 I actually was going to ask you because we were going to put the photos on the glass, meaning that we didn't have time. So I didn't know more because... I know that you were going to do that. I know that you were going to do that. Okay. So there's nothing to be sorry about. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know how much I'm going to do. Okay. Yeah, I think that's fine. So we're going to send this to somebody else today who has a laptop. We're just going to read it. Yeah, well, they were like sort of in the trash bin. I said that by the time I got back. I was in the library by my senior. But all the board members were there. Yeah, and some of them don't have their computers. Oh, okay. Actually, I saw a new one on the agenda. I don't know about that. Yes, it was just because she... Yeah, we said. Yeah, we said. She said, yeah. She said it was new. She said it was new. Well, we don't have a pesky board. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I'll need to move. It's not that it's like... She is going to be there. Yeah. Yeah. You can make your station. You know, we know you're here actually. Yeah, I'm right around... I can tell you about what happened. I'm going to make it clear, but it's always the same thing. Maybe you should. No, it's fine. No, it's fine. No, I actually don't think so. No. Here. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. He's here for the first time on the film, that's how much they come in here. He's here for the first time on the film, that's how much they come in here. I was not aware of that because I wasn't aware of it. Should I lean back like this, or should I? Sounds good. Okay, thank you Charlie. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, let's see. Today is March 19th, I'm going to say. Go with that. Yes it is. Absolutely right. It says it wrong on the agenda. Yeah. Back in time. March 19th. Look at that. But not the one on my computer, interesting. Wow. That was the early PDF packet. Item number one on the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there's an emergency, there are several ways to leave this room. First is the way you came in, which is over there. The other is through those two doors right there. And if there is an emergency, we should all meet in the parking lot, the South parking lot, which is right behind me. Which implies that North is that way, which takes me a while to get these basic facts of life. Additions, deletions, changes in the order of agenda items, we are going to move, I propose moving. Number seven, Dorset Meadows up to in front of number five, because we're going to just continue it. So that's what we'll do. We'll move number seven up to before number five. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Anyone have any comments, questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Announcements. We're still looking for two DRB members as of July one. So if anyone knows anybody or if anybody's interested, please step forward. So we are on to what was listed as preliminary application SD 18-19 of Dorset Meadows Associates for a planned unit development. And you can read the rest. We have had, so we last considered this. Sorry. Oh yeah, right. Rick Heusel. Brian is recusing himself. We considered this on what June 19th, January 19th. Several new facts and we were going to have a session tonight for people to express additional opinions because we didn't have enough time last time. It has several things have happened in the meantime. The appeal of the administrative officer decision has been denied. And there has been a related decision in Spear Meadows with regard to transfer development rights. On that basis, we see no reason to discuss that project tonight. We're going to continue it to April 16th, which is the next available date and give a little bit of time for the dust to settle. So I will entertain a motion to continue. I move that we continue preliminary application SD 18-19 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC to April 16th. We move in second. We continue to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Hearing none. Okay. So now we're back to. Yeah, Paul. So let's also continue the master plan application. What's the number? What's the number? 18-01. 18-01. What is it? MP 18-01. MP 18-01. Okay. I move that we also continue master plan application MP 18-01 of Dorset Meadows Associates to April 16th. I've been moving second. We continue master plan 18-01 to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. It is continued to April 16th. Just a one comment. Last time we said come back here for those of you that wanted to comment on the plan. We think it's in the best interest of everyone. Us included. Because there's so many moving parts here. You are not going to be denied an opportunity to speak. But this plan may change. And there will be ample opportunity for you to speak for against or indifferent about this plan going forward the next time it comes before us. I just wanted people that came here based on the promise that they would have time to speak. That will absolutely not be denied. But given the circumstances with the court cases. We need to sort some of this stuff out before you come back. Does that make sense? Thank you. Okay. Question. I would just like to say the last three meetings that were here. We were not given time to speak. I appreciate you saying that. But we weren't given time the last three meetings to speak. So I hope going forward you will allow us to speak. Absolutely. Thank you for that comment. I have a comment as well. At the last meeting in January, Mr. Miller spoke on behalf of our group stating that we were okay with developing other parts of South Burlington. But we just didn't want it at this one particular spot. And that is completely untrue. SOS South Burlington to say the few open spaces that we have remaining. So just to clarify, our group is about all of South Burlington. I appreciate that comment. And next time we do have a public comment, I would make sure you bring those. You'll have plenty of time to articulate that again as well as you know that. Okay. All right. On we go. Brian, you can come back up and continue. Conditional use application CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved additional use permit for the 14-by-17 Good evening. So if you I'm sure you're familiar with the staff that I brought up last time and it seems the board agrees with three of them. The outstanding issue that I was that we had to follow up on was what, you know, what is the grade of the building. So cat amount came out and filed the report that I believe you see up there. A couple of things, but first of all, I think I don't think it's in line with what the report sort of says. So we have a difference of opinion and I'll let you guys decide, but I want to express what my opinion of the report is. If we on this on the report, if we go to the last bullet on the first page, I'm sorry, the cat amount report. It's attached. So the last bullet on the first page indicates that the cover over the sewer at the base of the foundation where it enters the bottom of the structure is 2.61 feet. Now we can go to the next page. The second bullet down discusses what the state recommendations are. And what the state recommendations are that if there is no ground cover, if there's no plowing to be done, they recommend a minimum of 4 feet below the grade. And if there is plowing and such to be done in the winter, they recommend 5 feet. So based on those two recommendations, and Delilah, if you'd pull up the picture that I sent you where I added on to the field notes. I just graphically illustrate this so that it's kind of, so that everybody's on the same page was my intention here. All right, so the background of this, the colored lines that are in the sort of lower right, I added those to the PDF of the field notes provided by CCE. So the blue line at the bottom represents where the sewer enters 2.61 feet below the current, what the current grade was measured when they measured the height of the house a couple of months ago. The green line shows where that grade is in relation to the sewer. What I'm proposing tonight is that the board recommends a change of the preconstruction grade, which we've discussed that you have the ability to do that if there's reasonable justification, to 4 feet, which is the minimum that the state expects. The next recommendation is the 5 foot line. And one of the things I didn't include with what I sent is this drawing and I've got a few copies for the board. The pathway of the sewer goes underneath the driveway that was required. We had to add spaces so the driveway itself is 4 spaces wide. And of course the sewer goes underneath that so it's plowed in the winter. So it would technically meet the requirements of the 5 feet. We're not asking for 5 feet. We used insulation in the ground, which is one of the things you can do to keep the building as low as possible. And we did that, again, to keep everything as low as possible. And we don't need 5 feet of cover, but we're requesting the 4 feet based on, again, state recommendations of what was found during the CCB evaluation. So I don't think I have enough for everybody. So again, this is just the red line that I put on there shows the path of the sewer. So here's one for the record. So anyway, that's the way I interpret the report that was provided by CCE. And that's what I'm hoping the board will consider adopting that the alteration of the pre-construction grade to 4 feet to allow the... And it's not 4 feet above what was there before. It's 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the building. 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the residential structure. Correct, yes. The accessory structure. Yeah, the accessory structure, which is what the state recommended code is per the catamount report at that. So that was actually what our original intent was. I mean, we've kind of gotten there through a circuitous route. But we had always intended on backfilling the foundation up to that point anyway. And at that point, we actually, I think at this point, we're probably going to have to remove the bottom row or two of siding. To accommodate that, but it does come down over the cement that's there a little bit. And so at that point, I believe we meet all the other requirements. We'll be at 15 feet for the building height from the grade and then the other requirements that have already been agreed to. Staff comments. As I understand it, staff was not in favor of changing the existing grade, measuring the height from the grade, which brings the height to 15 feet. And instead, you were in favor of reducing the height of the building by a foot and a half. You remain that. So this doesn't change your opinion. This doesn't change staff's opinion. You know, it's ultimately up to the board. Staff wrote our comments. Based on the report from the catamount consulting. You know, I don't want to, I don't want to get into a situation where, you know, I'm making recommendations. I'm not the engineer on this job. My interpretation of the document was that it's functioning. The sewer is functional. It's been insulated appropriately for the situation. I didn't talk to the engineer who installed the sewer line. I, you know, I think it really needs to be up to the board to make that determination on whether additional cover is needed or not. It didn't feel like the recommendation from catamount was that additional cover was needed. I have a question for staff. I just, would you review for me the idea that we can have somehow have the power to vary the pre-construction grade? On what basis can we, do we even have authority to vary the pre-construction grade? My obvious point being that it is what it is. And if you're varying that grade in anticipation of construction, then you're playing semantic games. So LDR section 312 does allow pre-construction grade to be adjusted. That section of the LDRs was written in pertaining to cases where there is net cut or fill on a site required. It doesn't provide a lot of guidance. It just says that in granting an adjustment, in granting a cut or fill permit, which the board sometimes does as a conditional use permit or miscellaneous permit, depending on the case, the board has to then determine what the new pre-construction grade is. But that's in a situation where there's cut and fill, right? Right, and in this case there's fill. Pardon? And in this case there's fill. There's also a building being constructed. And he's already under a conditional use, so he doesn't need to separately apply for a miscellaneous permit. So the authority's there in your view? I think in past meetings you've established the authority. That was my understanding. Right, and it doesn't say the board has the authority to grant this for X, Y, and Z reasons. It happens to be in the section when it pertains to adjustment of grade or pertains to cut and fill, and it talks about adjustment of grade. Right, and again, part of the reason we've gone through these exercises with the engineers was I believe the board was looking for a technical rationale as to why you could make this. You know, something to hang your hat on, if you will. And again, my interpretation of the report as written is that the engineer is saying that there's a certain amount required for the slope. I believe it's 20 inches, right? That would be the amount that it changes. But then above that 20 inches they're saying that the state recommends four feet. The highest place where the sewer is in contact with the ground, as of now, it's only two and a half feet. The state recommendation will be four, which would be the extra 14 inches that we'd be asking for. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think? I don't see any reason not to let them put the fill in. Again, this is not the scale, so it was just to demonstrate. It's not a scale drawing. I don't know what his scale was. I was just putting on lines to show that it's about the current grade. If you look at the house, is it about that first step? But I'm not sure what the line he has above the step is. So again, it's not the scale. So it was just for me to try to get everybody in the same page of what we're proposing. Not necessarily be a final rendition of what it's going to be. It wouldn't be above the porch. No, the five feet would definitely be above the level of the porch though. Just to clarify, the four feet would allow the structure to remain as it stands. Yes. It seems to me we're raising the ground so we can allow you to be that high. And you're a foot and a half too high. And that's what we're wrestling with right now. I understand what you're saying. Because we're reading the document that says you don't have to put the fill in. Well, but it's what the state recommended guidelines would be. And that was always our intent because at the front of the house, because again, the sewers, if you're at the back house in the rear of the source coming up, you know, towards the surface at it, right? And so again, we were using a combination of fill and insulation to assure that we're below that depth. I mean, I'm remembering a comment that Mark who wasn't able to be here tonight made last time we heard this application, which was that he was concerned about burying more of the house and thinking that was sort of like a Band-Aid solution, because that wasn't good construction methods. You know, I understand that Paul's trying to make this work, which is something to keep in mind. And we don't tell people whether they can bury their houses or not. We should hear from the other parties. Yeah, that would inform our decision making. Good idea. Hi there. Who am I on the board? My name is Jeff Messina. I'm with Bergeron, Paris and Fitzpatrick. And I represent the butters Gary Kucharal and Susan Jones. I'm sorry. My name is Jeff Messina. I'm with Bergeron, Paris and Fitzpatrick. And I represent the butters Gary Kucharal and Susan Jones. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I did not receive the report that we're talking about right now. So I can't speak to this report. But generally, my understanding of the circumstance and I have said it before and I will reiterate to the board that it's my client's position that this project is essentially an end run around the regulations in the first place. And Mr. Washburn just said something interesting, at least to me, that what he is doing now was the original intent all along. And if it was the original intent all along, my understanding and I cannot cite any legal authority and I apologize that to the board. But using a pre-construction grade or post-construction grade is generally a factor in the building in and of itself. So if it is intended to be designed a certain way, that part is factored in. So if you're raising the ground one foot, two foot, nine feet, then you have to make the building change accordingly. And it seems to me that what he's attempting to do here is use a different grade that was not built according to the original application to have too tall of a building and sort of, I'm being glib but kick some dirt under it underneath to raise it to the level rather than using the grade or factoring that in to the original construction. And again, that is my client's concern. And I know that we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube but had it been constructed according to the original permit, my client would not have an issue, but he also would have contested it and exercised his rights there too if he knew what the ultimate project was meant to be as originally intended against what the application was actually granted for. He still has that opportunity, doesn't he? After this, indeed he does. So one of the things, he really took what I said out of context. We'd always intended on backfilling the foundation. If we go back to when I was first contacted by staff about the issue, I think it was pretty clear. I misread the LDR. I didn't understand the LDR. The section on height is somewhat confusing and my understanding was the height was based on the post-construction grade. There's only one area of the LDR that says it's pre-construction grade and it's buried in the middle of the definition of height. It's nothing I looked at. I looked at the tables and charts. He's been implying many times that I had some nefarious intent. There was never a nefarious intent. There's never been anything like that. This is the third time he's come to one of these meetings and accused me of that. I'm a little tired of it. I know this is not the forum to express that. But we intended on the building the way it is now, but there were mistakes that were made on my part in planning it. And I understand that the board has the leeway one way or the other. But in our opinion, I think if we had come to the board and asked for the sewer requirement of four feet six months ago, which is obviously what should have happened and didn't, I just feel like that is a question that probably would have been answered in a different way than I think it may be answered. I don't know. Wait a minute. It sounds to me like you're saying, well, what you're really doing is burying the house. I mean, that's a slight hyperbole, but you're taking away a couple of rows of siding so you can get your fill in, right? Right. Well, to meet the four feet, I mean, what's that? That wouldn't normally be the way you'd build a house, right? Probably not. Well, and this is to give the gap that was the issue that was brought up last time. The gap between the siding and the fill. Personally, I don't think you have nefarious reasons. I think it's a beautiful house, but it's foot and a half too high. I'm wondering if you or your client have any resolution to this that you would suggest? I know that my client would like to see it lowered. He wants it to meet the 15 foot criteria. I do apologize to Mr. Washburn and this board. I'm in no way mean to question his actual integrity, and I'm not suggesting he had ultimate nefarious intentions. An end run is not necessarily nefarious. It's a post facto attempt to get something, so I apologize if I was hyperbolic and I did not mean to come across as suggesting he has a lack of integrity. That part was not my intent, but my client would like to see the building lowered. I can't say that I'm comfortable. What we're talking about here, what's giving us pause I think is because we understand that the result is moderately catastrophic for the applicant. I don't know what it takes to lower the building by a foot and a half. I don't know what happens. Well, I'm asking you. Last time we met we were talking about six inches, so all of a sudden now it's... Whatever it is, in other words, to take the roof off and chop it down. So we weren't going to take the roof off. Our plan was to raise the building, cut the foundation out and drop it that way. But we can't do 16 inches. There's not 16 inches available. So now I'm confused. Where do we have to be? How much has to come off? Well, it depends on what is approved, I believe. To get it within the permissible height, Mar. Yeah, so to get it to the grade it is today... Sorry, to allow the grade that exists today to be the pre-construction grade, which effectively allows the sewer to have the cover it has today. They would have to lower the structure by one foot, five, and three-quarter inches. Well, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate because the front of the house has filled all the way up to the top of the cement. Remember, his measurement that you're using is the average of all of those. And in the report, he says, at the front of the building. So actually, it's not the same number. I see what you're saying. I don't know that I can do that math. Yeah, no, I... That's the 14 inches. You don't have to verify it. Would you commit it on a wedge or something like that? We did. We knew we had to get it up against the foundation to cover the sewer at the front. It's my understanding now. I wasn't the estimator, so this is my understanding now. And we put the porch on over it so it's not obvious from the road that it's on a hill. We're attempting to mask the effect that, apparently, and just for an aesthetic reason, we don't particularly care for it looking like it's on a hill either. But we're attempting to mask that as much as possible. So the porch, there's a porch on it that's over this dirt pile that slopes down in the front. Like result-driven decisions, you know? That's the difficulty I'm having. Especially after the fact. Yeah. Yeah. And from my client, if I may, my client's perspective, nefarious or naive. Brian, Jennifer? Yeah, I'm torn. I don't like the precedent, but I also don't like the thought of what it will take to fix it. I understand Jennifer's concerns. I think the first one weighs more heavily on me than the second. The precedent? Yes. The result-oriented after-the-fact nature of it. And then this is what we complain about. That's what I complain about. What you complain about. You've affected me. Okay. So it sounds like we're leaning in the direction of it's got to come down four and a half. So I think what Paul was saying is that we need to revisit that number to confirm that, you know, what the number is. Yeah. But the board's inclination is to require it to be lowered. Yeah. So I don't know that we need new information. Would you agree that based on the information we have, we could redo that calculation? I would think so. Okay. I think I agree with him that I think we have everything we need. Sorry, my brain's not 100% of the game. I've been out of town until a few hours ago. So we have the information we need. We'll redo the number. We're not accepting the information. It seems reasonable to close. Yep. Right. Can we close with that information still pending? Well, because we have the information, we just need to re-cunch the numbers. Right. Are there any other witnesses? Anybody else have anything to say about this? We don't know. Anything else? No. Anyone else have anything to say? Just the question of, based on the new number, that will be the adjustment of grade that the board is allowing? Okay. I just want to make it clear what the result of recalculating the number is. Right. Some number is the number that you're going to have to bring the structure down by. Okay. I move that we close continued conditional use application. CU-1812. Apologize, Washburn. I second. We close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I abstain. Thank you very much. Take care. Next, item number six, which is actually the seventh. Eliminer in final time application, SD 19-07 of city of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of raising an existing car wash facility, constructing a new 7,990 foot, 7,990 square foot auto rental car wash facility, and constructing a 2,253 square foot, six-position fuel capacity at 1,200 airport drive. Who is here for the Africa? Good evening. My name is Nick Longo. I'm the Deputy Director of Aviation for the Burlington International Airport. And I'm John Lingwall with StanTech Consulting. And does anyone have any conflicts of interest? Yeah. Could I just say if anyone came in late, we continued item number seven, about Dorset Meadows to April 16th. If anyone was waiting specifically for that meeting, that has been continued until April 16th. Okay. Thanks, Matt. Yeah. Okay. So you were in for sketch plan, just like a little while ago, right? So this is the first time we've seen this, Plimmerine Plantal Plantation. So, yeah, if you'd describe the project to us. Swearing it? Oh, swearing it. Please raise your right hand. If you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the penalty perjury. So very quickly, and you're correct, we were here just a few weeks ago. What we're planning to build and construct here is for the use of the Burlington International Airport car rental companies. This is a full service car wash, fueling and vacuuming bay to 100% facilitate the car rental companies at the airport. There's a current existing facility on the field today that only supports two of the three large companies at the airport. So this new facility will, of course, allow all three companies to operate more efficiently at the airport. Okay. So does anyone need more commentary on this? I think, yeah. So we can dive right into staff comments. We'll step us through those. Sure. So I'll start out with just number one there. So there was a discussion there about some, an additional pervious area next to the existing building on the north side of the site. We've talked about it internally at the airport, and we also agree with that. There is no intended use for that area. So we will change the plan to make that a grass area. Great. Thank you very much. Direction of the north area. I'm sure you'll fix that. We'll go through each drawing and make sure they're consistent all the way through. So this is the applicable regulatory entities to make sure that there's no interference with whether it's lighting, radio, communications, whatnot. So what John is going to hand out is an FAA. It's called the 7460. This is the process that occurs through the Federal Aviation Administration. And what happens with that process is the entire project is sent to the Federal Aviation Administration, and it goes through different fields in their offices, whether it's air traffic control, technical operations, which looks at the lighting and height of some of this, and of course air space, which again looks at the height of the buildings and any obstructions for this particular project. This is the same process that any new facility or even temporary crane use would have to go through this process. In fact, we even have to do this process on the airfield side of our project as well. So I might add that as you're looking at that documentation, you'll see basically three different pieces of it reviewed. They looked at the permanent building itself. They looked at the fueling island as a separate structure, and then there's a third review for the crane, the temporary crane that would be used to erect the building. And the determination in all three cases was there was no adverse impact on aircraft operations. This is the determination expires on December 30th, 2017. Is that obviously that's been extended? There are two, it has in one case. The permanent structures, the building, and the canopy of that did not apply to it. If you dig further into that document, you'll see that those are considered permanent approvals for those temporary crane permit did expire, and we've had that renewed. On the last page of that, we'll see a renewal of fueling. I'm sorry. So all the approvals are now current? Yes. We're fortunate enough to be very close to some of the FAA folks as well, not only locally, but of course in the regional level. So we've been briefing them very consistently with this project as we do with all of our projects at the airport. I assume you mean only geographically close, you don't mean? Well, some of them, yeah, yeah. You don't mean they're your buddies, do you? No, sir. They are nice folks, though. Comment number five. Four. Oh, four. Forcing that. That was three. That was three versus one. Okay. More compliance in number four. So this was about the parking, and they submitted a couple page memo talking about, well, one page memo and then a diagram showing where they were going to be replacing the displaced parking spaces. And this is, we discussed this at Sketch, as I recall. But, you know, being a new hearing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm recalling in my mind discussion about parking. Marla, why does, help me out, why does this particular facility, I mean, all your ability is just drive through cleanup facility, right? That's it. Correct. Correct. So this. How does that trigger any sort of parking consideration? It doesn't. It displaces existing parking. The construction of this project displaces existing parking. Oh, okay. I see what you mean. That displacement is approximately 112, 112 parking spaces. Where are you going to put them? So, looking at the map there, if you look on the left side of the page, right where the building site is, that's where the displaced parking is currently for our crew and some employee parking of the airport itself. So that displacement where the building is will be moving to the left side of that page or the west of the actual site to a parking lot adjacent to that. Further, the 112 spaces to the north of the site are easily accommodated with over 425 total spaces in those multiple parking lots. Bravo, BC. Yeah, you got half a Colchester to the north. We do have very adequate parking spaces. So those 112 spaces are, we're not a concern for us. I understand. And those parking spots are now overflow. What's the purpose of those spots now? Right now, the lot B and lot C are overflow. So that's generally where those displacements are going to be located. Lot D is car rental parking right now. But that car lot D is actually going to be relocated into the new site itself. So that's going to be new available parking spaces for us. And then lot E up in the top left corner there. That's our, I forgot what it's called, but that's our cell phone lot. Excuse me. The employees are going to have to walk a little bit further, but not far. Correct. A little bit further, but not farther. You have enough spots in those E, C and D. Correct. And there is a sidewalk going from those lots all the way to our terminal. Okay. Okay, to move on. Number five. Yeah. So number five was, um, is related to the appearance of the building, I think primarily. And we did, um, submit some renderings of the building, which you have an engineer here talking about architecture, which is really dangerous. So the, what are the comments that, um, was made early on in this project? Um, was that the building that we came back with the re-engineered building that we came back with, um, kind of a scaled down version of the 2016 submittal that you saw. Um, scale down version was very plain looking. We didn't have architectural features shown on that. And there was a request made, um, to take a look at that and to try to, um, have the appearance of the building more similar to the parking garage and the terminal building. So in response to that request, um, the architect, uh, added some brick columns, uh, to the, to the building, which you can see in that upper rendering. And, uh, there's also a band of green color that was added around the perimeter of the building at the top. Um, and those features, uh, do a lot of, they're not exactly the same, obviously, as the parking garage. They do replicate some of the materials in the, in the appearance of what was done there. So that's the, you know, that's what's being offered. Um, is a change there. And I think, uh, you know, we feel that it, um, you know, that it addresses that hopefully in your, your eyes. And I'm sure you're familiar with the garage, parking garage structure itself, but there is in the packet of a Google foot, um, street view of the parking lot, just, just for reference. So you can see there the, you know, the use of the concrete and brick. The colors are similar. Oh, isn't the new building or similar to what's there? Yeah. I'm fine with that. Anybody other comments? Questions? Very good. Comment number six. Uh, so I might need a little guidance on this one. Um, but, but, uh, in relation for my interpretation of, of the comment anyways, uh, there is additional pedestrian crosswalks from the south side of the building or excuse me, the south side of the site to the terminal building. And then I believe the comment was to access the parking garage. So the question we had when one staff looked at this is how, if the, and I'm, don't rent cars from the airport because I live around here. So I don't need to rent cars from the airport. But if someone's working at the airport car rental, the cars sort of live in the parking garage. And then they bring them to this QTA to be taken care of. Um, how do you walk from the parking garage as an employee of the QTA to the car wash building, the fuel dispenser building, that sort of thing? Cause it looks like there's a sidewalk accessing it from the north end, but not from near the parking garage end. So if you look, uh, is it easier if I go up there? Um, yeah. I think page two shows where there's parking. Where there's sidewalks more clearly. Yeah. Is that easier or bigger? Actually the, the map that you had on there before might show a little bit better because I think this is the area that you're referring to just on the south side of the project. Yeah. Perfect. So that's the entrance and that's also the exit going into the parking garage for the car rental vehicles themselves. So the actual pedestrian sidewalk is here going to the terminal in case they need to go back into their offices. There is a sidewalk here, which also has a path going directly into the garage. So, so from this location, you can access the parking garage here. But if I work it as a car wash employee, how do I get from my place of employment to the terminal or the parking garage or whatever. From this building. Right. Over to this side. So, so typically you wouldn't do that on foot when you're actually operating this scenario. So all the vehicle traffic is how you're going to actually either pick up a vehicle in the garage or dropping it off after it gets fueled and cleaned. So the only access that we feel is necessary in the car rental companies also agree for the operations of this is the sidewalk here either going here, which we don't encourage because we don't really want that pedestrian traffic within our car, within the actual purple garage itself, especially in the car rental section. And then if you're going to the garage, excuse me, the terminal building, which is more likely your walkway path is directly on the sidewalk there. It's very, it's very unlikely to access on foot that building to this building. So if you're a passenger, you're renting a car, air passenger, picking up a car. Where do you walk to? This wouldn't have any scenario with an actual passenger. So the passenger would pick up the keys in the terminal building, walk across the, the jetway to the garage and drive the vehicle out here onto the road. Which is how it is now. Which is how it is now. Right. The only difference with this is one, the building, of course, is relocated and it's a little bit larger of a site. So that public does not ever access this facility. So an employee, there's never a case when an employee is not driving from the garage to the QTA? Not normally. The only time they would be to deposit the keys back to the terminal building is by a pedestrian walkway directly there. But how do you get, I'm going to flip back to the other page because I can see it better. Here, like if you're here or you put your car here at the day, how do you walk like through this massive driveways? Or do you not? You really don't. Okay. And we wouldn't encourage that either because this is meant for just the vehicle traffic. Yeah, we definitely did not design this for a pedestrian path because that's not the intent of that at all. We would want that to be vehicle traffic only going through there. So if you leave a car, I assume this is like car stacking that you leave cars there. Correct. If you are a driver and you leave a car there, where do you go? What's your next stop? So usually you're going to stack in the back of the line. And most likely you're going to grab the front car and go through the routine of fueling, washing, and then bringing it back in here to grab an additional vehicle. And at the end of the day, you do the same and then you just leave it in the garage or something. Yeah. So... I'm sorry to play with this. I have rented a car from the grocery store. And then when you go from the little terminal where the baggage claim is, and then you go pick it up in the garage, and when I returned it, I brought it back there. Under this scenario, I would bring it into the... No. No, no, I'd still bring it back to the garage. Correct. Okay. No change. And then an employee would pick it up in the garage, bring it through there in order to wash it and do everything. Correct. And then bring it back to the garage. Correct. Got it. That's correct. All right. So that... I may be misunderstanding with the question and I do apologize if I am, but... The only foot traffic is going to be that individual from the terminal to the garage where the car has been parked or after they've parked it back to the terminal. Yes. That's going to be the significant amount of foot traffic. An employee traffic is always going to be a car from the QTA to the garage, pick up a car in the garage and take it back to QTA. The employee is never going to be walking. I wouldn't say always. There's going to be occasional walking through this crosswalk through this scenario as it is today to get either in a regular operation where it's not going back through the facility. It's health book coming back here or to start the day at the shift, let's call it. So you would have some pedestrian, some staff walking but not a significant amount of time. The significant use is going to be within a vehicle itself. Okay. Other questions, comments on that? Thank you very much for that. Sure. Comment number seven. We talked about this, this is just the design. So I think we're okay on that. I didn't hear any requests for additional consideration of this. Staff comment number eight, interior parking islands. So this is in reference to the 10% interior parking island. And we contemplated this quite extensively and it's very, very difficult and not a traditional use for a facility like this. There would be no way to put an interior parking, excuse me, an interior island or landscaped island within the facility itself. However, that grass stripped the new pervious area that I think we referenced in comment one. We're hoping that that could substitute that interior parking island. You're stacking and packing the cars back there. We're stacking and packing. These cars are significantly close together. It is not a traditional parking lot for sure. So if you go a little farther up in the document, you know, I agree with your statement. Staff agrees on your statement about the interior. And our comment was based on the sort of perimeter parking areas. The one where July was cursor is now and up at the top where it sort of hatched. Nope. So where back where your cursor was on the bottom opposite the road. Yeah. That's aisle. And then on the right hand side of the page, this is where the north arrow thing became a problem town. Down here, this area. That was the area. And, you know, don't have strong feelings about it, but I just want to point out that we weren't talking about necessarily the interior stacking area. It was more the areas that were designed as traditional parking spaces. So remind me again on the left side, that right against the building there? No, on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Yeah. Okay. And one of the reasons we designed every space that we have in there was because this is going to be at capacity, even with the limited, to us, this is a limited amount of parking spaces with these three major companies. So those parking on the right and the left, those two reference points are going to be crucial to the operation of this entirety. I know we're only talking about four spaces total, but again, the purpose, the traditional method of designing a quick turnaround facility like this is to maximize the amount of cars you can get in there. Why are the cars parked there in that configuration? Is it after they've been cleaned and they're waiting to go back to the garage? In some cases, yes, but there really isn't any more room for the traditional queuing spaces like that. So that's additional queuing spots right there. I'm both at the angled parking on the right side and the straight end parking. I might have to sort of park there and then go back into the queue to get into the car wash line. Either the queue or directly into the car wash bay itself. I would just remind the board that this is a bit precedent setting given our conversation last week with the folks who wanted to have a parking area for their car sales facility. You know, and if the board's going to tow the line on landscaping of parking areas for one project, they should do the same for... Is this... I'm sorry if I'm not seeing it correctly. Is this all under the roof or is this outside? Outside. Outside? Outside? Yes. I agree with Stan. Jerry parking outlets are required in this... They'll do it, right? So we're going to do it. So of those, just so I'm understanding correctly, of those... I think it was 30, 34 spaces, four of them would be relinquished to be a landscape interior island. Is that, am I understanding that correctly? Yes, so the requirement is for 10% of the interior of the parking lot to be landscaped. The board could make the interpretation that the parking lot is just the area of those spaces or they could make the determination that it's the whole area of some in between. Well, we made it the whole parking, the whole open area. Wouldn't we be intruding into the driving lane to get to and from the spaces? And in other hearings, again at sketch level, the board's recommendation was that for a motor freight terminal, this is not, but it's a similar sort of moving all the time sort of thing. The board didn't feel like that interior sort of operational area needed to be landscaped, but the exterior traditional parking area did. Again, it's sketch. Well, when you say the exterior operational area, you mean including the lanes, including the movement lane? That situation was different enough that there's no real strong analogy. They had sort of a motor freight terminal and then an employee parking separate. And so the... What I'm trying to get at is if you had to take 10% out of the whole area. Right. Where would you do it? I mean, what was the whole area? You could take 10% of it, is that what you're saying? Yeah, what's the difference in square footage between taking out parking spots and taking out 10% of the whole open area? I mean it's up to the board that they're part of the area that's used as a parking lot. You could say it's the parking spaces plus the drive aisles immediately adjacent to them. I don't know if you can zoom in a little bit on either of those two areas. Just control and use the scroll wheel. So in that area, you could say that adjacent drive aisle plus the 20-foot spaces. It's one option. I mean it's ultimately up to the board. Well, in this case, I am resolved over here. I think we ought to take out, we ought to only consider the area occupied by the spaces because I think they need the area, the rest of the area for movement. Thank you. Marked area. Is this like a marking plan? And those are ballards to protect the building? That's an area where there's not to be any cars parked. What is it? Right now it's just marked pavement, right? That was the pavement markings. Basically, there were 3D people from parking there. Could they get their vegetation there? Put some vegetation in there? Put some vegetation in there? Some sort of... That way you wouldn't have to take out any parking spots. Is it 10% of the parking spots or 10% of the square foot of those parking spots? 10% of the interior. The parking lot should be landscaped. 10% of the interior sounds like square footage. So, enough to cover for parking spaces? Perfect. Yeah, I think we can make that happen. We'll definitely look at that. And I think that's a great site for that green space. Will you come back with a redesigned sketch to show it? Can I make a suggestion or request Larry Laggy at the airport? Can we make a condition of the permit and have staff approve it? So, this is preliminary and final. It's preliminary and final. The board doesn't know what it'll look like. We can't close. So, let's table that decision, I guess, until we hear what else needs to be fixed. Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's move on. So, one thing that isn't in red after staff comment, number eight, is curbing is required, but that we need to have demonstration of compliance with the criterion against any required plan modifications. Just to note that. So, if there's any changes, we'll just have to make sure curbing is okay. And on to number nine, offsite landscaping. All right. So, we did talk about this at sketch as well and I defer to you as well and hear your comments as well. We still would propose that offsite landscaping plan as we've submitted. So, I'm fine with that. I thought it was a great plan. I thought it was very helpful to the neighborhood, to the aesthetic screening and so on. So, I'm good with it. Comments, happy to hear. If I understand it right, nobody gains anything from arbitrary landscaping on the interior of the airport as opposed to beautifying the neighborhood, basically. Right, exactly. I think I'm in accord with that. In fact, this close to our fence line, we would definitely not landscape, especially with tree heights, considering the proximity to the airfield. So, it'd be very difficult to landscape anything closer. I think we should move on. Number's 10 and 11. Screening along a lot lines. So, go ahead. Did I hear someone say something? Okay. It looks to me as though we are, we are looking for screening here. Do I understand this correctly, Marla? There's no exception to this rule where a commercial district, a but's undeveloped residential lots. Right, so 1306C, which is sort of, I guess I didn't excerpt that one, requires landscaping where industrial districts have but residential districts. It does not say that that landscaping has to be within the commercial district. So, their location of the landscaping on the residential side of that residential commercial line is fine, in staff's opinion. Yup. Yup, certainly a mine. Do you have a comment? Provide an estimated value of the on-site landscaping for inclusion-required landscape bond. Guys, you okay with that? Yeah, we've done a, we haven't had these comments for a lengthy period, but we did a preliminary takeoff on that and it's approximately $22,000. Just for reference. We'll refine that number and it may be different when you see it, but it's approximately that. Which is about half. Yup, it was 45. And the board would be okay with that as a conditional approval? I am, yes. Yup. And then address the comments of the arborist? Yeah, that's fine. Go through those in detail if you want to hear or just that we want to see them on the plans, but you're coming back with revised plans next time, right? They'd like to go directly, they'd like to have us approve. They'd like to close. They'd like to close. Close. We can do a condition. Yeah. I can, if it's helpful, we'd be happy to take those off for you just so you can understand what we are going to do. Actually, I was more concerned with the other point about the island for the parking. And we'll just see that. We'll get back to that one. Yup. So, come back to this. So the comment, I guess, to summarize, if you're coming back anyway. That was my comment. Incorporate these things into the next, prior to the next hearing. If not, the board's comfortable with these being a conditional approval. Yes. I'm confused. No. Haven't we decided they're coming back for the island? No. We haven't yet decided that. We put a pin in that one. We're going to come back to it. What we're saying with this is that if we decide to take that pin out and make them come back, this has to be in it. And if not, if we put that pin back in and decide to go ahead, this has to be a conditional approval. That makes sense. Right. We'll do that. Common number 13. Or a water separator design. Yeah. Basically, we'll certainly provide that. We have a draft of it already put together, and you'll see that. If you make that a condition, we'll submit it. My number 14. You'll certainly do that. True protection. Yep. There's notes on the plans to address that. Yep. Comment number 15. Fire access be adequately addressed. Yes. I met with Chief Francis about this yesterday and we went over the plan in detail and he provided some very specific guidance on what he needed to see there. So just generally the design of the entrance, the south entrance, the geometry of that won't change, but what we're doing is changing the pavement treatment so that there's no curbing there that will preclude the emergency vehicles from entering there. So we'll do it in a manner similar to what was done at CBS and down at One Dorset Street here where there's a relatively wide opening, but they've used like a cobblestone treatment and a very, very low mountable curve there. We're going to do the same thing. Your current plans that you have on file show the curbing. Can you point out where you'd be removing the curbing? Essentially, what they do is they use a design vehicle that has a wheelbase of 40 feet and we will be taking the curve out so that the emergency vehicle can make a turn off of the airport circle and enter this area here. So what it would amount to would be probably removing curbing on the nose of this island. So you still have to figure out how much, like how deep that would have to be removed. You still have to spend some time figuring out how deep the curbing would have to be removed, how far from the apex of that. Yeah, we haven't done a geometry on that yet, but we'll run the design vehicle through there and that will determine how far back we will move it. We're removing the curve, but I think a better way to say it is we're changing the treatment through that area because there will be a mountable curve and a textured pavement in there. So it will be... So you're going to pull the nose back but you'll have different materials to distinguish it. Is still an area that shouldn't be mounted unless you've absolutely... Yeah, that's right. It's reused by emergency vehicles and it'll still appear as an island from a visual standpoint so that traffic is separated there. And the motorized gate and the OptiCom system? Yes, we'll provide those. Is that your understanding of the fire chief's concern? Information, sir. Yeah, it has to be. Does the chief come back inside? Yeah, that solves it. I haven't talked to him. So that sounds like... I don't think we can close with that, right? We need more detail. I think we need that detail. One more time. What do we still have to finish the last? In which case there are three things to be covered. One is the parking island, the arborist request and the curb removal. And we still haven't got to the bikes and the lockers. Okay. Number 16, last comment. Which is the bicycle rack and the clothes locker? So on that new Pervious section that we discussed earlier, that's where we would put this new bicycle rack. Okay. And then the interior, the long-term bicycle storage for the new building? So... I guess I need more clarification on what a long-term bicycle... this is long-term storage of a bicycle. So the idea... I mean, you can read it in the LDRs yourself, but the idea is for someone who rode their bike to work who wants it stored out of the elements. And it's required for all new buildings. Staff's recommendation, since this building doesn't really fit the form of keeping your bicycle in it, maybe the board would allow them to put it in another existing building. They're required long-term bicycle storage space in maybe that existing building that they're proposing to retain, that's going to be used as an office building for the QTA terminal, QTA area, or within the terminal or something, because staff agrees that this standard doesn't fit this use very well, but it is a requirement. It's a great idea to provide that flexibility. I think it's great. They have extra storage for bicycles at the airport for someone who lives near the airport and could avoid parking fees. And overall at the airport, we do have biking racks inside the parking garage, just outside the parking garage. We do have interior parking storage in our baggage claim area as well. So we'd be happy to look at that further as well. That's a little bit tricky because we didn't really want to recommend that you be on the hook for meeting the bike parking standards for the airport as a whole, because then you have to go, even if it's no more work than you've already done, even if it's no more bike storage than you already have, you still have to go out and do the work and count and demonstrate and everything else. So when you start pulling in like the terminal and the parking garage and stuff, it seems like, well, if we're going to go there, we should look at what the requirements are for the whole system. And we didn't really want to go there. So we just said, do the two for the QTA. But they don't have to be in the QTA. It can be an adjacent area, is that what you're saying? Right. It's just one. Right. And that's up to the board to make the determination and where to draw that line. If we're going to consider the whole airport property as appropriate for locating that, should we be considering whether the whole airport property meets or should it be located in a location that's proximate to the QTA or something? I don't know. Or should we be considering whether this is the kind of building that triggers the requirement? It's not an option. And just for clarification, this site and the lease associated with the site with the car rental facility or car rental companies does not allow employee parking on this site. We would probably add the biking to them. To us, the new grass area right there would work. But no other vehicles of employee parking is going to be on this site. I think we're okay with the outside bike parking. It's the inside bike parking. Long term storage. Let me ask you a question. Are you keeping your old cleanup facility? I forget what they're called. Your old cleanup facility? The proposals? Yeah. No, that will be demolished as part of this project. Are you increasing the number of employees responsible somehow for getting this stuff done? We're going from two companies to three companies. Okay. All right. So there's more employees? Again, it's not an optional requirement. But no more employees overall. Those three companies still operate at the airport. So there is an option. And we've seen it on other projects that the bike or some of the space that's going to be what is to be pervious area. There are shelters that you can put up. I mean, if you don't want to look at putting a couple extra long term spaces inside the terminal that's close to this or in the existing structure that's going to be left, there are also little shelters that you can put over a bike rack where the bike kind of hangs by one of the wheels by the frame in this direction. So that's also an option. If you want to take a look at that and do you have some designs? Do you have some products that fit that design? Actually... Putting it in the garage and stuff. We're only talking minimum of one. So that was Gene Richards, director of aviation. One thing he's mentioned was if we do want to go the route of the entire airport we would be happy to bring the entire airport up to speed on the parking of long and short term biking bike storage at the airport. So we'd be looking for you to make that calculation. I guess it sounds to me like they've got some options on the table. They're continuing anyway. I'm happy to talk to John and Nick right now in the next hearing. We'll figure out where the long term one goes whether you do one or you look at the whole airport. No, you want to do a preliminary and final but I think some minor issues that we clean up and we can... So that's great. I think that's it for staff comments. Any other questions? Comments from the board? How much questions from the public? Hearing none. You sure you guys... What's a good... What's a good date? How's April 16th? Those are too crowded now. Oh, I don't know. Well, Jean, you want this one or you want the hotel on April 16th? We'll be quick on the April 16th so the motel... So we've just continued Dorset Meadows to the 16th. We have an appeal to consider on that night and then I think we have room for one more project. I have the application for the airport hotel. It's not complete so technically we should allow this one to go but I figure since they're here they could make the case if they wanted to. I would like both. We will be very prepared to do all your comments. If there's a way to include both it would be great for us. The construction season is short and we would appreciate any consideration. They're both big projects and they mean a lot to us to get into the ground this year but I also understand you're very busy and there's a lot of other commitments but if there's a way to fit us in we would appreciate it. I don't think this one will take very long. Should we go to the third? We can move to the... We can't do the second. The second is pretty full already. That's true. This shouldn't take more than 20 minutes if they do what they said they were going to do. We're going to do what we said we were going to do. All right, April 16th. I move that we continue preliminary final plot application SD 1907 in the city of Burlington and Burlington International Airport for April 16th. Second. Moving second. We continue this to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Abstain. You're next. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That's right. Next on the agenda we have minutes from February 20th, 2018. I looked at this and I thought, wait a minute. You're in a month ago. All right. I remember everything that happened and it's 100% correct. I move we accept the meeting. Hang on. Under number 7 on page 6 the first line says Ms. Smith left the meeting. I took a bio break. Did you return before that was done? My note said you left and I didn't say whether you came back because I couldn't remember. I remember the conversation, the doors were there and all that. Thank you. We'll take that out. Frank moves as amended by Jennifer. As amended by Jennifer. Bio break. Bio break. Bio break. All in favor of approving the minutes? Thank you. As amended. Thank you. That's the end of the meeting 825. Bio break is broader than a bathroom break. Remember we're televised.