 Okay, good evening. And thank you for attending the South Burlington Development Review Board of August 1st, 2023. My name is Dawn Filibert. I'm the chair of the board. And I'd like to introduce other board members, John Moscatelli, Frank Cokman. And I think Quinn Mann is online. Do we have a quorum? Yep, you have four. Stephanie's running a bit late. Okay, Stephanie should be here any minute. Marla Keane and Marty Gillies are our staff members. And thank you for all coming. We are recording this meeting. And there are a number of ways of participating. You can either come in person and you can attend virtually or you can call in. And whatever way you attend, it's important that you register your participation by either signing the sign-up sheet at the back of the auditorium or on the chat function, give us your contact information. And if you're calling in, you can email your contact information to mkene. SBVT.gov. And that's Marla's email, so that we know you have participated should you wish to take any future action as a participant. So our first item of business is emergency evacuation procedures. In the event of an emergency, there are backdoors at each corner of the auditorium. You would exit those and go either left or right, then you would be outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Nope. Are there any announcements? Last meeting, the board asked me for an update on the DRB vacancy. Jesse, let me know that council has decided to combine posting the DRB vacancy with two other vacancies this month to do appointments in September, either at their September 5th meeting or the September 18th meeting. They have also authorized us to have, to invite an interim member, someone who's been on the board before. So I'll talk to you guys about whether you wanna do that during deliberations later tonight. Good, thank you. Any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move on to the first project. Agenda item number five, site plan application SP 23031 of Craig. We linger. Am I pronouncing that right? We linga. We linga. We linga. Thank you. To amend a previously approved plan for 5,620 square feet, for 820, 5,620 square foot place of worship. The amendment consists of fill removal, exceeding 20 qubit yards and associated regrading for the purpose of stormwater management in the rear of the property and minor site improvements at 12050 Spear Street. Are there any recusals or disclosures related to this? Okay, who is here for the applicant? And your name? Craig. Craig. And are you the only person here for the applicant? No, got Art and Ed. Art and who? Ed. Ed, okay. Ed Darling. Okay, thank you. And we could get you all to sit up at the testimony table. There's two mics there. And if a third person wants to testify, you can stand at the podium. The mics, there's a little button that says push and the light will turn from dull green to bright green. And you want to pull it very close to yourself. Could you all raise your right hand please? I'm going to swear you in. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay, welcome. And we have your application. And before we start to go through it, are there any introductory comments while I look for it on my iPad that you would like to make? No. No, okay. Give me one minute please. Earth did this. Hold on just a second. So what we have for this application, which happens but is not the most common, we actually, instead of a staff report, we have a draft findings of facts and conclusions of law. And we'll go through that and see if the board has any questions or comments. And then hopefully conclude the hearing and close the hearing. So my first comment is on the third paragraph, Marty. Is this yours, Marty? Yeah. I think there's a based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing. I think it's a singular. Oh, sure, yep, thank you. And I don't think, maybe I do have other comments. Any general comments or questions from the board before we move into the red comments from staff? Okay, on page five, there's a question of whether we should continue this hearing or have a condition that the stormwater superintendent review and approve any applicant response to the provided comment. Are we all comfortable with that condition? Yeah, I can jump in on this one. So a little bit has happened since I published a staff report. At the time, Marisa, our stormwater superintendent made some comments, just some minor edits to the EPSC plan and the grading plan. The LDRs give the board the authority to impose conditions of approval, but not conditions of approval that leave any part of their implementation to the discretion of the applicant. So they have to be very, very specific and prescriptive. And often we just say a condition of approval might be comply with the comments of the stormwater superintendent, but Marisa's comments were quite vague because she was trying to give Craig the bandwidth to do the right thing for the site. She didn't want to be too specific. So it kind of left us in this weird catch 22 where the board couldn't approve a condition that was so vague, but Marisa couldn't make the condition any more specific. So it was kind of circular logic there. And luckily Craig and Marisa were able to carve out the time to hammer this out before tonight's meeting. So today I got an email from Marisa saying that, and I also got the revised plan. Now plans that are approved by stormwater that just make them in this packet. So that will actually appear in the conditions of approval? My recommendation now, as of like one week since I wrote the staff report, is just that the DRB have the applicant comply with the comments of the stormwater superintendent because they are now specific enough. Perfect, okay, good. Thank you, Marty. Any questions in the board? Good, okay. Then there's a placeholder for that. And I think that's it on comments from staff. Any questions from the board before we close this? Yeah, so we did have one public comment from the University of Vermont and they just submitted it via email. They couldn't be here tonight. It's brief and I figured I would read it if you guys don't mind. And then we'll take any other public comment. Sure, yeah. This one says, as the stormwater flows from this project, being the one on the church property here, are directed north to the university's Witless Sea Tract. We, being UVM, offer the following requests for mitigation to assist in maintaining the current runoff conditions post-development. And there are two. One, UVM requests that a level spreader be placed at the daylight end of the drain pipe that collects the downspout on the south side of the church roof and that at least 15 feet of vegetation be maintained between the pipe outfall and the top of the swale for runoff disconnection. And then number two, UVM requests that dense vegetation be maintained at all times for runoff disconnection between the east side of the new sidewalk and the swale. And they finished with thank you to the members of the DRB and to the Episcopal Diocese for considering these requests to ensure that these changes do not increase the runoff flows onto the university's property. Thank you, Marty. I assume you've seen this. Yes. And are you fine with those conditions? Yes, I think that they should be, we should be able to meet those satisfactorily. Great, thank you. And are they built into this decision as drafted? They're not, no. But we will, they will be. So they should be, right now. Sure, yeah, we can. If you feel that's appropriate, we can edit the draft decision to include those comments of UVM. Any other comments or questions from the board? Any other public comments? Hearing none. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. So moved. Thank you, Frank. Second. Thank you. All in favor of closing the hearing? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay, the hearing is closed. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda, preliminary and final plat application, SD 2311 of Casey Douglas to amend a previously approved 5.52 acre, six unit plan unit development. The amendment consists of subdividing lot six developed with a single family home and barn into two lots of 0.69 acres, lot six A and 0.60 acres, lot six B for the purpose of demolishing the existing family home and barn and constructing a new family, a new single family dwelling on each lot at 1200 Dorset Street. So if you just bear with me, while I find this on my iPad, are there any disclosures or recusals? Hearing none. Who is here for the applicant? A familiar face I might add. Too bad for you. I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates and I believe remotely, we also have Casey Douglas, the applicant. Okay. I am here remotely, yes. Okay, great. So before we start going through the staff comments, which mostly are like, do you agree and can you comply with X, Y and Z? Do you have any comments to make? No, we're very happy with moving through the staff comments. Okay, great. Thank you, Dave. All right, it's not numbered, but the first comment, we do, thank you very much. I'm gonna swear you in. Even better. And Casey, please. Thank you, John. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna read this. Staff recommends the board include a condition that the development on each of the proposed lots meets the dimensional standards of the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. No issue there. Okay. Okay, moving on. Staff come, I guess that was number one. Staff comment number two. I'm gonna read this. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to address the comments of the Department of Public Works Director prior to closing the hearing. And they're all there in the staff report. There will be a number of public works issues that come up subsequent to this one. So the answer is that's acceptable. Okay. We will work with public works to get them up to speed with what the plans indicate or don't indicate to allow that item to be addressed. Thanks, Dave. So it sounds like we're not closing tonight. We're just concluding and continuing. Unless you, based on Marty's point in regards to conditions and openness or lack of openness, that's open as far as how the board would like to handle it. The applicant would love to have a closed hearing but the reality is is we need to make sure we're all on the same wavelength as far as the issues and we can provide appropriate information for the board. Great. Okay, thank you. Number three is regarding the water pressure and ensuring the adequacy of water pressure. The staff recommendation is to work with the Director of Public Works and South Burlington Water Department, superintendent to ensure that water pressure will be adequate for the proposed homes. Not an issue. Actually, this subdivision is serviced by the Vermont National Country Club water distribution system that was specifically designed to handle the high elevation buildings. This is in the low elevation portion of the property. So the Public Works Director may not have understood that that particular relationship because otherwise just being serviced by the water tank across the street may put you right on the edge. So in this particular case, as part of the original subdivision of Paul Heald, there was an agreement with Vermont National Country Club to be serviced by their particular water system. Okay, good. Any questions, comments? I kind of have a question. Sorry to jump in where it's not my turn but is that a private water system or is that just like a booster? It's a booster that is a private system that is operated by the South Burlington Water Department. But it's municipal water. The water comes from the city of South Burlington, correct. I should learn more about that. Thanks, Dave. We're happy to fill you fill in the blanks. All right, yes, sure. Frank. Let's run through that one more time and say, the water is South Burlington municipal water. Correct. But it's a private system and the private system is operated by the city of South Burlington. Under contract. Who's the owner of the system? Vermont National Country Club, Highlands residential development. So the background, Frank, is before they raised the water tank on the street there that the highest portions of the Vermont National Country Club did not have adequate pressure through standard distribution line feeds to that area. So in order to mitigate that, there was a proposed and ultimately permitted and constructed booster pump that takes the water from the municipal system, adds energy to it, pressure, and then redistributes it through the water distribution system in the streets. Is the country club, what is the relationship between the country club? I assume that's a corporation. Yes. All right. So it's the corporation that owns the system. They own the booster pump station. The city owns all the mains within the streets. Anything that deviates out. But the booster pump station is owned by the corporation. That is correct. And the system serves, the system that gets the benefit of the booster serves private homes. Correct. That are located within the Vermont National Country Club and through special agreement. When you say within the, and I need a little education on what those relationships are. To private homes within the Vermont National Country Club. Is that a big PUD, the Vermont National Country Club? What is that arrangement? It's multiple PUDs within the country club master plan. Yeah. Okay. Of which this PUD is a part. Okay. So the relationship between the corporation and the owners of the home is, and the owners of the private homes is what? Yes. So, big picture. Vermont National Country Club, we'll call it master planned community, has residents that benefit from this particular water distribution system. And separate of that entire original approval from the city in 1997, is a separate subdivision created in 2000 that through a sub-agreement with the Vermont National Country Club large development project, benefits from water distribution of that water booster pump station. And this project will have exactly the same status in relation to the corporation as the private owners do or not. That's my understanding. Okay. That's what I'm trying to get at, I guess. In other words, there are no more at risk of losing the benefit of the properly pressurized water than the residents of Vermont National Property. I think that's a fair representation. Thank you. Thanks, Frank. Any other questions? Okay. Number four, staff recommends the board direct the applicant to address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department superintendent prior to closing the hearing. Comments four through 13 are standard comments and no action is requested. Right. So items one through three actually stem from any typo on our plan. So we will correct that work with JNATO at the water department to allow them to understand exactly what is out there as far as an as-built condition and how it will service the two houses. Good. Thank you. Number five, this is the fire marshals comments. Yes. There was a little bit of confusion, Marty, with regard to the specific call outs of 6B versus 6A as far as the lots and what the fire marshal was intending. So the only way for us to all understand perhaps what he's talking about is to bring up the site plan that shows the two lots and their specific numbering A and B. So keep in mind that this note talks about lot 6B being more than 150 feet away from Folsom Hollow Road and he may have meant 6A. So the opposite lot. Okay. So once we bring it up on screen, I'll kind of do a paraphrasing of my understanding of the fire marshals comments. Yes. I agree. Okay, this one's kind of hard to read but it is in the application package. Let me try for the other one with the aerial but I'll pause it while it loads and then keep going. So in this particular case, lot 6A is the Nordely lot and 6B is a subtlety lot. And the fire marshal provides comments that indicated first questioned whether the curving driveway was A, a common driveway. The plot plan actually shows that there's an access easement to enable the rear lot to access Folsom Hollow Road through that common component. And so there's a question of way can I get my equipment back there? And then two, the next question was, well, 6B seems to be more than 650 feet away from Folsom Hollow Road and Folsom Hollow includes the cul-de-sac that's before you. And we were actually wondering if lot 6A, which is the North lot, is the one that seems to fit the bill better. So if it is either way, we still need to talk to the fire marshal to come to agreement on how to address his NFPA one requirements as far as access with the understanding and the frustration that if it wasn't for a common driveway, he would be able to respond either from Dorset Street or Folsom Hollow Road with some hose. But putting that aside, we will work with the fire marshal on that particular item. Great. Okay, thank you. I again have a, forgive my lack of understanding, what's a NFPA 13D sprinkler system? So National Fire Protection Association is a group that tries to create standards for applications throughout the country. As far as how to deal with emergency response, fire response, 13D is a type of sprinkler system. It's not like a commercial grade that's designed to protect both life and property. 13D is more, it knocks down the fire long enough to get people out, but it's not going to save your house. Let me short circuit it. So it's a sprinkler system like any other building sprinklers. It's in the house. It is in the house. Okay, so what's confusing is the lot. So when any house built on the lot will need a third, not the lot. It's not the lot that needs the sprinkler system. It's the building. It's the building, okay. That is correct. And just for the sake of English, maybe we should specify that in the agreement. Excuse me, in the permit, right? It's a widely accepted set of standards, National Fire. It is. Yeah, I see Dave's point. I just did these quick little measurements. It's 75 feet to the home from the, from the Folsom Hollow and 80 feet from the home to North Street. So I think that they're thinking that they're going to have to access it via the driveway. So it makes sense, Dave's point that they should just talk to the fire marshal. That's probably the most expeditious way of scanning this. Give a little to-do list. Understood. Okay. Number six, address the comments of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent. So this is probably the one we do take issue with in the sketch plan application. The directive from the stormwater section was that if you were going to create more than one half acre of impervious area on your subdivision, then you were obligated to comply with the requirements of section 13.05. Subsequent to that, the application morphed to the point where we started to describe it as an amendment to the PUD, which in order to basically keep the house cleaning, housekeeping squared away, that's fine. Our frustration is that the actual wording in 1305 is when the applicant comes forward with a subdivision and the amount of impervious area on their property is 13.05, excuse me, more than half acre, then you need to comply with these rules. Our frustration is that these particular public work standards, or I'm sorry, the stormwater requirements within the land development regulations were put into place after that original subdivision in 2000 was created. So we're feeling that we're getting penalized for after the fact, oh, by the way, you're part of a subdivision and in this particular case, applying rules that weren't in place for the original subdivision to this little 1.2 acre piece. You're changing the subdivision. We are. You're changing the subdivision after the rule was changed. I don't have any problem with addressing that for the portion that we're changing. We're not changing any of the other lots that have been there nor the street that's been there for a long period of time. But you're causing the overall impervious to exceed the permitted maximum, correct? Not the way I look. So what we want to do is recognize that when the rules came into play that anything subsequent to that needs to comply with the rules. And what we're saying is that this subdivision predated any of these standards and that we shouldn't have to go and retrofit the entire subdivision. I'm sorry, I understand your argument, but I think it's specious. I don't like that word. That's serious. Frank, please. I think it's wrong. Okay, that's fair. I'll take that. I don't like the other word. So that being the background, we will take that up with staff for further review as far as how to apply that particular requirement. I'm just taking the word specifically right out of the regulations. Okay, thank you. Any other questions about that? Thank you, Dave. Can I jump in for a second on that one? Sure. Just to clarify a point. So the way I read that is that the applicant is required to provide stormwater treatment for the entirety of new and redeveloped impervious just on lot 6A and 6B. Correct. Okay, and then you were mentioning the rest of this subdivision in the context of stormwater treatment. Correct, because the comments came back different in the sketch plan. It basically said, if your project, the two lot subdivision has more than half acre then you need to comply with 1305, which is fine. And we said at the time, well, we don't. We're not anywhere close to meeting that standard. However, it came back differently from Marisa in this case that basically said, oh gee, now we're talking about a PUD, which is what Frank is kind of pushing, which is, you need to basically take everything into account, which would be fine if everything was applicable to the rule if the stormwater rules were in place at the time of the original subdivision. This is kind of a timing issue. And specifically what is happening with this applicant's property. So that's the wording in 1305 is the applicant's property that comes before the board. Tell us about your amount of impervious service that you're proposing, whether redeveloping or otherwise. So that's our position. And we will work that out with staff further before we take any more of your time here. I would point out that it's very common, particularly with environmental regulations at the state level as well, that you get a pass on whatever conditions exist as of the date that a new regulation is passed. But when you make a change, you need to comply. And here what I'm saying is you can't close one eye and pretend that this little subdivision within a subdivision is not a part of the whole. And he says, yes, you can. So let's see what kind of how we can work this out or how you can work this out with staff and we will be seeing you again. Very good. Okay, let's see, oops. Number seven, I'm gonna read this. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate how the required area of civic space or site amenity can be provided with the proposed subdivision by designation of such area on the proposed plans. Very good. So question is, is this a two lot subdivision or a seven lot subdivision? And now it becomes convenient to have it be a seven lot subdivision. No, not really, but nonetheless, if we're talking about, so the regulations require that for each lot, you're required to provide 100 square feet of amenity space. So staff is identified and actually when you go through all of the various tables that for small subdivisions of this particular type, even if you include the other lots, we're still less than 10 lots and that it requires 200 square feet and it ultimately indicates that it's essentially just needs to be open space or help us out there, I'm already. Yeah, our thought, our consideration was that private yard is an acceptable site amenity and so it's really just a matter of designating private yard space on the plan, identifying that the units all have the required minimum square footage of sedimentary, in this case, yard space. Okay. And we. It seems too easy, but nonetheless, it sounds like we need to identify that in order for the lot to be considered to be complying that we need to ensure that there's 100 square feet of, sorry, just lost the word for it, private yard space on each lot, which I think is kind of a no burner when you look at the lot size and how to apply that, that's fine. So we will add a note to that effect. Yeah. Okay. Great. Good. Thank you. Problem solved. Number eight, this addresses the, this is about addressing the comments of the city arborist. Sure. So actually in our cover letter, we talked about the landscaping plan in which we had identified on one particular plan, those trees to be removed. We have a landscaping plan that shows all of the trees to be retained. And we have an EPSC plan that shows how those trees are to be protected. But if we're going to basically take a time out, we will go back to Craig Lambert and make sure that he understands that the information is all there. It's just in three different places in order for him to feel comfortable that he can clear this for you. Okay. Great. Thank you. So Dave, I saw the landscaping sheet and the EPSC sheet and the third one you mentioned was? I think it was, hold on. So sheet C1.0 shows the existing trees with call outs and those to be removed. So you've got three sheets. C1.0, 1.1 is the landscaping plan, which essentially is retaining, there's a lot of screening trees out there today that shows all of those to be retained. And then specifically on the EPSC sheet, excuse me, it shows those particular tree protections. I think it probably in confession, it can be cleaned up a little bit on the EPSC sheet to make sure that the tree depiction is more clear. Great. All right. Number nine, this is about the roof line, pardon me, facing south to maximize solar gain. Just an editorial based on how the applicant worked with the board as far as how to orient the buildings in a way that makes sense with the fact that one of the buildings has frontage on three sides. I think that's fine. We're finding that in our work on solar that there are parts of the country that require that the roof's face west because they're interested in picking up the peak hour generation. And what that does is eliminates the need to store during the middle part of the day when the sun's coming directly out of the south. So just an editorial in regards, but your regulations specifically talk about or infer that it should be to the south. So in this particular case, the answer is easy only because of the other requirements that we have within the LDRs. So the answer is it's a reluctant, yes, we can live with that condition. Okay. Questions? I'm with a developer on this one. I think that ought to be flexible for the developer's benefit. I don't, it doesn't seem to be a locked in stone benefit is the point. Well, it does say orient to maximize solar gain potential. It doesn't say orient to the south. Good point. So there is some flexible language even in within LDRs and sometimes you wish for more definition here. I think as Marla made me point out, I was Frank's pointing out that as times change we realize there have different goals in regards to how to deal with solar that perhaps that statement allows for that. So we're open only if our buildings were oriented differently, we might be having a bigger discussion. We're at the whim of the board as far as how you would like to handle that. Thank you. So the next couple of comments relate to the architecture. I'm going to read number 10. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to enumerate to what characteristics of the conceptual homes the applicant proposes to commit in order to ensure future compliance with this criterion. And I know Mark our architect is not here with us tonight but this is really about getting more specific about what we can count on for you to do. All right. So within the application package there were some likenesses, some of them will actually represent the applicant's proposed home. So in this particular case, one of them represents essentially what if everything were to go well as far as approvals that you would see constructed. The second home, the Southerly Lot 6B is one that doesn't have any immediate plans. And in this particular case, what we've tried to do is identify at least the character and the specific question is as well, Dave, what specifically are you willing to? Commit to. Commit to be committed, maybe, but no, commit to. And we did that with the specific call outs on that particular graphic, for example, as far as features that we were looking to ensure that anything, any future building would include those particular characteristics. Can you clarify which is the one that's what they actually intend to build in, which is the one that is a conceptual one? Or are you saying both are conceptual? 6A is more, how do we wanna say? I don't wanna say more real but is probably more representative of ultimately when a zoning permit would be submitted that that's what you would see it as part of the application. Okay, but neither is a full commitment. They're both conceptual to a greater or less degree. I would love to say yes to gain flexibility, but at the same time, we also wanna bring closure to this issue for the board. So that's where, again, I apologize for being a civil engineer but my brain stops at the outside of the building. So I wish Mark, we're here to give me more support in regards to exactly how we want to work our way through the vertical components of these structures to make sure that the goals and intents of the Southeast quadrant are being met. So that's the statement. I don't know if I have a real answer for you yet other than the fact that the call out specifically are things that we will be, are committing to and that's why the applications materials are reflect those specific pieces of information. We do have four plans that technically are required as part of the submittal. Again, kind of wondering how you wanted to understand what's going on inside the building, but that's an editorial, we'll move on from that. But again, in order to complete the application, that information is in there all. My let me understand this is the application before us is strictly for the subdivision of the lots, right? So let's hypothetically we say yes, go ahead and subdivide. We have no, to what extent do we have any continuing control over the design of the houses themselves? I think that's what we're trying to sort out. So that's the standard. It's the standards about relationship of structure to the site and harmonious relationship to the brain, pattern and rhythm, architectural features, privacy. I guess that's right. So the idea here is within a PUD these standards exist. And so Marty's suggestion in this comment is, okay, we understand that they're conceptual elevations, but what elements of these conceptual elevations make it so that these criteria are met and the board feels like the applicant ought to lock themselves into. And so what Dave is saying is we are willing to lock ourselves into these things that are called out with the blue in order to meet these things. Rhythm of the site and harmonious relationships and screening and architectural features being responsive to the neighborhood character. Would you be willing to say we will build, the structures on each lot will be substantially the same as those presented as conceptual drawings, except as the board may allow through future amendment. That's fair. I think that's awfully specific. Well, the reason I say that is because we've been bitten the butt on that before. And I think this was one of yours. Bitten the butt on what I just said? Yes, because if it's conceptual, and then, you know, they decide they want to do something else, then it's a whole public hearing for what would otherwise be a single family home approved administratively. Well, exactly. But if we don't do that, then they... Well, so they're proposing to commit... A skate for lack of a better word, a skate for the application. Well, they're proposing to commit to certain elements. They're proposing to have a setback garage. They're proposing to have a covered front porch. They're proposing to have a dark color single roof on this home and on the other home. They're proposing to have these four things, that the garage is a side facing garage. They want a front porch facing full Schimpolo. They're gonna have a exposed foundation. They're gonna have a pitched single roof and a dark color. Are those things enough? Or does it also need to say, you know, it should have a large percentage of the facade having windows that are taller than they are wide or the siding shall be generally horizontal. You know, because if you had a modern looking home with vertical siding, it would look out of character with the neighborhood. It shall have a pitched roof as opposed to a flat roof. So why don't you get that by being substantially and substantially in accord with the elevations and renderings presented to the board? Well, who decides what's substantially? Well, there's a slippery slope. That's not a very slippery slope. Well, here's an option. And this puts more pressure on staff, but an initial determination can be made by staff. And if the staff says it's a nice tri-day, that's not what we think is appropriate. And essentially is a denial of that particular request and then it gets to come before you. Is that a fair representation of the process? You mean the denial of a zoning permit and subsequent appeal? I don't wanna set it up for that. You know, my concern is that we decide it's substantially similar and the neighbor says, I disagree, it's not substantially similar. I'm appealing this to the DRB. Why would we be intentionally setting ourselves up for appeal? You know, I guess I'm kind of used to substantially similar as a standard. It's a not uncommon legal standard and it's not as slippery in a courtroom as it sounds to you. I mean, we're happy to enumerate the things that Marla just mentioned, and I think in the future, even if it's just a worksheet that staff can share with applicants to say, hey, touch base on each one of these things, it makes it easier for all of us to understand what you're looking for. Because right now it's hard to commit to something that might not get built for, who knows, 15 years. So you could say substantially similar to the renderings presented in particular and then provide your list about that. Okay. Yeah, and what's substantially similar may vary by neighborhood. If this were... Yeah, what we're talking about... If this were the, what is it called, Queen City Park neighborhood, there's a lot of very modern homes. So vertical siding and flat roofs might be more characteristic. We're saying it's substantially similar to the other houses and the developments, right? I think that's what the regulations say. It's in the neighborhood. Right. It essentially is off a portion of the road. Seems like we're trying to avoid putting up a center hall colonial next to a craftsman style next to something that's very modern and having a very eclectic mix. Not that that's necessarily always bad, but it seems like the standard of looking for is that you don't end up with something wildly modern next to something very traditional. I wonder if we could do this so we could end it at this level. Have these guys come up with their list of specifics and negotiated with you? Because we're not gonna close this tonight anyway, I don't think. Well, I feel like, I mean, I don't disagree, but I feel like between Marla and Marty and Dave, they've identified kind of the common elements that would pertain or apply to both of these structures. And then within that some flexibility. So I'm quite comfortable with that. So I have a radical idea. Because everyone just laughed when John talked about having it being an eclectic mix of homes, how like that's not really a bad thing. These are the standards. Having transitions between buildings of different architectural materials or harmoniously to the terrain, is it fair to say that a single family home is sufficiently similar to an adjacent single family home that nothing more needs to be said? This is a totally radical idea. But if it's a single family home, how dramatically different can it be from any other single family home? Very. And is that what this standard requires? And I'm sorry, I've gone off track a little bit, Dave. No, no, no, this is useful because this one is very frustrating for the left brain engineers, say, you're asking me to commit to something in the future that I have no control over other than through this particular process. And how do we hamstring somebody in the future who might be Frank Lloyd Wright architect who says this is a wonderful feature based on the landform, but it doesn't look like your neighbor's house. All right, and does that, my question is does that, is that what's required? Is it required under this LDR to make the houses look like the neighbor's houses? Or is it being a single family home sufficiently similar? And is that a question we should throw back to the planning board? Well, I guess it depends on your interpretation of these rules in front of you now. I agree with that, and I'm a different kind of engineer. I have, you know, I would look at that and think, wow, we really ought to have an architect. Should I mic on for Quinn? Sorry about that. That we really ought to have an architect define some of this stuff. Okay, if I just assume you had those renderings, are they stock images or was there an architect involved in putting them together? I'll answer John's questions first. It started out with stock, one of the two is stock. The first one for lot 6a, the northerly one, is one that is now being developed by an architect. Because I'm just saying you could probably have your architect look at it and come up with some typical architectural features. And they'd probably get into stuff that we're not thinking about right now with patient soffits and overhangs and fenestration and all kinds of stuff like that. And Mark would probably agree that that's how you should define it. And that might be a way to do it is just have your architect say, any little thing that we build is going to be in this style. And I think that works well for lot 6a. 6b doesn't have an architect. Or if you were in a situation where there were no architects involved at all other than the left brain civil engineer trying to draw lines for a subdivision, is like, well, how do we create the character, how do we describe the character of this neighborhood that isn't even there perhaps yet? Right, Frank, I know you wanted to say something. Well, keep in mind it's up to us to interpret the meaning of the line, which in other words, it's our judgment. What is harmonious is not a precise scientific or expert judgment. It's committed to our discretion because that's the position we occupy under the legal structure we're in. So when it says proposed structure shall be in the opinion of the DRB unfortunately and to sometimes to the regret of the developer. Harmoniously, related harmoniously to themselves, this terrain and the surrounding buildings or the existing buildings. And that's why I come back to my first point. We see something, we've seen something, we like it. It looks harmonious to us. Let's say, make it like that or come back and ask for a change to show us something else that's harmonious. To me, it's not rather than a list of elements, you know? I'm following your lead only because you get to do the heavy lifting as far as least providing an interpretation. And then out of all that, once we understand what your expectations are, then our job is to fill that. And right now, this is one that seems to have been, it's been batted around. So let's move on to number 11 because I'm frankly not clear how this is all that different from number 10. It's not entirely different. It's just a similar standard. And therefore requiring similar board input on whether that standard is met. So in that one, I had sort of suggested, considered that as we're looking for not cookie cutter homes like not a particular architectural style as it says in the language there but more of features that define the neighborhood character. And so some that I had picked out in my comment there were the two-story dark roofs, attached multi-car garages as opposed to detached, kind of those seem to be the things that generally broadly define that neighborhood without locking the applicant into anything too crazy, especially considering that they proposed two-stories attached multi-car dark roofs didn't seem like a huge jump to me. So that's kind of how I interpreted that second one which is granted a little bit of a simpler regulation as opposed to that first one. Something else just occurred to me. You know, the conditions shall be shall, you know, you'll comply with this language. Proposed talk show shall be related to harmoniously. Then you come for the zoning permit and the initial judgment. Looking at it, I'm withdrawing what I said before. The initial judgment is the zoning administrator's judgment. Well, your permit says it's got to relate harmoniously, blah, blah, blah, and the rest of that. And the zoning administrator thinks it does. So the zoning administrator issues a permit and that's that. The zoning administrator, or a neighbor, or a neighbor, somebody appeals it. Well, the zoning administrator thinks it doesn't, in which case we are the ultimate deciders of what's harmonious, but from an efficiency standpoint, and I don't think it does any violence to the ordinance to say the first call is the zoning administrator's. The requirements that it relate harmoniously, the judgment in the first instance lies with Marty or whoever's in his shoes, and the appeal is to us. How's that sit with you? The standard says the development review board though. Does it not? Well, look, either you lock in now and we say it relates harmoniously and you've got to come to us or amend it. I'm trying to give you a way out of that, of that, of that. If I may, what I'm hearing Frank say is that the most basic zoning regulations are front yard, side yard, rear yard setbacks, height of the building, lot coverage, building coverage. And what I'm seeing here is an extension of those particular standards with more detail that basically says, well, beyond just what the location and shape and height of the building is, we also want to make sure that there's these other features that are embedded into your application when you come for a building slash zoning permit. And this is what we want you to comply with. And so I'm following Frank's lead, which is, well, it puts a lot of pressure on the zoning administrator to basically interpret what's happening in the neighborhood and whether or not this particular proposal that's before them for a building permit slash zoning permit is indeed compliant with the rules. Back in the days when everything was left in easy numbers, it was an easier job. When you now ask for some sort of subjective component, which again, people are strong and weak, depending on how you want to interpret something is the challenge. And that's why I think staff has always said, gee, Dave, can you at least write something down to give us a little bit more framework on how a future application would come before the zoning administrator? So that's kind of my take on how things have evolved and how they could either be straightforward, put everything in the zoning administrator's court to determine that it complies with the LDRs, or is it one with a little bit more framework based on what the creator of the subdivision is willing to commit to? So I have a suggestion. We know we're not gonna close tonight. So could you and Marla and Marty kind of put your heads together and come up with language that you think we can subsequently review and live with, finding that common, I mean a kind of a midpoint between being too prescriptive and yet giving us enough specificity that we feel comfortable? Well, I'd like to know the temperature of other members of the board. Are we looking for relatively locked in somewhere in the middle or if it's a single family home, it's close enough? Single family home is not close enough. Others? There's all sorts of single family home. You could have a ranch house for God's sake. But actually, if you look at one at the bottom, reading the whole thing through, buildings of different architectural styles. So it already accepts that the buildings don't have to be the same architectural style. The whole pattern and rhythm thing, that sounds like the top of the screen. One, you get down to the bottom of it between buildings of different architectural styles. So you can have a contemporary and a traditional building, but somehow you're supposed to make the landscaping, make them look harmonious. As if the pattern and rhythm sounds like setback, front setback, side setbacks, that sort of thing. You don't want one right next to the curb one. But that's all handled elsewhere. You can't do that and follow it. So I personally am quite confused as to what the intent of this was. It almost seems like a lot of very loose language to give us a lot of authority to say, we don't like that, don't do it. Which, I mean, I don't write it and it's not my job, but I don't think that's the function of government. I would be more, Marla is saying that if it's a single family house, it's a single family house. It's make it look nice. You're gonna try and sell it to somebody anyway. So- Sure, it's in everybody's best interest. As long as you're following all the bulk requirements and it's got a garage and a roof, I'd be okay with it. I agree with that. Well, you're looking at one, but then there's two. You have to read them together. Related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity. Right. Can we hear from Quinn on this thought too? Sure. Quinn? Yeah, thanks. I was falling somewhere more in the middle. I think we're not just the single family home, something a little bit more. On the detail, the items that the applicant has put forward so far, at least to me on this, I'm not sure how they relate to the other structures. So if items are put forward, also along the lines that I think Marla put forward, as far as the color and the direction of the siding and such, just making that more clear that that's consistent with what's already in the neighborhood, because based on what the applicant called out in their concepts, it's unclear to me that that's consistent with what is also in the neighborhood. So that makes sense. Thanks, Quinn. That's a good point. So is that the homework to demonstrate that the things that are being proposed is consistent? Mm-hmm. I think it is. So let's move on to number 12. This is around orientation architecture again. A staff recommends the board discuss whether they are satisfied with the proposed orientation of the proposed homes, indicate whether those proposed orientations are acceptable given the criteria outlined herein. Right, so in this particular case, this is what we spent time discussing this at the sketch plan. And it's our opinion we took your thoughts and guidance and put them on the plan. One of them was to, on the southerly lot 6B to change its locations that it wasn't gonna be as much earthwork necessary in order to basically enable the layout on that particular area. So that's fitting with the land as far as that particular end of things. There were also issues with that lot 6B because it's got three frontages, you know, one on Dorset Street and then of course Folsom Hollow that circles around it on two sides. So three of the sides essentially had front yard and you know, when we talk about buildings and how they communicate with the streets, the question was, well, how are we gonna make this one communicate on three sides? And the decision was we would have the primary entrance off of Folsom Hollow Road. We would create a basically a backyard porch that communicated with Dorset Street and the recreation path and that the existing landscaping on the south side essentially was a wonderful screen and that we wouldn't try to do anything on that side of the building. So that's what we took out of the SCET plan hearing as far as the concepts and that's what we've embodied into that particular layout. And this would be one of those commitments we need to basically write down is beyond what the site plan might be able to say, but it would be good in writing to identify those as specific features for that particular building. Thank you. Comments, questions? No, and maybe far too late to say it, but I've noticed on Dorset Street how many buildings there are with their back porches facing Dorset Street and I don't think it's particularly attractive. But that's what we've required. We've required or allowed. That's what my understanding that's what the LDRs call for. So no, it requires, so in my time here, the board has required homes to have a facade that faces Dorset Street or something that is somewhat facade-like facing Dorset Street. And I think that's a response to how many of the homes have their backs facing. Yeah, so the question I had for you is, I see a little bit of green along Dorset Street. Is that just the color you just decided to use to outline the lot or is that vegetation? Is that some kind of screening? So the yellow, it may look green on your screen, just represents the property lines, Frank. But there are a number, for this ortho-photo, there are a lot of trees either with green or black shadowing based on the direction of the sun that are all existing and if they're depicted on this particular plan, those are the ones to be retained. How high is that gonna be, the green, the green? Is it gonna amount to a buffer? In other words, is it gonna shield the back porch from visibility on Dorset Street or candidly not, probably not? So there's one deciduous tree between the street and that backyard area. And I guess the question is, my understanding is that going back, even before Marla was one of the goals was communication. You wanted to be able to sit on your back porch and when somebody walked by on the recreation path, be able to say hello. So... That's not what's happening on Dorset Street. I'm just saying that was the goal. And that's essentially what is created here. So hiding the building from Dorset Street doesn't seem to be consistent in that particular communication component. So that's at least my take and experience in working with the city since they adopted the traditional neighborhood design. I won't take more time. I don't think the board's precedent would allow for making that any kind of determinative objection. Okay. I'm just our experience. Okay. Any other comments before we move on to 13? Okay. This relates to what elements to retain and the end of the staff comment is, which elements of the proposed elevations the applicant must retain in order to ensure compliance with this criterion and include such elements in the decision? I think we've covered that and I think you're gonna work on that. Yes. So thank you. Moving on to number 14 is the timeframe. And I guess I'm really puzzled why 6B could take five to 20 years. So these lots are being created for family members. So a sister and a brother are gonna own the lots. The sister Casey Douglas is looking to build her home as soon as possible. So the 2025 number that's in the it was reported in the application is an overly conservative estimate of how long it'll take to complete the home. So they are very committed to moving forward with the Nordely lot as far as construction. Southely lot. The brother said I got a home not interested in doing anything right now. I have no idea when my plans to do something would be. So that's the dynamic of how this particular narrative is coming forward. Okay. Thank you. Comments. On that particular point. Well, so there's this housing preservation standard. I don't know if Marty you wanna kind of go into that. What is that? I wanted to play. It's new. New and improved. Not that new. So if I can paraphrase and maybe I shouldn't but Marty and Marlon probably are more close to this is possible. The goal is to basically make sure that we're not tearing down buildings and losing housing stock and converting them into things that aren't consistent with the overall goals of the city. So in this particular case, there is a home that is falling down. That is essentially condemned. But at the same time, the rules specifically say, hey, it doesn't matter whether it was the previous owners lack of maintenance of the building or this one, you have a building that used to be part of the housing stock and you are planning to remove it. And if you do, you need to basically replace it in a timely manner. And if you don't, there are some extra standards you need to comply with. And in this particular case, if we take that particular building that is in such poor condition on the site and apply that standard to lot 6A, then Which is the southern most? The northern one that they're proposing to build immediately. Okay. Then I think we're in very fine shape. If you wanted to take that building and apply it to 6B, then we get to talk about timing and all of those things. So provided that everything still works out for Casey and Ryan as far as their plans to build their home there, timing wise and nothing else going on like another COVID that we would be in a position to be fully compliant with that particular aspect. Okay. Yeah, is there some black letter time limit Marla? So for the housing replacement, it's two years from the date that the zoning permit to demolish the existing house. No, no, for the existing, I get that. I'm talking about the second house. The second house, the housing preservation in theory wouldn't apply because the house that's being torn down has already been replaced. I would just, I mean, my personal view is I would just let it slide. Yeah, I think I included that comment because I knew the timeline for the second house was really soft and I didn't know if you guys were aware of the standard or what the timeline for the first one was but you were telling me that it's pretty immediate. So I don't think this will be a huge deal but I just wanted to flag it as an issue for the conversation. House one's important, house two is not. As far as the standard goes, yeah. Any other comments? John, Quinn? Do you agree? Yeah, I'm good with that, Quinn. Nothing, thanks. Okay, good. All right, so that brings us to the end of the comments. No, one editorial, Marla, you threw me with the double signature. That's not twice. So, keep going. Oh, go back. Oh, you're right, there is, there's this and then there's another comment, okay. So I went through and reviewed the staff report and came to Marty's signature and it's like, okay, that's it. And Casey calls me up and says, what is this last page? And it's like, what are you talking about? Number 14, okay, let me read it. The staff recommends the board discuss the feasibility of this standard. I think it's just the same page twice. One of the same. It's the same comment? It's an additional information that was inserted. Is it, or is it just the same page twice? It's a different comment. No. Yep. Yep, I'm sorry. It's a different comment. To be honest, I actually, this is my first time compiling the packet with Marla out of the office. Okay. So I got a little bit of a- Staff recommends- Now the next question is, does that apply to this application or is that carried over from a previous version that you were modifying? I don't even see the one you're talking about. Let me read it. Let me read it. Staff recommends the board discuss the feasibility of this standard relating to construction, timing and phasing, standard timeline with the applicant and further discuss the possibility in my extended timeline. This seems like it was a previous comment. Yeah. 22 of the PDF. Yeah. I think it's the older version of what became the final version of 14. Easy to do. It was more just to just poke Marty. And what we know is Marty's signature is consistent. So let's turn to public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? You can use the podium. If you push the button, turn from dull green to bright green. Thank you. My name is Dana DeSano and I am here tonight with my husband, James Rustad and our son. We live at 76 Folcham Hollow Road, the property next door to this lot. And as an initial matter, we want to extend our gratitude for the thoughtfulness and attention to detail by the staff and the board and the applicant as well for this project. Our comment and request has to deal with privacy and landscaping. We live at the bottom of a pretty steep slope. And I understand from reviewing the pictures that there are some large trees that are gonna be removed as part of this. And given that the first floor and the backyard area of the proposed home is gonna be looking into essentially our second floor bedroom areas, it would be our request that there be some sort of landscaping screening at the top of the slope. We're in a difficult position being at the bottom of the slope, putting in a hedge, it's not gonna have that screening effect. So that is our respectful request to the board and the applicant. Okay, thank you. Is that something that you can fold into this? I think it's important for Casey to be able to speak with you as far as neighborly thing. Okay. For the engineers like, oh, what do the regulations say? Do you know Casey? Hi, yes, we are intent would definitely be to put a fence up. I talked with Dave a little bit in the past about what is allowed fence-wise. But we obviously want to have as much privacy as well. So we are definitely on board with discussing options and our plan was to have some sort of privacy fencing put up. All right, so we'll let you guys work it out. So Dana and Casey, we have both of your contact information. If you wanna reach out to Marty, he can kind of put you together because if you guys kind of signed in and then we have Casey's contact information, make that connection. Good, thank you. Thank you. So since this is coming back is there something we should see what they settle on and then work that into the application? There are no standards requiring privacy screening between single family homes to single family home. And I think the grade change here is like a different factor. But generally speaking, like we don't require a single family home to buffer itself from another single family home. They're the same land use. They should be fine next to each other. So the weird grade thing is sort of unique to this two parcels. And therefore I think there is no standard that the DW would regulate this by. The best course of action maybe for the two land owners just to sort it out. Okay. Okay, are there any other public comments? All right, so it sounds like we're headed to continuing this. What would be a date for continuing? I guess that's to you. We've got the first Tuesday in September and we also got two weeks after that, September 16th. Oh, the first week in September works fine. If you had offered something two weeks from now I was like, whoa, there's a lot of coordination to get together with public services staff. We can't do that anyways. So submission revised materials are due two weeks before the next meeting. So we'd need your materials in two weeks, three weeks, because it's a five Tuesday month. So you'd have three weeks to get your stuff. That's manageable. And then the September 6th is a Wednesday. I don't know if that matters to you. Cool. As long as you're here. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to continue this application to hear it again on September 6th, 2023. Thank you, Frank. Any second? Second. Second. Thank you, John. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Carried. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Dave. Okay, I guess we have minutes. Can you push from last time? So I'm going to pressure you to think about it today. All right, minutes of July 20th and July 18th. June 20th. June, sorry, and July 18th. Any changes to the minutes? I wasn't here for July 18th, so I don't know if we can do them separately. I didn't review them or the meeting, so. So do you feel uncomfortable voting for them? I just haven't read them nor was I here. Let's do them separately. June 20th. All in favor of approving the minutes from June 20th? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. July 18th. All in favor? Aye. Say aye. Okay. They're carried. Good. Any other business? Okay, that concludes tonight's meeting and we are now going into deliberative session. So we're going to keep.