 Okay, good evening. Yeah. And welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for March 7th, 2023. I'm Dawn Filibert, I'm the chair of the board and I'd like to introduce other board members who are present. Stephanie Wyman and Quinn Mann, John Stern, Frank Kochman, Mark Baer, and from the staff, the city staff, Marla Keane and Paul Conner, director of planning. Thank you all for being here. There are a number of ways to participate in this hearing. One is to attend as you are. And if you are doing so, it's important that you sign in with your contact information in the back table to record your participation should you ever wish to challenge any of the decisions later. People can also attend virtually. And if you do that, it would be helpful if you submit your comments, I mean your contact information on the chat function. And if you call in, please let us know you're calling in by emailing Marla with your contact information. And her email is M-K-E-N-E at SouthBurlingtonVT.gov. This meeting is being recorded. And I would like to start with number one on the agenda emergency evacuation procedures. There are doors in the back of each corner of the auditorium. In case we have to evacuate, go out those doors and turn left or right and you'll be outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Nope. Hearing none. Announcements. I would like to make an announcement. Yes, thank you. Our board member Stephanie Wyman has just been named Young Engineer of the Year in Vermont. So congratulations Stephanie. We are pleased that you're with us and work with us and thank you for that. Are there any other announcements or reminders? Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Pardon me, not related to the agenda. Hearing none. We will go ahead and start reviewing projects. Okay. Agenda item number five. Continued sketch plan application SD 2302 of Casey Douglas to subdivide an existing 1.29 acre lot development with a single family home and barn located within an existing 5.52 acre plan unit development into two lots of 0.69 acres, lot 6A, and 0.60 acres lot 6B for the purpose of demolishing the existing single family home and barn and constructing a new single family dwelling on each lot at 1200 Dorset Street. Who is here for the applicant? Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Hi Dave, welcome. Let's go ahead and swear you in. Let me just ask first, are there any recusals or disclosures? No, okay. Raise your right hand. Sketch plan. Do you solemnly swear to tell the sketch? No swearing at sketch. Oh sketch, this is still sketch, okay. No swearing at sketch. Just so keep it clean. Yeah, Don, can I interrupt for just one second because we don't have CCTV here. I just wanna make sure, can somebody at home turn on your mic and make sure that you can tell us that you can hear us and we'll make sure that we can hear you. I can hear you. Great, thank you, Casey. All right, we're good. Great, thanks. Okay, so one of the issues that we, the board talked about during our earlier deliberations today was an issue that came up two weeks ago around should we be reviewing this as a subdivision within the PUD or an amendment to the existing PUD? And the board decided that we want to review this as a PUD amendment. Now, my question to Marla is, what does that mean for our discussion tonight or having decided that? Are we, do we have everything we need to close? I think so, unless Dave has any questions for you. No, we're just looking for a direction for me. Okay, any other comments from the board or questions? No, I think the pretty clear direction at the last meeting. Great, I'd entertain a motion to close. Nope, you don't need to do a motion to close. Just see you next time for public comments. Are there any public comments? None online. Okay, all right, thank you. See you next time. Thanks. I think Dave might be representing the next project too. Item number six, final plat application SD 2303 of civil engineering associates to amend a previously approved plan for a 10 unit plan unit development. The amendment consists of reducing the front setback for lot eight 80 long drive from 30 feet to 20 feet at zero long drive. Who, who are here for the applicants? Okay, thank you. Any disclosures or accusals? Nope, okay, hearing none. Is this a final plat application? Is it just the three of you? Do you have anyone online participating? No, okay, I'm gonna swear you in. Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Okay, thank you. Could you please lean in a little bit and make sure your mic is on. Yeah, feel free to pull those right up. Okay, what we're going to do is walk through the staff report and focus on any comments that are made or questions. So this application constitutes a minor amendment to an existing PUD. So- Can I give a little exposition on this? Sure. So the board might, most members I think have been here for Long Drive in some form or another. Long Drive is a 10 lot subdivision within the golf course. It's a bit funny in that it was largely decided by the courts. So the rules are largely, there are some DRB elements that hold, but it was a decision that was issued by the courts. And one of the major components was that this tree stand, which exists within the golf course, needs to remain a visual significant element of the South Burlington skyline. And so to that end, there is a tree preservation handbook and tree preservation plan, which CEA has been a wonderful steward of and has worked very closely with us to make sure everybody's 100% on the same page about what can and cannot be done in those. This was written 10 years ago more. And it was written by the court, so it doesn't necessarily read the way it would read if we had written it or if the engineer had written it, but either way, it's what we're all beholden to. This application is to amend the setbacks approved as part of that subdivision. It's not to amend the tree preservation area or to amend the rules that affect that tree preservation area, but it's to request that the Allens be allowed to reduce the front setback on law eight from 30 feet to 20 feet so that they have 10 more feet in which to build their building. I think that there has been a little bit of confusion about how that interplays with the tree preservation area. And we can talk about that as we go through the project. Do you have a question, Mark? No, okay. No, I'm just... Thank you, Marlon. Let's go to... Let me just ask, do you have any brief comments to make before we go through the staff comments? I don't, I thought it was a good staff report and I think we can answer Marlon's questions. Okay, good. All right, so number one, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the impacts of the tree preservation zone of their proposed building footprint with and without the modifications of the front setback. And I'm happy to do so. Please do. The sketch that's on the screen right now depicts a potential footprint for a house with the proposed 20-foot front yard setback. The 30-foot setback isn't shown on that sketch. Would you please speak up and pull the mic toward you? We wanna make sure all the members of the board can hear you. Okay, so the sketch that you're looking at is depicting the 20-foot front yard setback. We've shown a footprint that's been moved forward to that. I wanna make a note that the 20-foot front yard setback is the current dimensional standard for the underlying zone. So we're not asking for any type of variance. We're asking for some relief, allowing this house to be able to be positioned forward so that we can create some more space or some buffer for patio, deck, garden area between the house and the tree preservation line. If this house was 10 feet back, that 20-foot dimension that we're showing would be 10 feet and put a set of steps. We're working on a lot that is sloping from the cul-de-sac easterly at about 8% or 9% downhill. And so there's grading issues that would be really benefited by keeping the house forward. And it has no effect actually on the cutting or the tree preservation line. We've shown that although the preservation line would have to be moved with the house in certain parts of it that don't overlap the existing footprint that was kind of approved. Yeah, that part gets really confusing. The tree preservation handbook allows clearing within 20 feet of the building footprints that were proposed at the time it was written. So Jack has shown that black dashed line is the footprint that was shown. So that blue blob without the hand markups is what would have been allowed if the Allens were to build their home exactly where Paul is just outlined in red. If the Allens don't build in that they can keep the portions of the blue that they are still within but the portions of the blue that they're not within which Jack has shown with that handwriting scratch out they wouldn't get that tree clearing area anymore. What this change wouldn't do is it wouldn't allow them to construct the home within the tree preservation area which is the light yellow hatch. So the way they've shown this sample footprint wouldn't exactly work but they could still build forward 10 feet and it's that so Paul is outlining it now there to the left of that red line that Paul just drew would still not be allowed and to the right of that second line Paul just drew would still not be allowed. This wouldn't change the tree preservation area and what can be built in it. Okay, questions but this is just a sample. Questions, comments? I guess one question I have is right now, I mean, I've been out there a lot this past winter because I just walk it and I've noticed that you guys lost quite a few trees out there it seems to be every other week and there's a couple in the golf course that are leaning precariously into the development that are definitely have to come down. Where we have present, do you have a cataloging of what preservation trees have actually been lost out there? We inventoried and updated this plan a few years ago with certified arborist Bill DeVos from TreeWorks and he and I went out there, we inventoried what was remaining in good shape and made comments about trees but that's dynamic, that change in the windstorm and so we don't have inventory of what's been lost. Okay, well I know they've been tagged, right? The trees that are to be preserved to be tagged. Yes, and I'm just wondering if you know approximately how many of those tagged trees have been lost because it seems though every week I go and walk and there's another tree that's been cut because they blocked the road going through there they've, you know, there's, I'm just wondering how many trees that are in the tree preservation area have already gone down and it's not saying it's a good point because I think it is very important for this that this tree preservation area is maintained at the best of its ability but, you know, are there trees in the outline area that are gonna be affected? I guess that's my question. By moving this set back forward? Yep. No, okay. And then the next question is, I noticed on the subdivision plan that this is the only lot that's proposed to be moved from 30 feet to 20 feet. We did that, we, the Allen's work with Paul they're coming up with ideas, all kinds of ideas. Some of these were before we helped Marla and Paul and Marty sort out the original footprint and the 20 foot buffers but there were things that this was a concept that seemed to make sense and still seems to make sense in terms of trying to maintain space from the back of the house to that buffer line. And so... Yeah, no, no, I'm not disagreeing that it doesn't make sense because you're right, the topography out there is pretty steep and drastic. I guess my question is like, I think lot nine has been built, correct? That is correct. And lot six has been built. Are those the only two houses that have been built out there? Yes. Okay. Nine obviously is maintaining that 30 foot front yard setback. Yes. You're asking to move lot eight to 20 feet. My, I guess the only thing I'm asking is if the rest of the lots are built at the 30 foot is this gonna feel out of character for the neighborhood? I don't think so. And the reason I don't think so is because as you come, turn off a golf course road and you come around the corner, the road splits and drives downhill to the east and it's fairly level in the houses above on the west side, the great dramatic great change there. I think it's gonna look natural. And I think that with the tree preservation between a line between seven and eight and maybe some replanting, I don't think it's gonna affect the curb appeal of the subdivision. I think the topography and the layout of the lots is I don't, I agree. I don't think it's gonna be noticeable. I'm just sort of just noting that it's the only lot that's gonna be going down to 20 feet and the rest of maintain in the 30 foot. And I will say that the just the shape of them not necessarily the 20 foot buffer that polygon is pretty uniform but the tree preservation line was very jagged and very segmented. And that's a little unlike the rest of the properties other than maybe lot 10, 10s down and I'll tucked in a little hole or five. But anyway, that's. Could you orient me a little bit? Is the buffer, is the tree buffer between long drive and the structures or between the golf course and the structures? It's between the golf course and the structures most of it, some of it darts in and out between the houses and it would vary depending on what lot you were looking at. My sense is that it was set to basically give some space for buildings but otherwise retain all the trees. So it's like the, it's almost like the home pads are carve outs from the long drive tree preservation area. I don't know if you'd agree with that assessment or not. Any other questions before we move on? We have what we need, okay. Sorry, just go ahead, John. You said nine is already built out. Yep. Are they gonna complain about the 20? Are we gonna be hearing from them? No, they've talked to the owners of that lot and they had nothing negative to say. Let's see. The second comment from the staff, it is about the garage setback and the regulations require garages to be setback eight feet from the front of the house. What are your thoughts about that? That was quite honestly, this footprint was drafted as a concept and my thoughts on it would be, this would be a great place to sort of wave that requirement because we're trying to create space in the backyard for activities or a terrace or a raised bed garden or whatever the Allens enjoy doing. They have kids, they might have a play area there. But with that being said, if it's all dependent on whether the house is allowed to be moved forward. Right. Because I guess if it stays, if that wouldn't be approved and there was a 30-foot setback that Marla can clear this up, but my understanding is that eight feet would go away. Is that correct Marla? Because it's a pre, this was part of a approved PRD prior to 2018 when the rule changed. Right, yep. And so effectively by moving this garage back eight feet now we're gonna be in the same location that it would be very close to where it would have been allowed. The garage would be right. Yes. But the house. But the house would be forward. I think from a design and the giving flexibility in terms of design once again, with grading and a driveway that's going downhill, being able to keep the garage closer to the street is really helpful, but. And we can waive the eight foot requirement. So the way it is laid out in the staff report is that it's a question of whether the board considers, sorry, this was one that Marty did. So I'm trying to phrase it succinctly. These are standards that are under the current LDR because they're asking for an amendment to the current LDR. Usually we say, okay, everything that you're touching has to meet the current rules. This is sort of marginal because does this affect the current? Does this, is this proposal affecting this rule or is it not affecting this rule? And that's up for you guys to decide. So the standard is buildings have to be going to the street and the garages have to be set back eight feet because they're requesting a setback change. Are they now subject to this rule? Well, I know that we try to avoid having garages lush with the house or in front of the house because it's not as, your eyes go right to the garage. It's not as aesthetically pleasing, but could we, for example, say five feet or four feet so that- Right, yeah, you could modify the standard. It is a PUD and dimensional standards are modifiable under a PUD. What do other folks think about this? I'd like to know whether the designer thinks that requiring some recess is not feasible. It is feasible. I was just suggesting that, I mean, it would be nice if it could be a little more forward, just because of this space that we're trying to create on the backside of that flexibility. But if we had to, we're held to that eight foot standard, it really wouldn't, the buffer gets moved back. So if we moved it back forth, in other words, if we adjusted the eight feet to four feet, but we still had to be in such behind the globe and you could live with that. Absolutely. So this is something the board can decide on deliberations as well. You just need enough information to close. You don't need to make a decision in the moment. You could live with that. Well, I'm speaking on behalf of that. I should let John speak, but it is high adventure in the Vermont winters with the actual, we're trying to avoid crashing a car into the garage. If you guys know the gray there, you walk it all the time. You can understand what's going to happen, right? Yeah. You're going to hear the crash on the walk as I drive into the driveway. So we're just trying to do a safety thing there too. And we don't want to build anything that's going to look weird architecturally. We need to understand the footprint to do the architecture. We're kind of going to catch 22. And this is what we're trying to get to. And we do want to have more of a backyard there because so it doesn't look weird against the tree preservation. So by pulling it up actually gives a better view for the people on the right, the provost, our neighbors on the left. And as you said, Mar-a-la, it's a weird lot. And so we're just trying to, Paul gave us some guidance on how to make it easier. So one question I have is the footprint that we're seeing looking at on this sketch where you've modified the tree buffer. It's not at the 20 foot line. Are you planning on putting the house at the 20 foot or are you just asked for 20 feet to give you the flexibility to move it forward beyond the 30 foot footprint that was approved? No, here's the 20 feet. And then you can see the garage is probably another foot or two away from it. But the main house is probably three or four feet at like 23 or 24 feet. Can you bring that diagram? We didn't push the house right to the front Well, that's my question. And we could. I'm saying is our, you know, if we move forward with this and we grant the 20 foot, you know, but we also ask you to recess the garage, the three feet, four feet, you know, if you not saying I'm not advocating pulling it all the way to the 20 foot point, but if you bring the house forward and move the garage back slightly, you're probably gonna end up with the same backyard area. That's our thought. And we didn't press, we didn't put the footprint right to the setback. We're not passing on location. We're not passing on the footprint. We're just passing on the setback. Yes, it's not an issue. Yes. I want to clarify, you're saying that there's a steep pitch there. And it's not, it's 8%. It's an 8% slope practically from the setback lying down to the 89% slope. Invision, what happens if you move it back four feet? Not four feet isn't significant enough You're still getting studded. We're still gonna get everything that Alan's want really. Yeah. Marla, can I ask you a question? I understand this was a project, those were mended back to us. And so therefore it originally was the previous regulations, which didn't require the garages to be setback AP, but because we're touching the regulations, we have some flexibility, but the staff comments we're addressing the current regulations are the other nine lots in the subdivision not required to have the, they could have the garage, eight feet in front of the main house. Unless they came in for an amendment of setback or some other amendment, yes. All right. Some of these lots are even trickier than this one. Lot 10 for instance, sort of laid out so that the tree preservation area is all along the front, except for space for a driveway. So you have to kind of weave through. I wouldn't be surprised to see that lot in for a request of amendment at some point as well. Any other questions or? My only comment is at this point I'm not even as concerned about even asking for the garage to be setback if it could potentially be the only house in the neighborhood with a setback garage. I mean, if you do it, I think it'd be a better architectural. There's a reason why the regulations are there, but. The point, but we don't know that yet. In other words, if those houses aren't built yet. Right, but they're not required under the regulations to do it. But they may wind up with setback. You said the garage is anyway a little better. Yeah, but you're right. Right, so I advocate you pushing it back, but I don't know if I'm needed. I don't know if I personally would need it to be a condition, but it's setback because none of the other houses are required by it only to keep the neighborhood feel to it. So it's only required for when you have the doors facing the street too. Right. But there's not much room for these lots. Further pass on the side in the SQ and garage setbacks have been in the SQ for longer than they've been citywide. Right. And even before that in the SQ, there was the in the golf course, PUD, garages had to be flush and not protruding. Yeah. So it doesn't apply here, but it does apply to other portions of the golf course, PUD. I think it's something we can discuss in deliberations. It sounds like the applicant is amenable to whichever solution allows you guys to move forward with the project. So yeah. And I think we can be reasonable into deliberations. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions? OK, let's pause a minute to take some public comment. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Any online, Paul? No. OK, thank you. Yes. Yes, I'm here. Yes. Hello. Hi, this is Mike Provost. I'm at 170 Golf Course Road, so I'm the adjacent property owner and I also own the Lot 7 next to this. OK. So my my concern is, is that well, two things, if this gets approved, you've got eight other lots that all of a sudden come in and want to make adjustments and changes. And when I bought Lot 7, I asked about these things and was told that because this was a court decision that this could not be changed. And I was stuck with the limitations that were there. So I just don't see how this can get decided upon by you. I think it has to go back through the court systems. And the other thing is Lot 6 has already been before you for a rear yard setback from 30 to 26, and that was denied. So I don't know how the precedent is set and how you can approve this one, but denying the request on Lot 6. And again, I'm concerned that, you know, you do this one and you got eight other people coming back in to move this forward. This was asked by the court to set these parameters and they wanted to know what was going to be built in here if they gave the developer the the you know, if they ruled on this and they were pitched a plan with a street preservation plan, and that's what they went with. So I just as much as I'd like this house as far away from Lot 7 as possible, I just don't I don't want to see this set as a precedent for the other lots. And the other concern I had was and I think Marilla addressed it is part of that building footprint is in the tree preservation plan. So is that just an error? That's not an error when we place that. Basically, that footprint of that house overlays on top of the existing of the approved footprint. You can see that if you build exactly that buffer in the tree preservation handbook in a cleared area. You have the ability or they was designed in that cleared area to be able to build accessory structures, driveways, playgrounds. That's not the way I interpret it. You can you can clear 20 feet from the house, but you can't have structure on there. Well, that says that structures are allowed in a cleared area. And that's where it's in there in the original, not the 20 foot buffer. So clear, you can clear in the original outline. And then there's a 20 foot buffer that if you have to clear to put the house in, that's OK, but you can't build a house in there. We generally don't get into back and forth dialogue during public comment, but please tell us if you have any other thoughts that you'd like to share and we'll consider all of this during our deliberation. Now, that's again, I think you can sense my frustration with this whole project. And you know, the city was totally against this for 20 years. And now that now that we're here, all of a sudden there's there's no one watching this project. And like someone mentioned, there's several trees that have come down. So it just seems like anything goes now. And we've got individual lot owners coming back in amending this court order decision and trying to change the footprint of the house. So it's not what we were told and what we were, you know, what what we have been told the last 20 years. And I think there's a lot seven to give me a buffer to hopefully be removed from this project. And when I purchased that, again, I went through all these questions and was told, no, you can't do this. This is what it is. And that's the end. They've got the rest of it soon. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, we'll be able to find documentation of. Mike. Yeah, so I can certainly share the tree preservation handbook with you guys. If there's any questions you want to discuss now, you know, you're certainly welcome to do that as well. Yeah, I'd like to ask a question. Mr. Provost raises a good question or a good point, because obviously this was a project that was remanded back to the DRB and we had very limited scope for review. So, you know, I do have a question whether or not we as a DRB are allowed to make modifications to the setbacks. And if that was one of the things that was remanded back to us, or is that something that we as the board put in when we, it was a remanded back for our review? Gosh, that's a great question, Mark. Paul, do you remember if the setbacks were part of the remand or were that decided by the board? You know, the tree preservation area was handed to you. Yes, you had to make decisions on other things. And yeah, I mean, the history of it was that the city initially denied the project for development and habitat block. The e-court approved the existing approved a plan with the tree preservation handbook and then said, proceed to final plat for the board. Right. I it's hard. I don't think that the court sort of individually picked out pieces of it. So I would say, I mean, the board approved a preliminary plat. So if it was in the preliminary plat, sorry, the the court approved the preliminary plat. So if it was in the preliminary plat, however, I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, we can talk about this in deliberation. But when you talked about an application on lot six, there was the question of what authority does the board have. And I believe that your guidance was that the board has some authority to look at modifications so long as they are within the boundaries of what the what was the intent of all that and that still a couple of Highlands is not tripped as re-evaluating something that was decided previously without a change in circumstance. Maybe it's too far in the weeds to get a clear answer here. But what was the basis of denial in the first place, which is the only way we can determine what it was that the court decided? Right. Broadly speaking, the basis of the original denial from the DRB was that there was a standard in the regulations that said, I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact words, but protect wildlife habitat. The board denied the entire project based on that. That went all the way up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that that standard was invalid and therefore approved the project on all of itself was invalid. Yes. OK, so the court then, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that there was a particular plaque at the book that was before the court, when it ruled on it, does not limit our ability to make any amendments we would make to any any other plan, because that's simply not something the court, the court constrained. It said, you know, the the habitat standard is invalid, doesn't apply. Go forth. Right. Now, the reason, right. Now, the court approved a tree preservation plan as part of there. So in the remand from the Supreme Court to the environmental court, the environmental court had agreed on the tree preservation plan. So that's part of their decision, ultimate decision. OK. But since what I'm trying to get as and I think that's incidental to the to the what we call the gravament of decision, that's not what the case was about. Yeah. Right. The case was about an invalid standard. The fact that they approve the particular plan does not should not. And now it's back in our court shouldn't limit our jurisdiction to consider modifications to that plan. If the LDR otherwise permit those particular modifications, as long as we're not touching on this habitat, right. You see what I'm saying? That makes sense. Yes. And the the court in approving the tree preservation plan looked at there were other standards of aesthetic and other elements of creating sort of a visual. Forced appearance that wasn't about habitat per se. It was a but I agree with everything you're just saying. But I'm also not on the board. So OK. And if somebody if any of any interested person doesn't like it, they can take it back up. I do recall that when it was remanded back to us, our limited scope, I think our limited scope was literally limited to reviewing of the tree protection plan with the intent of what it was meant to do, which is to provide screening between the development and the golf course. Yeah, I pulled up the remanded decision from 2018 that I did work on. And there are a few standards that were invalidated by court, the courts and those, as Paul mentioned, were pertaining to the appearance of the area, habitat, protection, and then the other criteria continue to exist. So, you know, circulation and all the things that we're used to reviewing things for. But is there anything about this application that that makes an incursion upon the tree preservation plan? This application is really purely to move a setback and doesn't affect the tree preservation. There's we have some conversation about the rules, but the answer is. It depends on how we deal with that one corner. Right, but that's not this application. But that's not this application. And that's something that's just that's an interpretation of and and it may not come into play at all when the Allens and their architect have if they have a decision in their favor and they can start working on a design that works with the tree preservation area as as it's shown. That was a I had another conversation with Marty Gillis about that corner on Thursday before I submitted the application and that sketch was drawn based on that conversation. And if that's not quite right and we have to rework that, we will have that conversation again with all. Marla and Marty. OK, any other questions from the board looking for information to help us make this decision? Or are we set to move on? Hearing none and I still had a question. Can I? Sure. So what happens with that corner that, again, I'm in under the understanding that that's part of the tree preservation area can be built on. And that's my first question. The second question is how can you deny someone a rear yard setback of only four feet of an adjustment and then accept this one in the front yard, which is more of an impact on the neighborhood. So if you'd like me to answer the first question, maybe I can paraphrase what we've been saying, which is that the plan that was submitted with this application is a sample plan and they are not asking for approval of that building as shown. They're only asking for approval of a reduced front setback. So the building footprint is still being worked on. And what I have said is that I don't think that that would be allowed as they have it in the front corner. But CEA is saying they would. So that's something we decide administratively if the board approves the front setback or waiver as to. Second question, I've lost track of what it was. How could you restate the? Oh, about the yes. So that the denied application, if the board wants to hear more about the history there, I'd be happy to provide that either now or in deliberations. OK, I think that would be appropriate to hear in deliberations. OK, we understand it. Thank you. All right. Are are we ready to. Close, just be close. Yes, I actually have one more question. Sure, go ahead, Frank. When does the issue of the construction of the building? Thank you, Mike's not on your Mike's not on. I'm sorry. When does the issue of the construction of the building come before us? It won't. It's a zoning permit. Single family homes on their own lots are only subject to administrative review. So isn't the point well taken about the corner that in the incursion upon the tree preservation plan? I would encourage you to have faith in your professional planning and zoning staff. I have all the faith in the world. Thank you for your response. All right, I'll entertain a motion to close. Make a motion to close site plan application, S.T. twenty three oh three second second. Thank you. Any discussion on favor of closing S.P. twenty two oh two oh, say I am sorry. I think I had the wrong number. S.D. twenty three oh three. Say I, I, I, I, any opposed? No. OK, thank you. Thank you. Item number seven on the agenda. Can continued site plan application, S.P. twenty two oh two oh of Naglian Chase construction to construct a single story, twenty one thousand seven hundred nine ninety square foot office building, creating two thousand one hundred sixty square feet of outdoor storage and associated site improvements at thirty nine Bowdoin Street. Dave Marshall, you're back. Correct. I would just explain that what we have in front of us is a draft decision written by staff. And as soon as I can find it. So I think what we'll do is. Swear, David, for this one and then see look at any of the comments in the proposed decision findings of facts and decisions and then take it from there. So raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty perjury? I do. Thank you, Dave. OK, let's on. Yes, I'm recused from this item. OK, thank you, Stephanie. Are there any other disclosures or accuses? OK. And I think there's only if I recall, one comment. And I think Marla said that. That was a dress. Right. So the packet talks about how that the first page of the packet, there's a couple of them talking about how this has been continued since June of last year and wondering if we are going to get to a conclusion. I mentioned to the board as we were walking into this meeting, the applicant has done significant work over the past few days. And it sounds like we are getting to a conclusion. Dave is very lucky that you did or should be getting a severe hand slapping. I read that already. Yeah. So in terms of what is required, are we all set? Yes, I have heard from the city's stormwater department that they have made the changes necessary to address the comments. We have that plan. I did a little side by side myself earlier today. The changes to the plan involve a change in the configuration of the subsurface stormwater system and some minor tweaks to grading. I don't think that a layperson would notice the grading changes unless you think otherwise, Dave. No, in this particular case, things that have been integrated into the plan is an additional filter. It required that we do some grade changing on the parking lot on the west side and north being straight up on this particular plan to accommodate and make sure there is adequate cover over those particular storm chambers. And then the other thing on the south side, that south entryway because of the grading and the need to basically bring the site up, there is going to be a certain amount of that particular entryway. That drained back towards the street without any treatment. And what we're doing in this particular case is actually doing what they call mass balancing, where you take a portion of existing pavement that's not being treated and collect it, treat it, so that in the mass balancing of the overall project that what you're proposing, as far as new impervious services, is being mitigated with a stormwater management plan. So the latest challenge or change, I should say, is up off of the easterly entryway off of Bowdoin Street, where we're now collecting a portion of Bowdoin Street stormwater runoff and bringing that into the stormwater chamber for treatment and eventually through the filter before it's discharged back into the receiving waters. So we now have a project that has been reviewed. I understand there are two small conditions that the stormwater utility runs through. I understand there are two small conditions that the stormwater utility recommended to be included, and we're amenable to those. OK. Oh, I should probably note those conditions for the record, then an email from Monica. OK. The conditions are to update the EPSC plan to include the new layout with the catch basin that Dave mentioned has been added and then change the notes on the EPSC plan to show that they'll need a construction entrance and need to sweep the street as necessary. Any questions from the board? So it's like we've got all the information that we need and we can ask if there's any public comment. Is there any public comment from the audience or online? No. Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion to close the hearing. Make a motion and we close site line application SD 2220 39 Bowdoin Street. Thank you, Mark. Do I have a second? Good. Thanks. OK. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you again. OK. Number eight on the agenda, continued remanded master plan application MP 2102A of Beta Air LLC for plan unit development on five lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and an RV sales service and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the five lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres and consists of 344,000 square feet of manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 square foot commercial building, and an 85,000 square foot flight instruction, and airport use building on 40.43 acres of the resulting airport lot at 3070 Williston Road. Any recusals? Stephanie is still recused, I believe. Anyone else? Disclosures or recusals? OK. Who is here for the applicant? Aye. Art Klugeau, Beta Technologies. Aye. Chris Gendron with Stantec. And Jeff Hudson, Wagner Hudson. OK. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you. So on a continue, do we need to swear people in again? I don't know if they were all sworn in before. It doesn't hurt anything to do it again. OK. Raise your right hand, please. So I'm going to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you. OK, let me see. This is a fairly OK. This is kind of complicated. So we did discuss this project in deliberations early tonight. So what I would suggest we do is give you feedback from our decisions from our deliberation and then go back to the comments that we kind of put a pin in at the last meeting. OK. So the first issue is the issue of the management plan. There was some question about whether you were prepared to do that and commit to that. And our decision during deliberations is we must have a management plan. And there needs to be a responsible party who can speak to the entities responsible for the master plan. Do you have a question, Art? I do. I'm curious as to what that last part means so that we can provide the information that the board is requesting. I'm looking at the LDR, 15B05A7, and quote, defines a proposed management plan, quote, defines a management structure for the duration of the master plan that supports long-term project viability through project build-up. All right. I'm not going to pretend to you that this is black and white or easy to digest. We struggle with it as well, but I don't think it's totally inscrutable. I've been thinking about it myself. I think your argument, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is essentially, look, these permits run with the plan. Once we cut loose a parcel, responsibility falls to the new owner of that parcel to do his part. I think there are two things that are involved in assuming overall management responsibility for execution of the master plan. One is that impresses upon the manager the necessity of including that compliance explicitly in whatever the documents of conveyance, whatever the document of conveyance is with a remedy in that person who is ultimately responsible under the master plan. You see what I mean. In other words, you can't just cut it loose. We'll come back on the person. This at least seems coherent to me. That's all I'm saying. We'll come back because of what the LDR says. You put in a management plan. We go to see the person who is named in the management plan as the ultimately responsible person. Now, arguably, that could be a position. The CEO of beta, I don't know, whoever it is. If that person changes, then the identity changes according to the role, I would imagine. But it's one thing to say, we can pursue anybody who's responsible, who owns the lot. But the LDR is going further. It wants a single individual who's got overall responsibility, which can be managed in the contractual relationship between the grantor and the grantee of the conveyed parcel. So you say it's not only subject to all requirements of the management plan, but if you violate those, I, the person with the overall responsibility, have a remedy against you just as does the enforcement body. I'm trying to make something coherent that isn't crystal clear on its face. Do you at least understand what I'm saying? Understand and appreciate it as well, Frank. And maybe what wasn't clear in the presentation a couple of weeks ago is that currently beta technologies, because the mask actually the LDRs say to include all principles or entities. So we can go down the entity route here, which makes it, I think, the conversation easier. Beta technologies is responsible for design, construction, permitting, financing, execution of the master plan as we sit here today. We have no problems taking that responsibility on. We're the ones that are putting forth the master plan. The challenge that came out of the previous conversation was that it appeared that the board was stating that the master plan had to be executed in its entirety as it is currently conceived. And that if it is not, then the board retains the right, reserves the right to then pursue the entity, in this case beta technologies, if the master plan is not completed as it's currently conceived and before the board. And as we know, we're allowed to amend the master plan. The entity could be sold and somebody could come back and finish the master plan or may come before the board because the master plan would run with the entity. In that case, whoever X, Y, Z company, and that just by the nature and amendment, the master plan in and of itself is somewhat discretionary because discretionary in that the way either the phases roll out or the phases may be adjusted in the future. And so I think the confusion for us wasn't that we weren't willing to say, hey, beta technologies owns financing, design, construction, permitting, execution of the master plan today. We're happy to say that, whether it's in writing or here tonight in testimony. What was less clear was what the board was actually seeking beyond that in the event that there is a change in entity or there is a change in the vision. Well, nothing to that effect. Nothing prevents you from seeking to amend the master plan at the same time. At the time you're selling. Well, part of what happens with the master plan, right, is in my old world, in the development world, there are really three types of developers. One, there are transactional developers. They buy a piece of property, they manage that property, usually a building. There are those that are the visionaries and come up with the master plan and then we'll entitle the property, we'll take the raw dirt, they'll go through the whole permitting process, they'll entitle it and they'll sell it to somebody that is transactional, that doesn't wanna deal with the permitting process. And then there are those developers that combine both halves and they'll see it from soup to nuts. In this case, what the role that beta is playing, we're actually playing that third party right now. We're both the visionary. We're moving through the entitlement process right now and have been for quite some time with the help of the board and we're executing on that in that we have two buildings on the master plan plus the majority of the infrastructure in construction right now out in the field. Now, that doesn't mean that sometime in the future that we may choose to act as that first type of developer or the airport may come and say as the landowner, hey, we want a partner or we have somebody that's interested in this parcel is that something that beta is willing to help out with. Those opportunities should be able to exist. It was somewhat confusing in the way the conversation went at the last hearing is it seemed like the board did not want that traditional development arrangement to exist that would allow the master plan to be fully built out, either with beta as we currently sit today or in the seat of some other developer or entity. Look, I think the spirit of the thing as far as I can divine it. Again, I'm not the draftsman and maybe I wouldn't have written it, you know, we're trying to apply it in a way that's coherent but as best I can divine the spirit, it's that whenever that parceling out function occurs that there's still be a coherent responsible party for executing the plan. That's all, it doesn't mean you can't sell off a piece. It does mean we need to know who we can speak to to who we can address to coordinate the overall plan at the time you sell it off. Now, so I go back to my first example and you tell me why it doesn't tell me where it's falling short. The buyer of parcel X, I'm not even talking particularly to your plan, triggers a requirement that a road be built. For example, we should be able to go either to the buyer of parcel X, right? Or to the person, the entity that's been designated as the responsible entity under the master plan and say, let's see the road. And the contractual relationships need to have been worked out between the original master planner and its grantee so that the master planner has the ability to compel the grantee to do whatever piece of that next step is the grantee's obligation while the master planner is still answerable directly to the board for completing whatever the other piece is such as the rest of a road. Do you follow me here? Yes, there's a clawback, a perceived clawback in the way that it was just described, right? In that, typically when a transaction happens, the responsibilities for executing the remaining portions of the master plan fall to whoever bought it, lock, stock, and barrel. Listen, I get it completely, but we're stuck with what the LDR is saying. Right, and they are giving us the clawback. They are telling the city has said, we want a clawback to keep it crewed. That's not what the language says though. We're more than happy to put it in writing, and with testimony tonight, beta is responsible for the master plan as it sits before the board, design, construction, permitting, financing, project management, soup to nuts. We're also responsible to the land order to pay rent on the land that we're building on. As part of the master plan, which the board had previously approved, we're putting in infrastructure to support future development. We're improving raw land by putting in Da Vinci Drive. We've got sidewalks, bike paths, stormwater, sewer, traffic light infrastructure. We're not putting the traffic light in because that's a VTDOT that's in their world, but we can widen the Williston Road. We can put the conduits in to support that. The infrastructure, that part of the project is beta's responsibility. It has been approved by the board under a separate application and is currently in construction. So the requirements here in the LDR don't ask the applicant, ourselves, to prescribe how the change in ownership would function. But it's, you don't have to prescribe it to us. You need to prescribe it to your grantee so that you can remain answerable to us. And we're more than happy to say, along with beta is responsible for the things that we just outlined, that any condition of a transfer of ownership of the master plan would encumber the person that purchases it with the decision, findings of fact and decisions, as demonstrated by the permit that we'll receive. Join Liam's severally with beta. No. Conception, I am not, but I appreciate the traffic. It is. I guess one question, and this is something we touched upon in deliberations that this condition could be sort of like an organic condition that evolves over time. Could that evolution also include the fact that let's just say, as they proceed as like condition or number three, where you're developing, improving and transaction in some of the parcels, could there be a condition or could it be something where as they transact one of the parcels in the master plan to another entity to develop it, would that, could that document be updated? Because yes, I agree. Normally it's just it goes with the land and whoever buys it, then those conditions get encumbered by the person that buys it. But I think what Frank's trying to describe in the way we're understanding it as a board is that the LDRs have taken it another step further. Almost simplified or removed the notion of it follows the land, but says whoever owns the land, there has to be some sort of document that gives the city ability to contact that person. And some latitude by the board here is welcome. And I think you recognize the challenge that we're all in and that we're the first ones out of the gate. We have this untested regulation. We have no guidance other than the words on the page. We don't have any examples to try to modify. So I just called to pull up the language. And if you scroll down, there's a second part of the management plan, but keep what you have, just scroll down a little bit. So this is sort of a two part. And Frank, maybe this falls into your court, but it feels a little bit like what I'm hearing is when in a subdivision, when you have a deed, somebody buys that property, there's the HOA documents that flow with the deed that then go to the owner of that property. If that property is sold, they don't get to push off the HOA documents and the requirements that are outlined in that, those flow with that piece of property. Yeah, I think everybody up here gets that, what I'm saying to you and that you either, either I haven't said clearly, you know, in your gut, seriously are resisting. I know we want to, let's say we want to get to yes, like that's the goal tonight, right? Yes, of course the obligations run with the land. The permitted obligations run with the land to the new owner. What we think the LDRs are saying is that, but they don't leave the person who came in and who succeeded in acquiring the master plan permit, that person remains responsible. Right. And what I'm suggesting to you is the solution to that is that it's not written here, but the practical solution to that is that you make sure that your grantee is answerable back, is answerable, it's not merely passive. Okay, the problem is now yours. You know, the permits run with the land you have to obey the conditions, but that beta remains directly able, it retains an umbilical cord to its grantee, in other words. It says not only do these conditions run with the land, right? But we, beta, in addition to the city, are entitled to enforce them directly against you. We have a private right of action against you to compel you, grantee, to do. The third party that may not implement what they bought is what you're asking for. Yeah, exactly, because, you know, our life is simplified. Again, this was not my plan. I get it, I appreciate that. So we come then to beta or beta successor. Now, if beta sells everything it's got, then that person, you know, gamma, gamma comes in to replace beta. Gamma then becomes as fully responsible for the total master plan as beta does. But as long as beta is there, it's responsible. In other words, we could envision maybe something in the agreement that says as much. So long as beta is there, it's a responsible manager and we will come to beta to say, you know, Charlie over here to whom you sold parcel B is not complying, fix it. And then it's on beta to go to Charlie and say, fix it. Under our private right to compel you to fix it so that we can comply with our obligation to the city under the master plan. So if we look at bullet point number one, and I appreciate the indulgence, I'm looking at 15 point B, 0.04 J, the management plan. The actual LDR section has two bullet points that identify what is required to complete that. And bullet point one, it's about five lines. It asks for a narrative description of the proposed management structure responsible for the project development to include all principles or entities with direct control of responsibility for the financing, permitting construction and completion of development under the master plan semi colon. So to respond to that first part, to complete that first part beta technologies is responsible for financing permitting, constructing and completing the development under the master plan. So we would feel like we've closed, we've as staff says, we've met that criterion. Now we go to part two and following project completion for long-term ownership management operation and maintenance of the capital and community assets. So who is responsible for long-term ownership, management operation and maintenance of the capital and community assets? Beta is once we complete it, we are responsible for the capital assets there. And I was very, I split the capital assets and community assets up in the writeup that was submitted because the roadway, the airport has responsibility for the roadway, but we've got responsibility for the grounds and everything else going forward. So it would feel when we take those two pieces and just split them up and answer them like that independently that we've met the criterion as outlined here. And that criterion doesn't ask for beta to commit to taking on the encumbrance or liability of a third party down the road that we have no way of managing. I just want to be clear on something. So, and the board may get upset with me in deliberation, one of the words that I thought was important was the word proposed, which I think gets to the point you're making. So I am personally not cool with requiring a company to be responsible forever and ever for something that they've sold. That's where I'm coming in on this, just so you know. I don't find that to be an American principle of capitalism. So I'm not good with that idea. I am okay with you proposing for the long-term with a caveat that if we have sold or whatever in that selling of it, we will make a requirement that they will pay attention to the rules that we agree to in the master plan, et cetera, et cetera. But not that you would be the person we'd point to forever and ever until the end of time, just so you're aware that's where I'm coming from. Okay. And that's where I think that word proposed is very important. It's a proposed, which means you proposed it, things changed, we're changing. Right, and if the board in this narrative that responds to these points, I asked beta to reinforce, there's a legal term for it. I see it all the time. I can't not coming to my mind right now to simply say that the beta understands that it will convey a copy of the master plan conditions, the findings of fact and the decision to somebody in the future. We're more than happy to do that because that's what should happen anyways, right? And that was my understanding of our conversation, to be honest. Can I interrupt for a second? Sure, please. So I think you're largely all saying the same thing, but let me just give a sort of a simple example. If this were a residential subdivision, there would be a homeowners association established. The homeowners association would have certain responsibilities forever into the future about if there's a private sidewalk who's maintaining that, if there's a storm water pond that isn't given to the city or a pump station, who's gonna maintain that? That's a big chunk of what this is. If there are common elements, who's taking care of them? Instead of, you're talking about conveying a lot, but what if there were nine lots separately conveyed? There's a difference between an HOA and a corporation, which is essentially a human being, right? It's a legal entity. Well, it says a management structure. Right. And ownership and responsibility. Right, which in the event of a corporate ownership versus an HOA is supported by the organization, by the community that it's over, that it governs, which means it will always have the support that it needs, but a business may go out of business. So there's a problem there with that thinking or comparing them to an HOA. I don't think they are an HOA. They may not exist as such in the future. But let's say this was something where in this application or a different one, they decided to sell off multiple blocks. There still may be common elements amongst them. In some way, there's a responsible entity to maintain those common elements. Or insofar as the city's concerned, and there could be circumstances where somebody, an entity five years from now comes in to amend the master plan. Can that entity speak on behalf of the master plan or can they only speak for the one parcel that they now own? That's what this is trying to get at is the ability to speak to the master plan. Or I'll give a third example, which I think you've already covered, largely here where a lot is sold and there's a trigger point in the master plan that says a traffic study needs to be done or an intersection needs to be built, making sure that it's clear that whatever structure is set up, it's clear that the city can compel at that time that triggering action to take place. So what's interesting about this, and there's some good points to unpack in that, Paul, what's interesting about this is it highlighted probably something that I have not done a good job reinforcing, and that is that beta is building the infrastructure on behalf of the landowner. We don't actually own the infrastructure. We're acting as a developer. So what you're talking about runs primarily through the landowner and not beta as the entity. We own the building that sits on top of the property and are leasing the property from the landowner. And then on behalf of them installing the roadway, the bike paths, the sidewalks, the sewer, the storm. So it's a minor example in seven years time when the first pothole arrives on this road who's responsible to repairing and maintaining it. That's part of what this is trying to get to. Right, and so what happens sometimes in some municipalities, and this may be helpful in terms of a modification to the language is you have a separate agreement which is a maintenance and use agreement between public and private entities. It's not normally part of a private development which this is we're building a private road. This road's not being conveyed to the city. It's remaining airport property. So a little bit of the pothole issue I understand where you're at with that. It's still a private road and the maintenance falls through to the land order until such time as it may be determined beneficial and there's some negotiations between the landowner and the city that you want that as a city road. But there are maintenance and use agreements and if there was a condition of the permit if we could close tonight, we're happy to submit a maintenance and use document plan with support from the airport if that's something that they would like to do prior to our certificate of occupancy. May I just ask a question? I mean, this has gone on and I know this is a very complex issue. I'm having a hard time grasping all of it. Can somebody please explain to me what is the difference between what we want and what they're saying and what they're willing to give? Pretend I'm a reporter and dumb it down for me because I'm a little lost in all this and I'm having a hard time understanding where the gap is. My perspective is that if we go like this and look at the words on the paper and what they said they're willing to say, we're done. But then we're getting into this conversation about the future and responsibility and who can we tell to do something? That's another thing. Put the words back up again, would you Mark? Can you put them up on the big screen? So they just see. And I'm glad you're here. Oh, I'm just as confused, sorry. What do you do with clearly identifies proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term management maintenance and operation of capital and community assets including any, just that, how are we? Where are you? How has he provided for that? Clearly identifies? Yeah. I'll see. I mean, are you saying that C is the proposed ownership and responsibilities for long-term management maintenance and operation is the responsibility of the airport? Is that the entity that's answered to C? And then the answer to the entity for A and B is beta. Does that get to the answer that you're willing to live with and that the board can live with? Again, say that again. My response is the word proposed. As long as they propose it, it's done doesn't mean it doesn't change. It gets, I mean, it's a proposed ownership and life changes. I mean, that's the nature of business. Well, that's fair. Right. But can you, we propose that beta will be responsible. For A and B. And I think what I hear you saying is that the airport is responsible for C. And C for so long as we're in business and own it and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, which is where the write up our response to that does support what you're saying there. Yes. So I'm sorry, beta is going to be responsible for long-term management, maintenance and operation of the entire project. I thought you were saying that. What we waited proposes that has proposed the proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term management, maintenance and operation of capital community assets, including any proposed that occasions of land facilities and infrastructure to the city lies with beta end of sentence. Or to the extent I would say, to the extent beta is an operational entity. It doesn't have to say that because of ceases to be an operational entity that is ceases to be one. It said lies with beta. Now, suppose, now actually there's a wrinkle in here that I haven't considered all the applications of. I forgot this was a ground lease. We need a wrinkle. So which, okay, I mean, beta is not in a position to sell off parcels or is it? No. We're not. So this is going to remain a unified parcel of land unless the airport comes in and wants to subdivide it in some fashion. Is that right? Yes, unless there's a subdivision plan that's submitted for review and approval to the ERB. So that's why I'm confused about how beta can be responsible for C. Well, well, except for the capital, operation capital, they're the capital assets, but community assets are the airport assets. Is that correct? So. Well, it can be more than one entity. You can say beta is responsible for capital assets and airport's responsible for community assets. Is that something that you can live with? Yeah, and that's pretty much what we wrote in, what we submitted. Next. Originally. It sounds like we've cleared up. Beta's going to be AB and under C, you're going to define it as betas for capital, airports for community. Good. Perfect. Thanks, everyone. John, you comfortable with that? Yeah, yeah. Good. Staff. Alright, good. Let's move on to the other 15 comments. Yeah. The other issue we discussed during deliberation is why does it need to be a PUD? And the answer is because the project was already approved as a PUD in SD 2128. That's, that was our thinking. Okay. I think fundamentally, as we discussed last week or two weeks ago, it doesn't change what we're doing. So we're happy. Yeah. Are we good? Yes. Okay. Number three, this is about whether the green and the red phases should be combined into one phase. I think that we feel very strongly that we want them combined. And that's our decision. Could you share some of the deliberation behind that because it feels like based on, if we use the residential model and one of those drawings that we looked at earlier under the previous application, it's a little bit like saying, combine parcel seven and nine into one parcel. Well, so there's a difference between combining things into a phase and combining them, combining the buildings into one zoning permit. Yes, but you're, by doing that, you're encumbering our ability currently as the developer to move out on the project in a way that recognizes what the business needs are. What it encumbers is it would mean that the elements of the project that are encompassed within those two phases are under discussion at such time as a building is proposed in either of those two pieces. So, you know, if we're talking about, for instance, closing Valley Road, the board may want to say, okay, you're now proposing the building in the green phase. Does your traffic study warrant closing Valley Road now? And just have that be available for discussion. If it is not warranted, you know, the board is not in the habit of just arbitrarily including things, but if it's not in that phase, it's not even on the table to be evaluated. Is that an accurate summary? That creates a real challenge in terms of trying to close tonight because we don't own the building that is on in the red phase. That is an owned and operated building and there are tenants with existing leases through 2030. The way that the infrastructure is set up is that the infrastructure is in place, as we described earlier, for either of those parcels to happen independently. And for if needed, depending on the orientation and the design of those parcels, the infrastructure also exists in Wolston Road. So the flexibility in terms of how those two properties are built out. Last conversation that felt like Frank was headed down the right path, which was the board, or the path that I thought you would look at, which is the idea that are there elements in either the red or green phase that the board considered important and might be a condition to executing on one of those phases. Those parcels are completely independent of each other with the infrastructure being put in in the blue phase. So it's unclear why those parcels would be consolidated. And again, we don't have the latitude to dictate what happens on that red parcel. There's an existing business or existing building with many businesses in it that have leases that are long-term. Can I ask a question? Sure, go ahead. Is there any, I think one concern I had when I was just taking a look at this is the, any triggers of infrastructure or circulation in the red phase that's not in the blue phase that would affect the overall project if the red phase isn't triggered at any point in time in the near or long-term future. Did you mean green phase? You said blue phase. No, well, the blue phase is red phase, didn't you? Yes, yeah, sorry, yes. By tying the two together, what I'm saying is if the red phase is never implemented, is there any circulation or triggers for infrastructure that don't get done, you know, that, you know, it's one thing to live without the buildings. It's another, is there any infrastructure, you know, circulation, roadways or anything like that that's in the red phase that are detrimental to the project long-term if the buildings and of red phase don't get built out. There's nothing detrimental to the project in that red phase, it's meant to be independent. There is some additional parking that's provided in the red phase should beta and the airport identify a time and a way to replace that building. Well, the red phase includes the signal and closure of alley road as well, yeah. So to answer Mark's question directly, what infrastructure is included in the red phase? It includes some parking, it includes the signal and it includes the closure of alley road. That infrastructure is there, but it's triggered by the additional parking that would get built. That additional parking is what triggers the need for- Right, so those pieces of infrastructure are in the red phase. They are, but they're not, if the red phase doesn't get built, the project isn't negatively impacted by not building the red phase. Is the valley road accessible to the main beta parking lot employees? It is not, in fact, there was a request from the board previously to make that a one-way in. So you've got to come in, you can't go out that and it was done to reorient traffic around the site. That was a condition of the site plan that application that was approved that we're under construction with right now. So where are we with this? We would like you to combine the red phase and the green phase. Is there an avenue where we can look at those infrastructure pieces in the green phase and I think potentially we could write that into a conditional decision and would you be amenable to that? Yeah, we'd be happy to do that for the board's benefit. There's no additional infrastructure in the green phase. All the infrastructure required to support the green phase is being built right now in the blue phase. So the green phases, there's nothing that... Right, there's not infrastructure in the green phase, there is infrastructure in the red phase. Right, and that infrastructure only needs to be put in place if the red phase is constructed. It does not negatively impact any of the work that's going on right now. So I'm seeing in the plans, and Paul, if you could pull up, it looks like page 60 of the pocket. There is a road closure that would occur with construction of the red phase from Valley Road. Right? That is correct. If the commercial building is built and the existing building is demolished, Valley Drive would be closed. And access to the site, including parking for the potential possible commercial building, would be as shown on the plan via DaVinci Drive. If you come in DaVinci Drive, you'd make a left turn into the parking lot. That parking area services the... That future commercial building. Right, and so then Paul's gonna pull up a plan that shows how it exists before the red phase. Yeah. So as it exists before the red phase, that Valley Road continues to exist. Yes, it's too... You can see that that's a one-way connection up at the top, but it still exists. That's correct. And all the traffic studies, all of the due diligence that was required to get to that approved plan right there, aligns with what we've just been talking about. We don't need the traffic light. That's a VDOT, VTDOT, Vermont, whatever requirements. So it's unclear. So when, let's just say the red phase never gets done. Mirabelle's building, it's called Mirabelle's Building Central, stays as is, but Valley Road becomes a one-way in only. So if you go to Mirabelle's, you have to go through the parking lot and DaVinci Drive to leave? No, yeah, I could. Yeah, so if you're going to any of the businesses on 3060, what was approved is it's two-way up to Mirabelle. So you can come in Mirabelle's, via Valley, you can go out Mirabelle's via Valley, and you can get to Vermont MRI. There's some other buildings that there's a pass through there. If you want to, what the board didn't want to happen was all the cars in the beta lot to be able to go out. And we didn't want that either. We need to be able to go out and short circuit either exiting on Williston Road or exiting further up on Eagle Drive. We did not want that short circuit to happen there along Valley Drive. So that's why you see the one-way in to DaVinci Drive only, at that head. But beta employees can still come through Valley Drive and go into the parking lot. No, it's the other way. It's one-way in, correct? Up at the beta parking lot? It's one-way in, Chris. So right, so employees- Yeah, they could, Mark. You're absolutely correct. If somebody wanted to stop and grab a pastry and didn't want to park and go walk to get their pastry, that could fundamentally happen. Practically, there's no reason for it to happen. And listen, if... Why would it be objectionable if it did? I'm just wondering about the additional traffic through Valley Road for all the employees at beta that would be using a road that's not designed for that much traffic. That would be my question. It's like all the people and I'm looking at myself that go through the cut-through at the hotel behind Barnes & Noble to go to Valley Road, you know. Hotel traffic saying this until... Well, we're not recorded to do that. We'll continue to do what we've always done and that is, I think I'm okay saying this. There is a philosophy in the organization. I'll try to clean it up for the benefit of the board. Don't raise buttholes. Don't be a butthole, don't hire buttholes, right? And that's the fundamental principle. So if we have beta employees, team members, that are doing that and it's negatively impacting the business as we've been in front of the board and any of the meetings in the community, we've shared, we are part of the community. We do not want to be the ones creating problems in the community. We're here to help, we're investing a lot of money in this building to make a fantastic place for people to come. Not just the building but the site plan. It was very thoughtful, it took a long time to get here. We've had great partners including the DRB, the planning staff and others to get to this point. We have no interest in being a bad community member. And if we need to take and have some conversations internally on our Slack channels, which are very free flowing in verbose, we're more than happy to do that to make sure that whatever complaints may rise are addressed. I think that's fine as long as you're in operation, but if you are sold to somebody else who doesn't share that philosophy, then the traffic issue for getting pastries might. Well, is Valley Road we're talking about? Yes. I think we're not. We're asking to make a decision, right here. This is not asking for the board to say Valley Road has to be closed at the green phase. This is asking for the board to have the authority at such time as the green phase is proposed to evaluate whether that needs to be moved up. Right. And so what we're saying is that say we come into you tomorrow, we submit an application tomorrow to planning and zoning staff to Paul and Marlon, the team. And it gets on your docket in two months. And you say, you know what? We hear what Vermont DOT is saying, but we really want you to close Valley Drive. We can't do that because there are leases there. There are commercial legal obligations that we can't sidestep if we come in tomorrow with an application to put a child care center on the green parcel. But if you come in 15 years from now to put a child care facility on the green, 10 years from now, because that would be the duration of the master plan to put a facility on the child care parcel and haven't done anything on the red phase, the board is asking to is proposing to combine their authority to review that at that time. They're not thinking about the three months from now possibility. We're thinking about, you know, beta is fully built out. There's maybe 1,000 employees instead of the 500 employees that were planned and maybe that traffic situation has changed. Who owns the Maribel's building? The airport does. The airport does, okay. Is there any outlet from Valley Road other than to the beta parking lot? No. In other words, is there's a threat for increased traffic arise or from any source other than beta employees? No. So isn't it within the power of the whoever controls traffic in the city to put up a sign that says no outlet? And there is sign there was signage requested as part of the approval. We have to put signage up at that head end where the two come together the one way and the two way. Wouldn't that, couldn't that serve as an adequate control? If it's no. I mean, do you always obey signs? Huh? Do you always obey signs? I never use the hotel as a throwback. Guys, I gotta just say we are at time. These, we, yes. We have a lot more to cover for beta and we have another, a lot more work to cover for other projects tonight. So I'm afraid we're gonna have to bring this to a close for now and reschedule to continue. Unless you wanna continue this conversation and bump number nine site plan application, could we do that and take their time? Yes. Cause there's for us to move forward with number nine, we have to close out number eight. So it seems appropriate that we would. Can we move? Well, so let's finish conversation on this. Okay. We'll just, okay. All right, so. Is that really our only issue? Overloading Valley Road? Or do we want something else out of that? For this comment, I believe that was the only issue. Well, no, that's not true. Right? There's a signal warrant as well. If in five years from now, things have changed and beta has twice as many employees, the board should have the authority to reevaluate the infrastructure improvements for the green and the red phase as part of the next application. Well, I think there is already a condition in the permit that requires us to, if we have a change in our parking, we could, first of all, we can only park so many people on that cars in the spaces unless we were to go to an elevated deck in that area, which we have no interest in. I don't think the board has any interest in at this point. There, the number of parking spaces that you see there are at capacity. And those are what are considered in the traffic study. So there would be no additional traffic from beta employees beyond what you see there. So just taking what Marla's saying and what Quinn was saying, this is still the green, red phase combo or not. And if we somehow reserve the right to do a review, whether they're joined or not, it really addresses our primary concern for the long term, right? Is that what you were saying? Yeah. Because the green phase does not add any more parking. So I mean, I don't want to play a what if game here, but I mean, I could imagine several scenarios in which there would be additional traffic that don't require additional parking. What if it becomes a three-shift building? What if it be, you know, whatever. So. Shift, so the parking study. I don't want to go into the like what if scenarios. My point is I want the board to have the ability to reevaluate, should it need to be reevaluated? We're completely open to that. That happens with every application that comes in. The only point that I was going to make is that the traffic study, which has been submitted, which was part of the approvals, does contemplate shift work and the way that the traffic study is done is during peak periods. Shift work is not peak periods. There would not be more traffic beyond what happens during the peak periods. That is the worst case scenario and that includes all the parking that we currently have permitted. And just to ask a question about that, if we were to build the green phase, we would redo our traffic study. I thought that was part of, that's a requirement of the master plan. Why do we have to redo it? I mean, then let's say we build the red phase, we'd redo it for that one. You'd have a chance to chime in at both those phases. Why do they need to be combined? Okay. Board. I don't know to address this. I think paraphrasing what Marla said earlier, infrastructure pieces currently belong with the red phase. We want to have the ability to. Sorry, just not to cut you off, but the signal lies at any point in time, not with the red phase. The signal could happen at the green phase, it could happen red phase, it doesn't, it's all tied to when V-trans says put in a signal. Right. So like we had the conversation before, I think we're all saying very similar to the same thing. And I think it's just a matter of craft, having the deliberation and crafting condition. Great. Okay. Now, this just brings us to the end of our discussion during deliberation. We still have all the other comments. And shall we get started on those? Yeah, that'd be great. I think we did the heavy lift. My apologies. I think we did the heavy lifting right now. I think when we left the last meeting, we deferred those other items because they referenced the conversation that we just had. So yeah, let's happy to follow your lead on that. So Marla has summarized the comments and she, in those references, the comments and the staff report. I unfortunately deleted my annotated report from last meeting. So I would ask Paul if he could call up the comments on the screen, please. Comment number one pertains to the master plan submission requirements. So we're just going to go to the staff report, comment number one. Is that what you mean? Yes, please. That is on page seven, Paul. On page one. Oh, you're probably in last week's packet. This packet has an additional cover page. Okay, all right. Okay. So let me read it. The staff has provided the below detailed review of submission requirements in order to support this finding. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify their submission as indicated below so that the submission can be considered a portion of the approved plan for the project. Thoughts about that? We concur. We understand that whatever happens down below if there's modifications that are required, happy to modify the plan either by condition or for other. I think that's all that's saying is that, hey, we got to have a conversation. There may be some things that change. We just want to make sure we're on the same page and let you know that those changes will need to be incorporated. I think we're completely on board with that. Okay. Given that we are due to stop right before nine oh five, are there any issues you, we're going to have to continue this. I know that's not music to your ears, but are there any issues that you want to get our feedback on before we run out of time? No, not specifically. The goal from our side tonight was to close the hearing. Of course. Understanding that we needed to get through 15 and 16, those are really, really challenging. I think the balance of these comments or responses are going to flow from that. Okay. Okay, let's move on to a comment number two. Staff recommends the board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion, which I see glare occurs in response to numbered staff comment number 13 below pertaining to building design. This is a bit tough because it was two weeks ago that the building design was discussed, but does the board feel that the applicant's presentation provides adequate standards for to guide the functional aesthetic integration of the phases? And as part of the conversation we didn't get to last week at the back end of that handout, which you have electronically, there were some material image boards that talked about the design aesthetic and that supported, not supported, but were supplemental to the conversation we had about the vision for the master plan. Okay. Any questions about that? Don, do you look like you were going to ask a question? I don't, I'm actually just, I don't even call seeing the design. Okay. Do we have that electronically? Could we see that please? Yes, but what's the that? I'm sorry. That would be the handout that you provided two weeks ago. Oh, the handout. Yes. Okay. Okay. And that was given to Marty electronically. Okay. I'm good. Okay. So the idea would be that those handout materials will be integrated into the decision. Okay. Good. Got it. Okay. Comment number four. Paul, can we get them back on the big screen? Yep. Do this, Paul, do that, Paul. Staff recommends the board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion which occurs in response to numbered stuff. Comment number 13 below pertaining to building design. This is about design standards. And so we saw that as tying to comment number two. Okay. I think you're right. Okay. Next. Met number five pertaining to responsibility for executing the master plan. I think we've probably hammered this one to death. That horse is dead. That horse is dead. Okay. Comment number six pertaining to vesting of the master plan. Board recommends the board give the opportunity to prove any professional testimony if they feel necessary, otherwise consider vesting and deliberations. Do you have anything to add that you want us to hear? Art. I don't. I feel like we covered the phasing completely. Okay. Okay. We're good there. Discussion of PUD type on page 10. I think we've covered that into deliberations, haven't we? And tonight, yeah. Yes. Comment number 11 pertaining to compatibility between existing buildings to remain and proposed buildings. Anything to add about that applicant? I think that follows again the images, image boards that were submitted to supplemental material at the last. Okay, good. We had two more to go. We're going to make this comment number 15, pertaining to consolidation of the red. Oh, we've hammered that one out. Comment number 16, pertaining to responsibility for executing the master plan. I think that's the same conversation. So I think we are there for this agenda item unless anyone has any questions. We'll ask, take a break and ask for public comment. Are there any members of the public who want to comment at this time? Okay. And I don't think we do. So I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. Show move. Thank you, Frank. Second. Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion on favor of closing the hearing? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Okay, good. So I think we need to vote to carry over site plan application, SP-22056 to what date would that be, Marla? Oh, let's do that at the next meeting on the 21st. Okay, good. 25. So I'm going to move that we review SP-22056 at our next meeting on the 21st of March. Do I hear a second? Oh, second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Good. We'll see you back here on the 21st. Awesome. Thank you very much. We'll see you back here in the spring. I love it. And the light savings time this weekend. So. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Yeah, it's a 150. Is the eyes of Mark? Yeah. Whatever. But you got to get through the eyes to get there. So it's still a valid comment. Okay. All right. Thank you for your patience. Do people want to take a five minute break? Okay. Go for it. Yes. All right. Okay. Thanks for your patience. Item number 10 on the agenda, preliminary and final plaid application, SD 2305. If you want to conclude our intermission with an announcement of. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. I have some very, we have some very exciting news. Breaking news. Breaking news. The election results from South Burlington. And I'm going to let Paul inform you of the results. Hey folks, election results as submitted by our city clerk for the three year council term, Andrew Cholnick one for the two year council term, Tyler Barnes, one water commissioner was unopposed. Dennis Lutz one for the, and I don't know the first names I apologize on the school board, but on the school board three year term, McHenry was the winner over Hickey. On the two year term, it was very close. It appears that companion one over child's by 26 votes for two years of a three year term unopposed, Williams one. And then on the city, all of the articles past, I guess is the simpler way to say all this. So the city budget, the Bartla Bay wastewater treatment facility, the TIF 2300 to 940. So very substantial. The school articles all passed. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that breaking news. Okay. Preliminary and final plat application SD 2305 of Gary born to create a general plan unit development by re sub hiding three existing lots into three new lots of 0.18 acres lot one 0.14 acres lot two and 1.06 acres lot three and constructing a 3,350 square foot financial institution on lot one a 6,480 square foot two story mixed commercial and residential building on lot two and a three story 27 unit multifamily building on lot three at 760 Shelburne road. This the applicant has chosen to combine preliminary and final plat application which makes this a much longer discussion than otherwise would exist. So ask for your patience. And I think it's a foregone conclusion that we will need to continue this hearing to another night. We'll start, we'll see what we can get through until just before 10 o'clock and we'll see where we go. Go. Who is here for the applicant, please? Gary born. Thank you. Lucy there, landscape architect with Trudell consulting engineers and we have some folks online as well. Okay. And who are they? Jen does a tell engineer at Trudell consulting engineers. Thank you. Kelly, make you a TPG architecture. What is your first name, please? Kelly. Kelly, thank Kelly. Kelly, okay. Thank you. And there may be some other folks online that jump on but also I forgot to mention Alan Spencer is here from Rebedo architects. Okay. All right, would you all raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm just keeping in mind if anyone else does testify they'll need to be sworn in at that time. Right. Of course. Do we have any recusals or disclosures? Stephanie's out of this. Oh, there she is. Okay. John was a big hit. This is a long staff report. Let's just, let me ask you if you have any comments you want to make before we start just going through the comments. No, I don't think so. There are some we would really like to get feedback on today. So if the time gets short, we'll identify those at that time and we can make sure to address those. I was actually going to stop at about 20 till 10 and say, since we have to continue, are there any things you want feedback on tonight? So bear that in mind. That sounds very good. Thank you. Okay. Number one. Do you want them to introduce the project at all? Sure. Do you want to give like a five minute overview of the project? Five. That's very generous. Oh, three minutes. It's okay. I don't think I want to take five minutes to get into, hopefully you're all familiar with it. I feel like we are, but. So I think one thing that would be really conducive to the discussion is we sent some renderings over. Yeah. Yeah. But we didn't, they were a little late in the digital version. So we brought hard copies. We have them. Oh, you do have them. Can I pass them out as well? If folks wanted to look at them, is that okay? Sure. If I pass them this definitely can we send them along? Thank you. It's been a while since we've been in. So just the short version is we've owned the properties, some of them for 40-something years. We've operated the shell directly in this time. The shell was built in the 50s, so it's always been a station. Our desire with this is to, in return for giving up the station and the auto repair in the back and the curb cuts and everything else is to come up with a quality project that we intend to own at the end of the day. And we tried to address the issues that we had heard from the planning department is for in terms of housing and so forth. So that's how we come to where we are here. So the first comment talks about the appearance of at least two stories and our requirement that those are the results. Thank you. The package should be good. Thank you, Ray. If you know this, can we write it up? Yes, we did. You already did? Thank you for your hard work. I bet you're glad today's behind you almost. Oh, okay. Thanks, Donna. Thank you. So this issue is one that's pretty important to us. So let's talk about this issue. Right, so we think that this is something of a gray area in the way that this can be interpreted. And so we would implore the board to kind of reference the 15C01, which gives the board authority to make exceptions per PUDs. And we think that this is an appropriate application of a modification of the standards if it is interpreted to be a requirement, which we're not fully clear that it is. If the board doesn't think that it is unclear and that it is a requirement, with that accommodation, we would suggest that in fact, not the full two stories is actually beneficial in this instance, because it creates a stepped line of the buildings, right? At tort, maybe Marla the, could you go to the one that's steep from Queen City Parkway? Oh, I'm sorry, Paul was running that. So by having the steps, there we go, the stepped facade, it actually creates a very nice streetscape appearance. So this is from Shelburne Road. That is looking east from the Queen City Parkway intersection. And you can see Denny's, yes. So we think that it actually fits really well in this scenario. And I think that Kelly can speak more specifically to this particular architecture, but what we would look for from the board is if you think this is a requirement, or if you'd be amenable to accommodating what we've provided, which we think is a very nice building. The proposed structure is 21 feet, six inches or so. It's not a small building. And the Chase people have reorientated the glazing to meet the blazing requirements. So it's not like they haven't worked with us on this as far as in our ass from them. Chase building is the one on the corner. It's the one on the corner, correct. So from your perspective, looking at this, looking east, there's a gradual step up this way. If you're facing east, yes, right, towards the, yes. The buildings would rise towards the south. If they would kind of, it would step down as you look towards the Swift Street side. Okay. And you can kind of see that where the building that is on the right that has the multicolors, the kind of blue, red and gray color, that that is the full two stories. Just to orient you, we didn't, I didn't give you a project overview, but that building on the right is a, the mixed use building. So that is commercial on the first floor, three residential units on the top. The financial institution is on the left. And that's at the corner of the parcel. The intersection of Swift and Shelburne. Is there a drive through there? Is there a drive through there? We have a drive up ATM. And that is behind the building from where we're looking at it. But that's something we need to talk about because yes, as it turns out, that's not allowed. But anyways, we'll get to that. So, Mark, you're a resident architect. What are your thoughts? You know, the issue I have with the design of the building, the Chase building is that it's a PUD. So you have three buildings on the site and it feels like one of them doesn't belong. You know, it's, you've got two buildings that have a very similar style of architecture, you know, massing. And the, the Chase building feels like it's one, two, three, four, you know, four small cubes and doesn't sit at all with the other buildings. And as well as the fact that this is kind of like a cornerstone corner in South Burlington. And it's really a corner that I think lends itself to a true two-story building. And I think it would fit a lot better with the other three buildings on the site. And it would pull the whole thing together. Right now, it feels fragmented. And disjointed and disconnected from the other two buildings. And it distracts me from what's going on. And you know, it, it might be 21 feet tall, but it reads like a one-story building. And I just think that, especially the fact that it's the PUD with two other buildings on the site, I think you would be far better served to follow the pattern that you've established with those two other buildings. Other thoughts? I actually agree, Mark. Are there any other thoughts about this? I don't have an independent view. We'll defer to the architect. Okay. I do have a question though about the buildings. It's something I didn't quite understand before. My fault, no doubt. This looks like, this is three lots we're looking at. Yeah, it's required to be three lots because of the current PUD regulations. But they're party walls. I mean, there's the zero lot line. Is that, is that? I'm sorry, say that again. Do the buildings, do the buildings adjoin? No, no. There are three separate buildings on three separate lots. Okay, so there's space between each of them. Correct. Yes. I just can't see the spaces. Yeah. All right, say it Frank. So are you amenable to rethinking that the bank building and making it appear to be two stories? I think, well, one point we did want to bring up is that the city did just pass a climate action plan and that we do think that having a photo story is somewhat antithetical to the climate action plan. So our hope would be that in order to have the most efficient building design and use of resources that we wouldn't be required to have a full two story or foe two story regarding the architecture that is in Kelly's wheelhouse. So I would request that she provide some feedback on what architect, on the architecture specifically. Kelly? Yeah, so just to provide a little more background how we established the design, while this is Chase standard, and I know that in the notes, the board is aware that there is a prototype here. We felt that it actually did relate to the other buildings while making sure that it is understood from the customer point of view that it is the Chase bank. We do have the tower elements that do relate back to the other buildings where it's sort of pieced together with these vertical elements as we see in the residential building behind. And we actually wanted to consider the view of those residential units. I know that as someone who lives in an apartment, I know it's nice to conserve those views and have those units available with the views and not totally look out your window and see the adjacent building so close. So we thought that keeping that building on one story would help in that aspect. But we did want to note that we do have the prominent entrance, a very strong corner feature. And while Chase would may consider, I cannot say if they will fully decide to do a full foe to story. We can definitely bring that to discussion with them and consider it. But that's part of the reason why we would encourage to keep the one story to really just to help in that sense. For the residential units. And so they're not looking out at the adjacent building there. Okay, thank you, Kelly. I would like to point out that in the staff notes that we received back that staff feels or acknowledges that Shelburne Road is never gonna be city center. It's never gonna be a New England downtown if I'm remembering it correctly. So where we brought so much to it and to this corner, it seems like a relatively small ass. We've passed on the energy savings. We went with the extra glazing. It is true that Chase and large quality national tenants do tend to stay with buildings that are part of their ID, part of their image. People don't bank the way they used to, but large commercial quality tenants have buildings that they like, whether it's a lesser tenant, a Walmart or something like that, or a quality tenant like Chase. And I think we were fortunate to attract them to this. And for them to not use the building to use for a standard, it seems like a reach, especially given that staff acknowledges, it's a six lane highway. It's one of the busiest in the state. To get to this point, we very, very intentionally, and I think staff would back us up on this. This project was brought here in this format, specifically to work the process. What is it the city wants? They want those curb cuts gone. They want the gas station gone. They don't want us doing repairs. They didn't want us to park cars at the pizza when we, before all this started. I mean, this project was to accommodate and to try to bring a really good looking fixture. I am sorry that you don't like the looks of it. We've looked at it and said, geez, it looks like a nice little village. The village is, we've got obviously got to come up with a name for the building at some point. But I do think when you look at the graphics and stuff, I think this is a really good looking project. And when you come down Shelburne Road or up Shelburne Road or up Swift, I think we're all going to be very pleased with how this looks, especially if you took a camera and did a 360 in this area. And I think this fits well with what's gone on further down the road with some of the other quality projects that you've put through that are done and up so you can see them in real life. So I think we would really be looking for the board's direction as to what you think is appropriate here. So go ahead. Oh, I just one thing I just want to note and it's not, it's not germane too. Well, it is kind of germane too. My previous comments about the building and all that, but we don't approve Chase. We approve a building and tomorrow Chase could walk away and someone else comes in. So we're not, you know, while if it works and if it we can, you know, then that's one thing but we're not approving, you know, Chase as a tenant for the building. Oh, understood. We're approving the building and that's all we're going to put up is the building. Okay. Whether they come or go is sure. Yes. So one of the suggestions that Marla or staff made was that we entered deliberations because if this is gonna, if this is a no starter we should know that now. So it's not a no starter for us. It's a, we're looking to know where the board is leaning. If it is a requirement, we would just like that to be clear and our response is if it is a requirement we don't have an answer at this time. I understand. Because we're not the decision makers that needs to go through a process. So we would like to continue the discussion and just have maybe some feedback as to how everyone's feeling. So we can do, if the board would like a couple of minutes to discuss it, we can just walk out of the room and go into a different room and have a quick deliberation and come back and we can continue until 10 o'clock tonight. Or that may be if the board feels like they don't need to discuss it and can just provide that feedback right now on the fly then you're also welcome to do so. I'd like to ask a question first. Sure. The, I guess the back building is residents. Yes, that's a multi-unit residential. And there are residents on the bottom floor and the top floor. Correct. And so the top floor residents we'll be able to see out over the top of the building but the bottom floor residents we're going to be looking at the bank. Yes, that's likely the case. There is a grade change across the site. So there's approximately nine feet of grade change from the west to the east. It rises up Swift Street as we know. But so there is a higher, it's a higher finished floor elevation in the multi-family. So their first floor is higher than the two front commercial buildings. But yes, it is anticipated. It's a three-story building. Yes. Yeah, so they're, the lower floors are likely not to have those long views. Which happens, you know a lot for all first story buildings. I think I would like, do we have to vote to go into deliberation? Okay. I think I would like us to deliberate a little to be able to give you some feedback and have a context for the rest of the review. Absolutely. I think all we could use the senior center as they likely still wrapping up in there. I believe it all done. Okay. So we're going to go walk over to the senior center. Do you want to put your computer here and I can take mine? Hang on a second, I have a suggestion. Yes. I'm not meaning to be a harsh landlord or anything. It's easier for them, I believe it is for us. Yeah, there's people online too. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I got about you all. Thanks for that. Okay. I think it looks better than the day. I'm going or will you lose it? Okay, then. That's what I'm saying. You stay here. We had a brief deliberation session and now we're back meeting with the applicant. So who would like to convey what our thoughts are? Well, I think we came to a conclusion. I think, you know, the a little bit like watching sausage made if we conveyed our thought. That's true. I think the conclusion we came to, I believe, was that we want to see a piece of the building, the bank building, those four blocks raised to store. Well, we want to see a piece of the building raised to two stories and we decided to defer the exact design up to you. We'd like you to propose something that increases a portion of the building to two stories. Okay. Or the appearance of, or the appearance of, right. So that it ties in better with the other two buildings. Understood. We also heard your comment about the compatibility with the exterior elements. So that comment has also been noted. Thank you very much for that feedback. Thank you. Let's move on to the next comment. I'm going to read this because I couldn't summarize it. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant how the proposed modification results in better compliance with the LDR, specifically how it results in a project that is equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and quality to that required under the standard to be modified or more efficient, compact, workable, and well-planned than the project would be if it were to fully comply with the dimensional standards. Yes. So we think that we... This is about the front setback. Yes. Okay. Carrie. Yes. Yes. So we think that the project does have all of those elements that make it equivalent or demonstrably superior in function, design, and quality for the, you know, that required under the standard to be modified or an efficient, a more efficient, compact, walkable, and well-planned than the project would be otherwise. So we think there's a couple like really important points about why that setback is important and consistent with the surrounding area of the Shelburne Road corridor or not inconsistent maybe. So it creates better connection between the PUD lots. Having that setback, it facilitates the interconnectivity just with these lots and also with the COTO lot. We are able to have a more efficient use of space. So with this setback, we have a better room to get into the underground garage and by having an underground garage, it's a much more efficient use of the site because we have got parking underground, the footprint of the building. So that's a much more efficient use of space. We also think that the additional 10 feet along the front setback could be considered as underutilized because you would be taking it out of the core project area and adding it to the front Shelburne Roadside and it would not be a usable space. In fact, we think it would negatively impact and reduce the quality of the site amenities because that's really where we would have to take it out of. So that would be a direct impact on the folks using the site. We also think that having that front setback allows us to have a more effective transition of grades. Like I mentioned before, there's that nine foot grade change from the Shelburne Roadside to the east to the back of the site, the multifamily. So by having that reduced setback, we're able to transition the grades, step the buildings. We've created really beautiful landscape walls and planted walls so that that helps this transition as well. And we think that it creates those high quality site amenity spaces and it's quite attractive. And I guess the last thing I would point out is it's not dissimilar to other developments in this area. I think the City Lights building is really close. The motel across the street, granted it's a different kind of building, but that's very close. And then there's some other ones. There's the New England Imported Rug Gallery. So there are examples of this type of setback in this corridor. So we do feel that it's appropriate and very beneficial to the project as a whole to create those goals for the PUD. Thank you. Questions, comments? Okay. Sorry, it would be more in line with where the Denny's starts if we didn't allow. Is that what we're saying? I think the Denny's might be a little bit farther back. So just for reference, those parking spots are nine feet. So it would be one of those, you'd kind of lop off a parking spot. I think the view just changed, Paul. If you could scroll it down just a tinge so we could see that scale reference for the parking. Sorry, which way would you like me to go? Just scroll it so we can see the parking on the south side of the Cotelot. Yeah, just to give a little context of where that building would, where the car is parked. You'd kind of take that line and go north through the building, kind of chop it off there. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's do a time check. It's quarter of 10. Are there any issues that have been identified in the staff report that you'd like to talk about tonight so you can prepare for the next time you come back? Thank you for asking. Yes, there is one additional one we would like to discuss today. And that is 14 about the prohibited ATM. All right, I didn't feel like I got a conclusion from the board. I was gonna say, can we go back to the 10 foot setback? Sure. And let's try to get some conclusion on that. I think that would be helpful. So I feel like you heard from the applicant, we didn't hear from the board. What does the board think? I'm okay with it. There's Emily. Yeah. Yeah, I'm okay with it. I think it does provide a better street, frontage, presence, connection. Okay. May I pose one just a quick question with the applicant on this? Sure. How far from the side, from the existing sidewalk would there be to the, I guess, infrastructure that's difficult to move like the staircase? Can you ask that one? How far is it from the existing, the back of sidewalk? Let's say V-trans wanted to widen the sidewalk there. They've got a couple of feet on where we're seeing the black dashed line there. But if it made sense to go any further and work with a property owner in the future, how much space is there between the property line and obstacles? I think that we can, I don't have a scale rule for your digital version, but I think that a couple of feet before the stairs. So, you know, this seems like a hypothetical discussion about a potential V-trans expansion that doesn't necessarily exist. But I appreciate the kind of comment, but there's not a lot of extra room where there's to become a larger road, but I think is that what you're getting at, Paul? It's just understanding the implications of having the building and the infrastructure close to the street, so. Right, and I think, Paul, we can answer that by saying, the right-of-way is really wide here. You know, the Route 7 corridor, I think V-trans has taken all they need for now. And I think they've, you know, taken a little bit additional from Gary over the years. So I think it's pretty safe to say that that line isn't moving very much. And I do think circling back to Lucy's original point that if we shift all the buildings back, it just makes the project worse. You know, the interior open space design, there's really a lot of time and effort put into that and finding a way to make it nice for the people who live, who will live at this property. And I think it would just be unfortunate to take that out of the limited amount of open space we have on the site. Thanks, I just wanted to have that confirmed. Okay, so let's come back to the issue of the drive-up ATM. So do we want, I think it's probably pretty clear, staff has identified that it's prohibited. And the reason we want to talk about it is because our interpretation is that it's not prohibited and that it should not be considered a drive-through. And we would look for the board's interpretation as if they concur with staff's reading that this is a drive-through. What is it if it's not a drive-through, is it a drive-up? So Paul's going to pull up the definition. So the definition of drive-through in the LDR, well, I guess if you can scroll just a little bit so we can see the whole of item number two. So this item number two is a standard within all PUDs, new drive-through facilities are prohibited from locating within a PUD. So then we went to the definition of drive-through and that's what's on the page under drive-through. So first, staff is in the PDA. I mean, in the LDR. The LDR is getting late. So the important part for staff here was while remaining in their vehicles. And then obviously receiving services or goods. I think the contention that can be made on this and this is a surprise to us that this even came up at this late date. But that being said, there's no order window. There's no service window. There's no outdoor menu boards. There's no attendant. There's no connection to the bank accepting for electrical power underground to this ATM that's bolted to a concrete bed. This isn't an effort to compete with all the other banking institutions in the area who have regular conventional drive-throughs like the McDonald's and like the others and like the bank for you can drive up and speak to a live person and so forth. This is a reach. What you're asking for is if we have people who are challenged handicapped folks, the board has acknowledged that if we put it aside and make you get out of your car and walk over to it that they're fine with that. And that's fine if you're not in a wheelchair. If it's not late at night, if you feel like no matter what when you get your money out of your ATM no one's gonna take it away from you. I mean, I think this is a very small ask. We're not asking to put up a building. We're not asking to slab one on the back with an attendant in it. It's been in the process, in the project since before anything was presented when we met with staff early on to lay out what was possible before we presented it to any potential tenants to try to shape the project, to fit what the city wanted. And that was two years ago, Paul? Two years plus. It was some time ago and it's been in all the way through and we understood it was just a drive-up ATM. That was the ask at the time. This became an issue last Wednesday afternoon and then Thursday we got the paperwork on it, Thursday afternoon on that this was an issue. Are you suggesting when you say you interpret it as, I'm reading this sentence, new drive-through facilities are prohibited from locating within a PUD. Is it, are you saying this quote drive-up ATM is not a quote drive-through facility? Is that the answer? That's my perception of it. Unless we can get an attendant, a building, a window, menu boards, and all the components. I'm sorry, I think you're, I don't agree with you by a lot. And that's what we're looking to hear from you is if you agree or disagree. And I think that if you disagree, the other piece we would like to point out is that 15C01 that gives the board the authority to modify the zoning regulations as part of the PUD review. So those are the, that's the discussion pieces we wanted to bring up with this ATM and get your feedback is, if you think it is in fact prohibited and you would direct us to remove it, then we would take that feedback. Other thoughts, board members? I agree with Frank. I mean, I think that I agree that it's a drive-through facility that might not have a building and might not have people attending it. But I think it's clearly an establishment or structure, the ATM is a structure, which by design physical facility service or by packaging encourages or permits customers to receive services or clearly receiving services goods or be entertained, but while remaining in their vehicles. So I think, you know, it's clearly a drive-through. I, so I wouldn't say that. And I also think because it's PUD, you have a mixed use on the lot. That's one of the reasons why it's it's it's it's the kind of get worries coming from though with regards to the difference between a drive-through and an outdoor ATM that you can access by the car. Because it's an ATM, it's not a full service. No, but you also queue up and you're willing specifically to it to receive goods. It's almost no different than if the ATM was a person standing there with a teller machine connected to, but you can still do deposit. I went to the you on that except when I think of a bank in a drive-through include all components. This doesn't have all the components from the bank's perspective. It has an electronic component. So it's got part of the full service of a drive-through at a bank, depending on how you define it. So this is a modern age issue. Yeah. And it is different than the other banks on Shelburne Road. So if you look at those, it's not like any of those. Those are all connected, as far as I could tell. They're drive-throughs. They're drive-throughs with a teller and pneumatic tubes. So we do think this is... It's a standalone facility, which is standalone electronic ATM. Right. It's just an ATM sitting out there. For what it's worth, this is something that is typically within the authority, the administrative officer to review. If someone came to me and said, I'm proposing an ATM on Shelburne Road, and we would say, well, I guess that's not a good example. I'm proposing a drive-through on Shelburne Road that's not an ATM. This is a new rule. New drive-through facilities are prohibited from locating within a PUD. So it's a standalone site in my example, not a PUD. And someone said I'm proposing a drive-through of some other type. Maybe it's a red box. You pick up your movies. I would have to say no, because drive-throughs are prohibited. And I would define that red box as a drive-through. And that's an interpretation we've made time and time again. Prior to this rule being in place, drive-through facilities for the purposes of banks were allowed. And they are allowed in the underlying district. Right. Only the fact that it's a PUD. It's the fact that it's a PUD that prohibits it. Well, if they had a bike as a picture, as opposed to a car, would we be calling it a drive-through? Or they had two people standing there, because it's a parking lot. It's not a road. Well, I mean, there's living right there, right? You look at the language. Look at the language. Yeah, and I agree with you. It's unavoidable. Well, except not even a post question. Shall include all components. And I don't know that this doesn't mean it has to include the reasonable reading of that sentence. It's not that it has to include all components. It says, if it includes any of these components, it's a drive-through. That's what it that's what I would have written it that way. Then I would have written it that way. So I don't understand why we have this as a rule or as a LDR. But that's not for me to ask. I think when I read this, I conclude that, yeah, this kind of meets these descriptions. But I think this is why the regulations allow you, as a board, to take a look at the greater picture and say, is this something that's going to unreasonably damage the site if we have one there? Is this such a bad thing that the handicapped can pull up to this and make their ATM business? Do these people have to transfer to other banks? If it's allowed, if it was a single lot, this wouldn't be a debate. It would be allowed. The site is a PUD because our efforts to make this project work and to bring the housing to the city was to, by combining the three existing lots, it created the bonus that the city brought to us and said, if you combine it all, you can get the number of units that will fund the project. So it's kind of like you step right because you're directed to. Now we find out, oh, because we did what was asked and brought you the components that we were led to believe was what the city wanted. Now all of a sudden, six days ago, we find out that, oh, by the way. Well, to be fair, this has been in the rule since February. And I think kind of understanding what you're saying is there's several board members that are saying, this is a drive-through. So I think that brings us to the next question. So we understand that it seems as though, and correct me if I'm wrong, the broad interpretation is that this ATM is proposed, is a drive-through, and it meets that prohibited definition. So our next question would be, is that something that is within the power of the DRB to, is that a modifiable piece that is, the DRB has the authority to modify zoning regulations as part of the PUD review. So that's our follow-up question, if that is something that the board would be willing to entertain. Right, so the modification is just like you just discussed for setbacks. It needs to be in support of more efficient, compact, walkable and well-planned forms of residential development. And all those things that we just talked about, in order to modify a standard has to be in support of something. So if you didn't have this, does the whole project fall apart? I think it's a big ask where it's been offered for so long. Kelly? So we can't answer that question tonight. That's part of what we needed to solicit the feedback from you all, so that we can do some analysis on our end as to how that impacts the project going forward. I understand that temptation John had in asking the question, but I think it's not a material question and should be disregarded. When John asked what question? I asked, does the project stand or so long? I see, okay. I get the force, I know where John's coming from, but I think it doesn't help you read the regulation. Is it possible for us to take kind of a straw poll? Do that in the middle of the meeting. Well, let me ask this question because I think Marla brought up a good point that we as a board need to evaluate is does the addition of the drive-through promote or enhance the project? Or is it just add a component to the Chase Bank element of the project? As a PUD, does it promote the walkability and the site design? So I guess I would ask the applicant to respond to that so that we as a board can provide you feedback on an individual basis. You might wanna take another, since it's a hard ask, you might wanna take the time until the next meeting before you try to answer the question. Duly noted, Frank. Because we are pretty much at time. And I think we are continuing it anyway, so I don't think that that yes or no tonight was going to change the continuance. Absolutely. I think taking the two weeks just to continue to the next meeting, which is that what we're doing just in the next meeting because we're pretty much- If you can be prepared and have no asks of me to revise things if we can just continue the discussion without any new submissions. Yes, and I think that would probably imply we'll be continued for, would we be continued after that? Do you think Marla, just because there are some, I know that there are things that we need to address with additional documents. So do you anticipate that would probably lead to another continuance where we could have that time to address? Yeah. Yes. Okay, so we can get you on two weeks from now. The other thing that I had on my list, and I wanted to ask you if you wanted to any feedback on this, there were some pretty significant comments from the stormwater department that may require redesign. Did you have anything that you needed to know? Jen, I don't know if you wanna speak specifically to that, but we are working on those comments and feel they can be fully addressed. Okay. Yeah. I agree. I do have one more question. I'm sorry. I do have one more question for Mr. Moran. Exactly. You seem to think that you, and I don't mean this in a majority of way, but it sounds like you're saying, well, you were misled about the ATM somehow. Is there something in specific you're relying on that made you think these, what we're calling the drive-through was permissible? Just my interaction with professional staff and the number of times this has been filed. So that's the basis. So no flags were raised early on? No, not until I got what Paul referred to as getting a blindsided call on Wednesday. We did. Yeah, I think it was an unfortunate finding here that nobody is thrilled to be talking about. And we did present it at sketch plan as well. However, here we are. Yes. Yeah, and I will say that maybe this speaks more to the fact that even though everyone is trying to follow all of these regulations, they are very complex and contain conflicting information. So it's allowed in the underlying zoning, but not allowed in a PUD. And it depends on what you think the interpretation of an ATM is and whether or not that provides flexibility under a PUD. There's a lot of gray area here, which is just unfortunate in how the regulations are written. Okay, I thank you. I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until March 21st. I'll make a motion. We continue preliminary and final plot application, SD 2305, 760 Shelburne Road, very born to March 21st. Second? Seconded. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's Kerry. We will see you back here on the 21st. Thank you for your patience. Thank you very much. Yeah, minutes and other business. All right. Stephanie had sent along some proposed edits to the minutes. Okay. Stephanie, you wanna go through your comments? I was just that I was recused on one of the items. I think it was the first one that we had voted on. Okay. And it said the motion was carried four to zero and I was gonna say that would be three. Okay. So noted. Yeah. Yeah. Any other comments in the meeting minutes? Just that it's probably good that my comment that I was glad Pier 1 was gone and EMS came back, didn't make it into the meeting minutes. What's going to now that you brought it up again? Yeah, okay. Okay. Entertain a motion to adopt the minutes. Second. Discussion? No. All in favor of approving the minutes? Say aye. Aye. Oppose? And is there any other business? Is there some place we can move to? I'll pick them up. Okay, great. We, I guess other business, the board, the council is doing hearings for a new member at their meeting on the 20th. We would not expect a new member to join us on the 21st. We would expect a new member to join us on the first meeting in April. Okay. Thank you. Any other business? Unrelated to DRB specifically, but just to note how hard Marla and Marty have been working on some of the form-based code projects, including immediately across here, you see earthwork that was approved last summer and last week we issued the Marla issued the zoning permit for two new buildings that will be four stories, first story commercial, three stories of residential above, which is really exciting. So just a tip of nod of how much work she does that doesn't even come to the board. So. I really wish that we could get a full review of these form-based code, rather than just think of it straight away. Careful what you wish for, Mark. I think we are very lucky to have this shot. Yes. Do anything of the world that's missing is a question I want to ask people to answer. The factual question is if even buildings and big buildings have pitch rooms, perhaps instead of flat rooms? No. I have a question I have for you, your son, you know, let it be aesthetic reason because it's the small part of the flat rooms or is it all money? Probably. I'd love for you to give me a moment. So it's cheaper to build the flat rooms. Welcome. Thank you. Oh, that's incredible. Yeah, yeah. It's a desert friendship, but when I get it, it's far enough. Okay. It's late. I'm going to work hard. Thank you, Marla. Thank you. I will note the meeting ended at 10.08 p.m. Good night, everyone. Thank you.