it's presented right there just from an operational standpoint and then it behooves us as a natural extension of that to make that entrance more prominent anyway as in some kind of architectural feature of an awning or some kind of orchestrated pedestrian scaled elements to get access like you said with four even that a vehicle can drive up to and deliver things big panel truck back doors open yeah drum set drum set all guys with heavy boxes you know the speakers don't forget the speakers in addition to my concern with the precedent feature I'd just like to say something else I think this is not that you need our approval for this because we don't have a general approval but I think this issue is worth a lot of fuss because I'd be surprised if anybody here doesn't agree with me that this is really a nice project a wonderful redevelopment project for that space and we look forward to it we just don't want a sore thumb stick so we're trying to quote help you we take all this very personal and we feel fully vested in this architecture in these buildings just because Mr. Larkin's paying for doesn't mean it's not our building while we're talking about the look of the building I like the look of the building are you familiar with the building on the corner of Sheldon Road no I'm not I'm sure the top floor is stepped back and is less imposing on Sheldon Road that is my only personal comment about the size of the building here is I don't have a problem with five or six stories but it is very in your face right away if it was stepped back the top are you talking about the tower element at the interior intersection and that's why we did that at the interior intersection so it does step down towards the streetscape but what we want to do is really create that urban know deep in the site because I think she's talking about the Hampton Tower the Hampton Tower right which is deep in the site it does step down towards you're facing that if you're coming down Dorset Street it's boom right there so that top left picture shows from across Dorset Street right I think that's the corner so Jennifer part of it is a response from our read on the code was that I don't know if we're allowed to step back to too much on that top floor the gateway feature so this was our best interpretation of what I have to learn more don't know they haven't submitted their site plan application so we haven't looked at that detail our read initially is that this does meet the standard whether if they chose to step it back we'd have to look at whether it still met the standard I'm sure it meets the code and there are some of us who like the imposing I mean there is there is the gateway standard as well and this is intended to be sort of so is the Fayette it is intended to be a terminus a beacon an anchor and not to defer to the streetscape that's on either side to the architectural fabric and character there because we have to compete with that massive interchange that's right next to us so can we move along then to we've covered two two of the six items that we're walking through so can we get to perhaps knocking these off a little more quickly alright so we talked about the intent it needs the alternative design needs to meter exceed the intent of the form-based code so intent is exerted I'm sorry the intent of the entrance standard the standard is exerted earlier in the document the intent is to foster a built pattern engaging in interactive built forms inviting street presence engaging throughout the length reason and interest to walk the entire length and engage with the next building rather than have an uninviting and unengaging environment so I think this I think this meets this criterion very well comments, questions, disagreements good, number D alternative shall be incorporated along all facades we've got to talk about this I think we've resolved that if not number E was that a holler? if you disagree I already stated my disagreement exactly that's right if anyone else I want to hear if anyone agrees with Frank that the intent is to have more doorways all the way around the building which I think would be bad because you'd have it on the freeway side so if people disagree with my disagreement with Frank that's fine it's average frequency and maximum spacing average frequency so in other words you could have more on one side less on the on the freeway side do I think it necessarily makes sense to argue in that I'm saying what does this standard mean understanding private conversations with the bad draftsman who wrote it okay, very good point made, thank you sir number E the alternative shall not be counted or calculated as meeting or contributing to any other required element that means if it's otherwise required to meet the bare minimum please give me alternative entrance waivers you're not supposed to do it F the proposal alternative shall fulfill its function in all seasons there shouldn't be reliance on deciduous trees for instance, I don't know, grass creative elements are encouraged any proposed alternatives shall consist of original design elements if using artwork only commissioned artwork shall be considered it doesn't really apply and that was the conclusion staff as well okay, so in light of those 7 criteria I think that we're well within those and that we do in fact meet or exceed exceed by a lot is what I think the standard is required you probably mean once he makes those little adjustments exactly we can't continue today so just to make sure we're all so that Ralph and Peter and Joe walk out of here with guidance nobody has any concerns about the primary facade on the new street the two door instead of four door no, thanks Mark in terms of continuation you all spoke to Delilah earlier about what's coming up the next hearing has two door set meadows applications preliminary and master and a tiny subdivision sketch so we can jam them in there if you want to do something fun at the beginning door set meadows can we move the market street subdivision to the front of that meeting and Joe in right after it and then I can leave that's true and Brian yes thank you Joe yeah it's two weeks I mean so you'll need to have plans by this Friday or so we'll solve it great I would move that we continue miscellaneous application MS-1806 of Champlain School Partners partnership to December 18th moved in the second we continue this to December 18th all in favor say aye aye opposed thank you very much take care thank you all thank you Joe and ladies thank you next on the agenda continued final application SD-1818 of Catamount slash Middlebury LLC to resubdivide two loss of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres at 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesty Road who is here for the applicant with native real estate okay if you raise your right hand please you promised all the truth the old truth and nothing but the truth on the penalty of perjury thank you very much conflicts of interest yes not a big one but we've worked together before so I just bring it up I don't feel there's an issue and our firm represents your company so I'm going to have to buy one okay all right thanks Brian but I'll be back okay so the staff has no concerns with the application recommends the board review the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing the wetlands is the one item that is in red as I look through this yes so the board requested some changes during sketch to the subdivision layer and just thought it would be good for you to specifically look at it and then the other point that's made in the staff comments for this application is there were some staff comments in the originally scheduled hearing that pertained to basically what this project created in terms of developable land the applicant has looked into that and has said we're okay with that so it wasn't really a concern but for staff it was more of a flag on behalf of the applicant's benefit so the last paragraph under site plan standards as no building improvements are proposed no additional landscaping when the applicant submits for a site plan they must have a plan landscaping to match that was one about creating a situation where you had more front yard so you would have less ability to get to where you wanted and then I think that was it it was just those two so we can either have Mr. Cresto walk us through this or we can go by memory what is the board's pleasure I remember it you're good with memory, way to go Frank John, Matt, Jennifer Mark yep, good with memory we've done this already exactly, right so why don't we just quickly step through what the wetland adjustments was because I think that's the one thing I want to make sure that everyone on the board is aware of and okay with so Mr. Cresto if you could walk us through the wetland adjustment sure I think if I'm not mistaken what it was the where we let me see right so we have that line was right now as you can see it's like a flag at the end not close to children road before it was a straight line that would go across the driveway and the concern that the board had was right between the brook that is there on the wetland but I think we solved the problem by redoing the property line right so you have more response South has more responsibility for wetlands than they had before and you're aware of that good yeah I think John stated it well Mark did you hear John's comment no it was fractured nothing important not true no John said that catamount has more responsibility for wetlands than excuse me catamount south has more responsibility for wetlands than the neighbor is that right then they had prior than they had before so now they have equal responsibility to each other now they have equal responsibility okay okay if there's no other comments I'll entertain a motion to close final application SD1818 do you need public any comments on public okay sorry Mark sorry Matt I move that we close final application SD1818 move from second we close this application all in favor say aye opposed and Brian can come back in thank you take care next on the agenda continued site plan application SP18-51 of NFI Vermont to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home the amendment is constructed building addition for new parking spaces in pedestrian walkway at 102 Allen Road who is here for the applicant Paul O'Leary with O'Leary Berksil Associates and you are I have to check with Marlon oh I don't remember this is a continued site plan application so I think you've already been sworn in yes very good so we're already sworn in and if you'll just walk us through what the changes are oh there's a red note about the tree replacement deficiency there she comes you're on the site off the NRC website sure is that the last time we were here we were short on our landscaping budget so we did add some additional trees to the buffer area and now we meet the 3% requirement however apparently previous site plan approvals approved or at least utilize some of the existing trees on the site as part of their landscaping requirement now there's probably on the order of 50 or more mature trees on the site and that's the purpose of the picture I gave you so you can see now as you recall we're talking about the building in the back you can't see it from any place till you drive back there and so right now it's a it is a non-profit use as Chuck explained to you last time we were here and we have a 7500 landscaping budget that nobody's going to see the occupants of the building so basically staff is saying that as part of the construction of the building we have to remove some of the existing trees and I believe initially we were talking about we went out and counted the trees and measured them and it was 52 inches in terms of calipers there's a 20 inch pine that we've agreed that we can save so we're basically down to 32 inches of calipers that we're removing so the point is is that because we're removing them we have to replace that same caliper that same number in new trees over and above our landscaping budget now I'm sure whoever got site plan of approval the last time didn't realize that he was basically saying that you know you cut any of those existing trees out there and you've got to pay I'm sure they didn't understand that but so here we come to a non-profit in order to replace the trees another 32 inches in caliper of trees we're talking about another roughly $7500 so it takes the landscaping budget on this non-profit project that nobody's going to be able to see from roughly $7500 to $15,000 and that's what we're here we're here to ask the board tonight to find that the 3% requirement that we are meeting is sufficient for the project as proposed it is not reciting non-profit five times over doesn't make it any more so I mean there's a straight ahead requirement well I don't agree that it's that straight of requirement when you read it I mean I think this certainly oh wait a minute the original development took advantage of the existing trees right in order to meet the landscaping requirement I don't know if they did that or not but the original development had an approved site plan do you know Marla did they did they use some existing trees for some of the landscape requirement I didn't look at the decisions I looked at the plans and the plans showed the trees so I didn't look into depth because the board and the LDRs say they approved site plan so so now what we're saying is that if I come in with a site plan and there's a whole bunch of trees on it and you approve the site plan if I come back and I remove some of those trees I'm doing another phase I've got to replace those trees in kind for the caliper that just doesn't doesn't seem to make sense to me replacing the trees does not count replacing the caliper trees is not part of the landscaping budget it's over and above the landscaping budget is that correct do we have any authority to waive that requirement you have authority to allow alternative compliance in the form of landscape architectural features hardscape features a lot of times applicants will say I don't want these trees because if they fall down in a storm and they're 20 inches I'm going to have to replace 20 inches so I'm going to put in pergola I don't think that's the intent of the regulation the intent of the regulation I believe is specifically if I come in with a site plan and I have landscaping on it and I have so many trees and then I come in and I modify that site plan and I say I'm going to expand my park lot and I'm going to expand my building and previously I put in two and a half inch trees that now the parking lot is going to remove I have to replace those trees I have to replace that equivalent inch caliper over and above my landscape budget I don't think it's there to when I come back in to do an additional project on a property that's wooded I don't think it's fair then to say that well you're going to now clear some of the woods and you've got to pay in kind the woods the first time I came in if I had cut those trees I wouldn't have to replace them in kind if it was the first time I was in front of your first site plan I don't know what was my question it sounded like and maybe we don't know the answer to the question were those trees necessary to meet the lands where some are all of those trees necessary to meet the landscape and requirement first time around I can't answer that I can't answer that I agree with you 100% I've gone to the planning commission and said this is a ridiculous rule but I've been caught in it myself and you're stuck so going to the numbers here the last sentence before the red sentence they are therefore deficient by 42 caliper inches you just said we're going to save the 20 inch white pine so we're actually short by 22 inches not 42 inches I think the 52 is what we have and we're going to save the 20 so I think it's 32 that we're short but then you have an additional 10 inches beyond your budget I have an additional 2.5 inches I'm $600 over my budget and a 2.5 inch tree is $600 the landscape budget you submitted to me said it was 4 2.5 inch white pines with a value of $665 if your landscape value is $625 each it's 4 at $625 it's $2,500 for 4 trees each 2.5 inch tree is $625 right if you look at the budget that was just a simple mistake do you agree with me the less expensive arborvite can not count I like the way arborvite create hedges any way that they want to calculate it to get that number of inches the catch with the arborvites is we would just be looking for a professional to make a recommendation on what caliber a 5 to 6 foot arborvite represents because that type of tree is not measured in caliber well I certainly agree with John our heart goes out to you I'm not hearing a lot of flexibility that we have except that it doesn't have to be right can be the less expensive tree arborvite and as Marla says we'll just need to get a expert opinion on what caliber those represent we've recently allowed some perennials and so forth haven't we that's true perennials right and the specific condition in that case was that it represented an overall well landscaped site this is a heavily landscaped site this is one of the this is a site that doesn't need another tree that's my opinion which section of the regs I just closed it and we have a client who wants very low maintenance things so I mean trees are the best solution because we don't want to do perennials we don't want to do gardens we don't want anything that they have to mow and it's just the nature of the use another alternative is this alternative hardscape features so if you can calculate what 22 inches of trees would cost you can propose that value in other things which are low maintenance I guess is what I was getting at I understand but certainly as you can understand with any project it's a budget issue for these folks so and we're saddling them with $15,000 of landscaping that they really don't need so and I'm not going to say the word Frank but it's something that we all pay for through different services so it's coming out of everybody's pocket to meet this requirement which seems to be not necessary so I'm sorry Marla could you help us out a little more specifically with the replacement requirement when that is? Yep so as you're seeing I'm sure the replacement requirement is part I of 13.06 and it does not give specific standards for trees with a caliber greater than 5 inches the board in numerous cases I'm sure John has counted them has applied the standard to all trees because there is no standard for trees above 5 inches. Are you sure we have to read that as independent of whether or not the I'm not sure I'm telling you this is how it's been read and how it's been applied if it's there it doesn't matter whether it was required to be there or not if it was on the plan and you cut it down you've got to replace it if it wasn't on the plan then you don't have to replace it so I agree with Paul that had they before they ever came in for the first plan clear cut the place but that's just that's not a rational reading that's not a rational interpretation we deal with irrational all the time in this board we're not required to go along with that we're not required to go along with irrational what would you propose Frank you don't have to apply that if the mere fact that it was on the site was not necessary in order to get the thing approved that's a happenstance that's not I guess I'd also comment you know Frank's point is that the previous plans didn't none of the plans have ever called out specific trees in other words there's a 20 inch here there's a 4 inch here there's a 6 inch here all it's shown is a tree line showing the tree line and that's what's shown on the previous site plans I mean it didn't say nobody ever called out and said exactly they were exactly what calipers you know they were it's just a tree line and of course the old rule that if it died and fell over you could cut it up and take it away and not have to replace it which so you know there's that opportunity I mean look this is I'm generally in favor of a fairly strict reading of these regulations but they require a rational reading I don't know so you're looking at 1306 I well how do you get around these shells shown on an approved site plan well it could be an approved site plan but the trees aren't called out on the approved site it's just a tree line it's just clouds I mean how do you even know if it just says tree line well it's the same it's the same thing we were dealing with on a project of the golf course those trees pre-existed we're not allowing them to come down we'd be changing standards here I'm going to think about this there's got to be a rational way through this problem because the rational ways for the planning this is the previously approved site plan I've thought about several other things they don't say the response we have some interpretive power too as far as I'm concerned I would be happy to bless this right now and send it on its way without does it even show the back of the site? okay so this is yeah so sorry I guess I didn't put I looked through them all I only saved this one to the folder I don't have the other ones in my fingertips this one doesn't show the back of the site there is one that shows the back of the site it's less good than this one in the sense of it's just less legible and things more of a pre-cad kind of drawing right so this is the front of the site and that's not what we're talking about I apologize I thought it did so that doesn't help anybody never mind thought I was being helpful almost was so Frank you're looking at 1306 I right landscape maintenance I am I'm going to stare at the thing and try to read it as a whole a few times maybe I won't come up with a conclusion tonight but it's just a stupid rule I mean it's it's not a how does anybody know if you have the instance of a tree line and something 75 feet behind the tree line dies that isn't specified every time it dies you're required to go in and replace it? no if it dies and falls down it's gone it's okay well it says plants not so maintained that's how it's been sorry that's how it's been enforced well what is plants not so maintained me? well you can't you can't trees have a life like people have a life and you can't maintain a tree to live forever so at some point it's going to die the reason this rule is ludicrous is because for every tree you plant if it grows to its full extent let's say it's a maple it could be 60 inches of caliper and you have to replace it with 30 trees it doesn't make any sense at all so it sounds like the board is potentially interested in moving away from precedent and I would suggest that staff can prepare some examples of where this precedent would have resulted in a different decision for the deliberative session do we need do we let me put it this way can you wait longer on this? can I what? do you need a resolution tonight how long? no we're not looking to construct until the springtime because of the weather and can we do a little research to see what exactly was on those so let's have a deliberative session on this prior to closing the hearing great what are you next back Paul hate to have you come for this you know when you're back in front of us towards the mouse towards the mouse I mean it's really how long do folks need because I don't have anything to present yeah January 15 sounds isn't it January 15? you're not doing the airport are you? January 15 is the airport that's a good one I can fit in something small that day would we consider this small? doesn't matter and I don't mind coming if it's what you do if we find a conclusive if we find a conclusive answer this would be small but if it's going to be another you know open discussion on gee how can we help this why don't we continue to January 15 and then we can always continue again if we haven't come to the end continue site plan application SB 1851 to NFI Vermont Incorporates the moving second to continue January 15th I'll paper say aye aye proposed thank you very much but rational exactly Paul thank you for bringing this my pet peeve okay so I was so sad you weren't here for the first hearing on it sorry got a new hip I wrote it so that you would really get into the meat of it I had you in mind when I wrote the staff comments thanks Paul take care next is the minutes that were distributed everyone's had a chance to review the minutes any comments, questions it's been moving secondly approve the minutes from November 6th 2018 all in favor say aye aye opposed and other business other business please be kind staff understands that Jennifer will be ending her tenure with the DRB at the end of her term when's the end of your term 2021 June 30th I think it's June like ever but everybody's in June I don't remember if it's the beginning or the end of the month it's June 30th I think it's the so a couple things please let people know in the community that there will be a position open spread the word say to people we think that you would be approved but you can say we encourage you to apply so just be careful about your language with that second point with that is City Council sees a number of candidates when there's an open position and takes input if the Board so chooses on what kinds of things to look for in the candidate so in the past the Planning Commission has provided input to City Council on we'd like some more diversity and diversity to us means that they live in say the northeast quadrant or that they are young or they live in a multi-family building it may mean somebody's area of expertise that the Board feels like we could really use a hand with I think female is important so if people want to brainstorm some characteristics of what City Council should look for right now the architect we've got let's get another word we need somebody to break the time before you and I don't agree and you guys should definitely sit together alright so any suggestions I don't want to make this like an ongoing conversation I was hoping we could just do a quick brainstorming now I was serious about I think female is important right I agree design sensitive people who you know like Mark or John who can look at a plan and can do the elevation in their heads any interest in geographic diversity I think we've got I think they should be for South Burlington definitely and then we've got sort of one person on the sort of west of the interstate we don't really have anybody in the Chamberlain or does that not really make a difference we don't see a lot of Chamberlain applications that would be nice to have that area to apply it would be great I will say that when I applied last January or February I was one of two applicants and the other person didn't really know what the DRB was so I think there needs to be more education well I'm sorry well I didn't want to end up there but I well but if the board knows now and we all start spreading the word now we're going to end up with a better pool that's kind of my point yeah I mean I found out through front porch forum the week before the meeting so it should be somebody with some not just fill in a spot to be geographic sensitive should be somebody with some relevant knowledge base I think the knowledge base is more important than the location understanding of the role of the DRB in adjudicating these issues and not ideally they've at least been to the DRB once before they joined the DRB that's a great point have attended a perhaps have been party to an appeal have no not many conflicts yeah I agree with the DRB at least once shows engagement exactly now I think that those people have value especially the people who read the LDRs in order to make their argument they know all about the DRB we don't have an engineer that's true all right start recruiting an engineer would be great thank you well thank you everyone that's my other business okay good night everyone take care 855 don't you want to find another oil obvious because I'm the only one who still