 the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, August 3rd, 2021. And welcome everyone to our first meeting in this new building, in this fabulous new building and our first meeting since the pandemic began a year and a half ago. So we're all excited to be here. With me tonight on the board is Jim Langen, board member. Dan Albrecht, Stephanie Wygan, Wyman, sorry, Frank Cokman and Mark Baer. And also with us tonight are staff from the department, Marla Keane, who's the development review planner and Delilah Hall, who's the zoning administrator for the city. So again, this is our first meeting in this new building and there's a lot of wonderful features to this auditorium. We are getting used to them. So please bear with us as we kind of muddle our way through. And we are also able to have folks attend virtually. So we're trying to balance the virtual participation with in-person participation. If it's a little clunky, bear with us. We'll get it down. And I will also note that we will be on our August recess two weeks from today. So we will not be meeting until the September 7th, Tuesday, September 7th. Okay. So if I could start with directions on emergency evacuation. The doors are behind you and then immediately to your left on the left door, as you're heading out, there's an exit and there's another exit, which is the front door to your right from the right door. There's also a door back down the hallway by the senior center, also on the left. And restrooms are out this door and down the hallway in front of it. And you'll see them noted. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? No. Hearing none. Let's turn to announcements. Again, thank you all for attending on this gorgeous evening. As a reminder, anyone who wishes to participate in the meeting and be considered a party in the future should sign the sign-in sheet. I forgot the sign-in sheet. That's all right. I know everyone here. Okay. And if you're attending virtually, please sign in with your name and contact information in the chat box. And we will note that you're participating. And if you're on the phone and you don't have audio or visual, feel free to email Marlokine at m-k-e-e-n-e at s-burl.com to indicate that you're a participant. We ask that you please refrain. Those of you who are attending virtually, please refrain from conversations in the chat box. They are not part of the public record and it can be very distracting for us. So if you have comments, save them for the public comment time at the end of each proposal's presentation. And if you're on your computer, please mute your audio and visual until you are ready to speak and invited to speak. It just makes it much easier to see who's out there. Any questions about that? Any other comments? Okay. I think we should probably start with our agenda item number four. Just give me a second, please. Time seemed to be having trouble doing. Okay, this is a first item, the first proposal we're going to review tonight is the sketch plan application SD 2120 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC for the 3.6 acre Park Road. Am I on the wrong one? Yeah, that's a lot. I'm sorry. Sorry, forgive me. I can read the description now, Odd. Perfect, go ahead. This is miscellaneous permit application MS 2103 of the city of South Freilington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Spear Street. The upgrades consist of constructing a gravel wetland in an existing claspery wetland and wetland buffer at 239 Spear Street. Thank you, Marla. So for those of you in attendance, this is a miscellaneous permit application. We will hear from the applicant and we will go through the staff comments and then we will invite the public to make comments if there are people who want to do so. So who is here for the applicant, please? Hello, everybody. My name's Tom DePichro. I'm Deputy Director of Environmental Services with the South Freilington Department of Public Works. Welcome. Thank you. It's wonderful to be here. Do you ever be applicant in this new space? Yes. It's an honor. I hope I'm part of a Sobu trivia night someday. Yeah. Well, welcome. I'd like to swear you in, raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Madam Chair, just for the record, I've worked with Tom for many years in my capacity with regional planning, but I do not think it will affect my ability to judge the application fairly. Thank you for that disclosure. I also want to make a disclosure that my company does sometimes do work for the set of South Freilington, but I don't think that will impact my ability to judge the application. Thank you. Any other disclosures? Okay. Would you kindly give us a brief overview of your project before we start reviewing staff comments? Yes, happy to. So this is a stormwater management or stormwater treatment project. The city has been charged through various state regulation to implement these all over the city. And so this is one of many. This project in particular is located along Spear Street, opposite of the UVM Miller Research Farm. Works taking place on land owned by the Burlington Country Club and also within the Spear Street right of way. Project involved construction of a stormwater treatment wetland. And it's going to collect about 80 acres of runoff five acres of which is impervious surface. And in general, water is going to be diverted from a ditch along Spear Street and some piping along Spear Street over to this new treatment wetland provided with attention treatment and then sent back into the same pipe to discharge in the same location further south. And just very quickly, I wanted to talk about, again, the purpose of this project is stormwater management to improve our impaired watershed or our potash brook. So we estimate this project is going to remove about just over 10 kilograms of phosphorus per year that's currently flowing to potash brook and ultimately the lake. We're also going to achieve some pretty good flow reductions. So during a one year storm event, we're going to see a 97% reduction. So a flow is reaching the stream. We're going to be reduced from 21 CFS cubic feet per second down to about 0.7. So that's really good. And then during a 10 year storm, we're going to see a very good decrease as well. In that case, we're going to reduce flows down from 64 cubic feet per second down to 21. So we're basically going to turn flows hitting the stream to that 10 year storm to what they were during a one year. So that'll be very beneficial for the watershed kind of prevents the in-stream erosion one of the water quality issues we're dealing with. And then so I can get into the design of the wetland if folks would like or if people are familiar with them, I can save more time for questions. I wonder maybe we can get into that as we go through the staff report. Thank you, Tom. Before I get started, does anyone have any general questions about the application before we... Yeah, I just have a general question. Tom, you mentioned it's helping the Broad and the Country Club comply with their three acre permit requirement roughly how much of the drainage area comes from their land and are they paying for a proportionate share of the cost? About a third, perhaps a little more. I thought I included a figure, there we go. It should be in the back page of your packet. And so I have the impervious area breakdown. And so about 2.4 acres of the five is the city and part of UVM. About an acre is some private homes that are located on the Burlington side because this project's kind of right on the city line. And about 1.7, I'm sorry, about an acre is the Country Club. 1.7 is the private property there. And they are, we do have an agreement with them to do some cost sharing. So all the parties are participating in some way. Great, that's my general question. Any other general questions before we dive into the staff comments? Okay. Just as a procedural matter, I was curious about the private party participation too. How's that working? I mean, are they co-applicants for this? It depends. So you're asking specifically about the DRB application? Because the answer is yes. Because we have a number of permits we had to get and some they had to get as the property owner. No, I mean for this proceeding. Yes, they are, I believe they are co-applicant. Am I correct in that, Marl? I think they signed on to our... It's whatever you said in your application. So I can check that. But this is very much a collaboration if that maybe answers your question another way because we're both going to get a benefit. They're going to have... I understand that. It's a technical question, which is, we don't... It's their way and they should... So yes, they are all co-applicants and have signed the application. All the involved private parties are co-applicants, right? There are one, two, three applicants listed in addition to the city of South Wellington. So do we need to just flag it when we get to a decision eventually to note all the co-applicants or does it make a difference or no? Yes, so that'll be listed in the decision. Okay. Okay, let us turn to the staff report and any comments. So the first comment is about the 10 functions and values of wetland classification. And there was no discussion of these functions and values provided in the report. So we're wondering if you could describe which of the functions and values, however minor the wetland provides and how the proposed measures will provide medication. And I assume you have the 10 listed in front of you or maybe there. Yeah, I've got them. Okay, good. Sure, so a little bit of background that I can get into the 10 specific staff. So we worked with the state of Vermont. We had the wetland scientists from the state come out, take a look. She prepared this report. It's the wetland classification report that you guys see on the packet indicated it was a class three wetland. Prior to that, we had a wetland consultant, Errol Briggs from Gilman and Briggs come out and do a delineation. He indicated that it was also his suspicion or expectation was that would be a class three wetland. I did print out an email from them that he had sent to our design engineer that I can share with everybody. It does talk about how the 10 functions and values aren't necessarily demonstrated in this particular wetland. But I can go through them individually. Is that what folks would like? I think that's what we're asking for, please. So water storage, I think there's a, right now this wetland exists, this class three wetland exists because this is water drains off of the country club. It's piped over here to remove it from the golf course area. And then it flows over to the spear street, right of way through a 15 inch pipe underneath the bike path. So there's really no detention that's occurring for the first item there, the water storage question. There's no treatment of any kind taking place in the wetland at the moment. Kind of what water comes in, comes out whenever it's coming off the golf course goes through. Both of those will be dramatically improved by the construction of the storm water treatment wetland. Discussed in here in this email, and again, there's no fish habitat or wildlife habitat. When the wetland scientists went out, he didn't note any sensitive species or exemplary communities or anything like that, nor did the state wetland scientists when they were out there. It is currently serving no education or research value. And it is not used for recreation currently, although it'll be landscaped and integrated in with the golf course, which is a recreational activity in the future. And no erosion control or kind of open space function at the moment. It's sort of a scrub brushing wooded area kind of along the bike path. I think that's all 10. Thank you. Sure. Any questions from the board about that response? And Marla, does that provide us what we need? I think it does, yeah. Thank you again. So the second comment is acknowledging above reference sections of the LDR are not applicable because the project is located approximately 400 square feet south of the nearest residential zoning district. Staff recommends the board discuss the tree removal with the applicant. The applicant has indicated the total landscaping cost is $12,500, which includes the plants in the gravel wetland as well as the proposed cedar hedge. So tell us about the tree removal. So there is an area of wooded area right now. It's made up mostly of smaller trees. I think some aspens and elms, a couple, I think two trees, I have my notes here, but there's two trees that are over 10 inch in diameter. Otherwise it's a lot smaller brush and trees are in there. So those on this footprint of the wetland, as you can see in the plans, those will be removed to make space for the treatment of wetland. And then to kind of provide some screening, again, we've got a row of cedar trees proposed along the bike path. It's on the west side. And then within the wetland itself, we've got various wetland seed mixes. So there's a variety of kind of herbaceous type wetland plants that will be installed in there. Thank you. Any questions from the board about? So this would be going to be cedar trees, not cedar hedges, right? Yeah, cedar trees. So it's not intended to provide full screen, right? I just want to be sure it's not the monochromatic green around the utility boxes that we see everywhere. No, these are just cedar. Okay, gotcha. What they are on the row. They are what? They're in a straight line. In a row, okay. They're in a straight line, but it's not, you know what I'm talking about. It's not that. I do, yeah, we're not boxing. So it is. Yeah, it's not, yeah. Craig Lambert, I have any thoughts on this being the appropriate species to plant there? I'm not sure if our city arborist provided comment or not. Yeah, I didn't bring it to Craig because the board's authority is somewhat limited in this. Maybe I should have anyway. Is there a way we can make it, well, if somebody to think about we'll make a condition that the verified with the, I mean, we often ask applicants to do that, like go verify that this is the appropriate tree to plant or whatever. So I asked somewhat naive question. Why is it necessary to just decimate the wooded area? Can you work with the wooded area in some fashion? So what we're attempting to do here is put in this much larger stormwater treatment system. Like I said, it's gonna collect a much bigger area and really detain that water before it hits Potash Brook and provide more phosphorus, nutrient removal. So in our design of this, we can't just sort of leave what's there already in place. We're trying to, these are all storage-based treatment systems. So we just, we need that depression so that we can store the water there to detain it and treat it. Which necessarily really involves the removal of the trees. Yeah, yeah. And we looked at moving it around, of course, but this was sort of the location that worked by the nature of where the water was flowing. Can I ask a question? Sure. So in your testimony, you say that this is meant to be a sort of integrate with the golf course and sort of have a landscape feature look to it. On your proposed, the site plan, it's showing sort of around the perimeter of it a hatched area. Is that just a construction road or is that gonna be, you know, permanent for access and maintenance? That's a temporary construction route and it's without showing. Same with the fence. Those are all, yeah. Oh, no, there is some restoration, a limited restoration of the fence along the road. And I think the property itself, like I can't see it on the screen there. I'm talking about the one between the retention basin and the golf course. Yeah, or where it was ever dry. What was that? Limits of disturbance, I believe, or possibly erosion control fence. Right. Yeah. So pretty much when this is all done, that road's not gonna be there and the fence isn't gonna be there. Correct. Yeah, that's just prevent sediment from leaving. Yep. That's driving it out. That was my main question slash concern. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Moving on. I think that's it. Before we open this up for public comment, any last questions or comments? Thank you, Tom. So this would be the time to invite the public, anyone who wants to speak. Do we have anyone in the chat box who has indicated? There you go. Okay. Is there anyone attending here tonight who would like to speak or provide testimony? Okay. So I think we are prepared to entertain a motion to close the hearing. Make a motion to close miscellaneous, close the hearing from miscellaneous permit application MS 21-03 of the city of south blowing department of public works for stormwater upgrades on Spear Street. Thanks, Dan. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Frank. Okay. All in favor of the motion. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Good to know. Thank you, Tom. So it looks like the applicants for the next agenda item are all attending digitally. Okay. Okay. So the next proposal is site plan application SP 21-026 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an expansion of the existing taxiway K for the purpose of improving safety at the runway and taxiway intersection at 1200 airport drive. Who is here for the applicants? As in the past, we have a team here. This is Larry Lackey, Director of Engineering and Environmental Compliance at the airport. And I have. This is Jackie Deschastre with EIV technical services. I didn't get... Todd Jewell is CHA consulting. I can't hear you. Is there another person? He must be having difficulties. That's fine. We can possibly, it looks like he was muted. Udey, are you there? I guess he won't be able to testify. We'll work with Todd on this. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Slightly on the digital people, right? Can you say a few words? Sure. Can you hear me, sir? Yeah, of course. We're talking. We're talking. Okay, would you like me to present the project at this time? Great, thank you. Okay, so as you can see on the screen, you can see the red coloring. That end is runway one from the east that if you're inbounding in small aircraft is over the O'Brien development. That is not currently there. It's actually way kilo that we're proposing. It's 25 feet wide, about 800 feet long. We're also relocating a Papia precision approach path indicator from one side of runway 119, which is one way one approach to the other side because of this. This is a safety remediation project. Most of the general aviation aircraft, the smaller aircraft come from the right side of this drawing to runway one instead of going to the other side and going up to take off from runway one, run from the other side or doing it on the taxiway. This will allow them to approach and then follow up to runway one and take off. That eliminates them crossing that runway, either go to runway one or the other runways where inbound air traffic could be coming in. So this will eliminate that issue with planes crossing when airplanes could be landing. So this is a very small project. We anticipate construction starting next year. And Jackie, if you don't mind giving a permit update. Sure. So some of our other permits, we've already secured our state construction stormwater permit. We're under technical review for everything else in your permit. And our active decision is drafted. I hope I didn't have John in my pocket. Sure. We have secured our construction stormwater permit. Okay, thanks so much. So we have secured our construction stormwater permit. We're currently in technical review for our operational stormwater permit and our active 50 decision is drafted. And once we have all permits secured, that would then be issued. Well, first of all, any discussion? All in favor? I best say aye. Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We will be in touch. Thank you very much. Moving on to item six on the agenda, project description. This is a sketch plan application SD 2120 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC for the 3.6 acre park road area phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units and two family homes on two private roads at 1170 and 1180 Dorset Street. Who is here for the applicant? David Burke, O'Leary Burke. And Dan Hile, O'Leary Burke. Does anyone have any disclosures? Rick uses. Raise your right hand please. Oh, sketch plan. Sorry, thank you. Thank you. No, we're talking about sketch plan. No, sorry. Say it over the heck you want. So this is a sketch plan which is kind of a high level first step in the development review process. It's not a formal hearing and it just is an opportunity for the board to give feedback to the applicant and help shape a project to be consistent with the current LDRs. So having said that, would you please give us an overview of your project? Sure. As you mentioned in the parcels at 11, I think you mentioned 1170 and 1180 Dorset Street. It was originally two locks. You can see the line going through the middle in a kind of west to east fashion and then a third lock. That's the triangle area at the northeast corner nearest unit nine, proposed unit nine. So it's comprised of those three parcels. It's 3.6 acres in size, currently vacant. This is a parcel that was part of the master plan for Vermont National and in the settlement, it was designated for 15 units with no more than a four flex as the largest building. You previously, maybe just Mark and maybe Frank, previously saw this must, but it came in with 15 units with six duplexes and a triplex. When I looked at this piece and we looked at the piece, we didn't feel the 15 works. So while the settlement was up to 15, the proposal is for 14. There's seven duplexes as shown now. We're at sketch level, so there's not much detail, but as shown now, six of those duplexes are similar and unit one and two is similar to a corner unit at South Village, the sods. So that went to city council in 2020 and received approval to move forward from city council. The parcel is served by municipal water, will be served by municipal water and municipal sewer that's available there. And as you mentioned, two private roads. The first private road opposite the loop road that's proposed on the north side of Park Road. I think it's called the city parcel. And that's going to serve four duplexes and private road would serve three duplexes. Each of those are 20 feet wide. Some of the changes from comments received with the other client, other consultant back in January 16, 2016 was when they were in fight. Was there was a suggestion to add an internal path to connect the development. This proposal does include a path between right there, between the roadways. And then up at the hammerhead, it includes path connection to the multi-use path at Dorset Street. Previous proposal did not have the turnaround areas. Both roads now have a turnaround for emergency services. We did this. I don't believe this was a comment back in 2016, but as I mentioned, we're now proposing seven duplexes versus the 15 minutes. A lot of the discussion back then was in revolved around parking. Each of these units will have a two-car garage and also have a minimum depth of cars in front of the garage. In addition to that, there is a total of eight on-street parking spaces. Two on the upper road and six on the lower road. As I'm mentioning upper and lower, we're at the northeast corner of Dorset Street and Park Road. The parcel falls away from Dorset Street. There's kind of two plateaus. The upper plateau that is from where right about there stops and it's all the way from Dorset Street is relatively flat but does slope away from Dorset Street. Then in between, kind of at unit, propose unit eight and in between the roadway, there's a change in grade and then there's a lower plateau. The lower plateau does slope more than the upper area, but it kind of separates the two areas from each other. I think for a sketch plan, that's all I have for an overview. Thank you. The staff is, because I'm not familiar with some of the stuff. What's the purpose of the landscape burns on Dorset and are they required? They're not. That was a fair amount of discussion in the 2016. All I did was, I happened to be there at night, so I heard it firsthand, but I also grabbed the minutes afterwards and tried to incorporate those comments. Realized it's been five years. The city has kind of gone different directions, berm, no berms, gentle, not gentle, but there was at that time the discussion that there should be verming in landscaping. So we're at sketch, so landscaping's not shown, but those would tend to be landscape berms. If they're not desired, we'd still do landscaping, but that's kind of a follow-up from- I mean, I'd love to hear from the other board members. Thanks for that background, it's good to know. I guess I'd love to hear from the other board members because it's just, especially, we've got some higher, we've got density going in potentially to the north. And to the north, there is verming. That's a separate kind of its own district to the north of Park Road, and that requires verming. A berm was an option, but I think the project got approved in the spot right. But it's just planted, and that's, yeah. So they didn't choose the berm option. They chose the planting option. Okay, maybe it was one of the options because I went to 13 things with Paul Conner when they did up those. Nice, that'll be it. And then Marla, is it some sort of screening required from Dorset and the landscape or what's the rationale? There's no requirement once upon a time that the city did sort of have this philosophy of you can see the results of that, particularly on fear state. It seems to be along Dorset, I think we are. No, I'm just asking, I mean, for me, that's why I was asking, is it a requirement yes or no? And I'm, you know. I mean, I'm okay with it not being a requirement, but I would imagine, can you talk about feeling about it one way or the other? Kind of like them. These are only, there's a lot of lines there, but these are only three to four feet high. And with landscaping, they tend to provide, it's nice to have kind of a sound buffer. So it deflects sound and. Yeah, it'd be interesting to see that visually what it looks like and all that. Yeah, it's just three to four, you know, doesn't look that great there at preliminary, if we move forward with them, unless we hear a consensus otherwise, we would have likely have a landscape architect involved and provided a cross section or illustrated. And I get the, and there's a trade off between providing some sense of privacy versus like. We don't want a wall. I don't want a wall. Right, right. Personally, that's what I'm saying. Right, right. I think the, you know, the three to four foot high burn with some scattered landscaping is what we'd be considering. Any other questions? I actually liked it. You know, I think it's a nice way to soften the corners. You know, I think three to four feet high with some nice aesthetically answered landscaping. It'll provide some privacy for the units and as well as soften the development from dorset. Especially any traffic coming south and turning onto Park Road, you're gonna get that sort of, it's gonna feel, you know, like you're seeing a lot of development going up on dorset and you're right now, I know that the siding isn't on, but you see a lot of yellow walls, you know, until the siding goes on with the landscaping. I think this is a nice way to sort of mitigate that. And this would all be on common land, right? Everything. Somebody would, somebody might assume it's their lot. You know, 20 years from now when the tree is blocking their view of the Adirondas. Yeah, I think it comes up in the staff notes a little bit later, but everything's common except the unit footprints. Okay, to change the topic slightly. Sure. May I just, I also like the berm for the same reasons that Dan just, and Mark just said, go ahead, Frank. Go to Mark. You mentioned just, this is a topographical question and what the impact is. You mentioned that the land falls away to the east. Is that correct? Correct. And I gather it's all flowing left in a natural state water flows towards a wetland that's behind it that's further east of the three units or the three, three easterly duplexes. Correct. So what is the impact of that water flow? We're at sketch, but we will require a state storm water permit and the DPW also reviews it, but it will require a state storm water permit that we have to show adequate treatment and retention. I'm not asking about, I'm not asking environmental question. I'm asking the standpoint of the inhabitants of the units. Are they, in the simplest terms, what design features will prevent wet basements? Oh, while these units would have foundation drains for the basements. That's all, I mean, without the labor, that's all engineered in to protect the patients. Well, the finished grading, you want positive finished grading away from the building. And then when you don't have great soils, which is pretty much the whole southeast quadrant, you better have foundation drains. So that's actually a good point, because we're just at sketch, because we've had this discussion on other projects where we have a gradient state when you have units on the low side of the road, that we end up having these houses that sit way up out of the site, so that you can get the drive up to the garage, especially on units nine and 10, where you look like you probably have like a 10 or 15 foot grade change between the road and the unit. I don't think we've got that much else. Those are two foot contours. So yes, you might have a 10 to 10 foot change between the middle of the road and the garage lift. I guess that's something we've talked about where we don't want to end up with these houses sitting way up so you can get the traditional house just sits above the crown of the road. Mark, that's discussed extensively in staff comment number two, and we can certainly jump around. Clearly I didn't read the staff comments on this one. There's a lot of discussion and considerations here. So maybe we should move through the staff comments, but before we do, are there any other general questions from the board? Number one, it quotes part of the master plan approval and then the staff comment is in previous recent approvals, the board has allowed individual development areas to exceed 15% building and 30% overall log coverage, provided the overall PD meets the coverage. Staff recommends the board consider whether they will allow the requested lot coverages, the 2015 master plan approval and a map of the master plan are included in the packet for the board. So, sure. Sure. So as staff has noted, I think almost if not every parcel out here has individually exceeded those very low numbers, 15% and 30%. In this case, it's 17% and 33% is where we're at as far as this sketch plan, which is closer than any of the ones I've worked on out there. The 15 and 30, it's not so much as a waiver. It's agreeing that that's what's been done because there's the overall golf course and it's well below the 15% and 30%. The trade-off was you saved all this land as part of the golf course and the trade-off is cluster developments around golf course. So I agree that it needs to be discussed again, but it would be a, if the board were opposed to it, it would be different than every project at the Montenegro for it. Board, what are your thoughts about that? I guess that's ultimately the question, and obviously I've been on the board for a while. I've gone through quite a few projects on the board and this is the first time we'll call us actually bringing it up at the discussion point. So maybe there's just that, it's a discussion point termination, but Marla, is this something where it's just like you're pointing it out because it's a 15 and 30, not as it's one of these we have to physically waive it? So I would just switch back to the staff comment because it has the excerpt from the master plan. This was brought up at the most recent golf course application on the other side of Park Road. And the question that was asked at the time, I remember specifically John Mokin asking me this, how many developments are left for the golf course? This is the penultimate development area for the golf course, so there's one more after this. And so the master plan decision says total building coverage of 7% and total impervious coverage of 15% are approved for the country club, PUD. These are overall limits for the entire PUD. Within individual development areas, these overall limits may be exceeded, provided the applicable SEQ zoning district limitations of 15% for buildings and 30% overall on MET. So within individual development areas, the limits can be exceeded as long as the whole PUD meets 15 and 30. So what we talked about at the last application was, do we want them to prove that they're meeting 15 and 30 for the overall golf course? Or can we take a bath at the envelope? They definitely are, and therefore, being a little bit over on this site is fine. So a close enough approach. Right. What I remember, David, is that your team provided some rough numbers about the overall golf course. Do you have those on hand tonight? I do not, Dan, nor I worked on the one across the street. I will say that we've worked on the clubhouse parcel and this same conversation did come up at that hearing. Not to the point of provide numbers for the overall golf course. Oh, and it was definitely a back to the envelope kind of thing, maybe taking it from the impervious coverage. So we can certainly check in-house and see what Brian Currier had for information on that. I have a question, just so I get a better contextual grasp. This is a big PUD, yes? Yes. I wasn't, or at least if I was, I'm no longer conscious of the master plan for it. So I have, in general, it seems rational to apply the coverage limits on a total basis. But the question I have is, are all the lots, if there are, there's separate lots within the PUD? In some there are, in this one, there's not. Well, what do you mean in some? In the overall PUD, there's several single family lots. I think Frank's question is, is this project area on its own lot? This is on- Well, it's currently three lots, those lines would be dissolved. It's not the question, what I'm getting at is this. So just tell you what my concern is, rather than ask the question, if there are different owners, for example, in the space behind my house, there were different owners of different lots in the PUD, in the overall plan PUD. Oh, are there different owners? In other words, is somebody who's at the end of the development stick, so to speak, wanna get shafted because the specific developments that have come before it have eaten up the available coverage so that the last few people are violating the district coverage? Do you get my point? I think so. So at the end of the day, there's one person, Jim McDonald. And Jim McDonald owns this parcel and Rivers Edge is the applicant on this parcel. Jim McDonald owns parcel across the road that we talked about. Jim McDonald owned the clubhouse parcel as well as the golf course and everything else. So he would be sticking it to himself, if that occurred. Which is the last parcel? I'm not sure which is the last parcel. I wanna get Park Road, I believe. Yeah, I think it is. I can't think where the last parcel is. Page 40 is the master plan. And it's rotated north as to the right on that page. But the final one is at the, it's called Lot 108. And it's actually, I can make a little marking. Oh, it's the abandoned house. It's down here. Right on the, just to this, the abandoned house just to the south of this. I think it's further down the corner. It's on a corner. That one. Oh, for the impart. Oh, okay. So that's right on between the golf course and the hiking trails. Yeah, and it's the back of that hole that has the condos, single family and condos above it. That's a difficult one. Jim McDonald dealt with a lot of developers. Riverside Shepherd did everything on the west side of Dorset Street. The first thing they did on the east side is the one currently the clubhouse parcel. Some of it was developers, retired developers, meant went away, but a good part of it is Jim McDonald decided this is the developer he wants to work with. So I did look at that piece and that's a difficult piece. I don't know if it'll be developed the way it's suggested. Right, so Mr. McDonald owns the land, but he's not necessarily the developer of the individual parcel, is that correct? He's the applicant on this, this particular one. Yeah, but what I'm saying is this is, there are other parcels. He owns that remaining parcel. There are other parcels that he may sell to somebody else, correct? There's just the one parcel that she's showing there. The yellow? Yeah. And he could, I don't think he's gonna sell it to these folks cause they already had me look at it. Okay, I answered my question. Any other comments about this stuff coverage? So I guess it'd be helpful for David to hear if you guys want some back of the envelope numbers. I'd like to see where we're at, I think at this point. I hate for you guys to be the one to put the last ones in and have to do all the lake work, but I think we're at a point where it'd be nice to see. It was done for the last one, I think it was. I'll check with Brian, I'll probably call Dave Marshall because they have the history history. You know what you can call is our storm water department cause they have all that. Okay. They have to know the impervious. Yep. Okay, let's see, comment number two. So comment two is kind of where Mark was going to a certain point and Marla mentioned. The currently, well, this parcel is subject to the former regulations per that court settlement, maximum 40 foot house height. So at the end of the day, you know, we can discuss finish gradient and we can discuss all that, but we're not going to request a waiver from the 40 feet. So that's pretty tall for a single family. Yes. But that's the, that's the stand. So staff has gone into detail on several sections that it suggested support, you know, staff recommends the board consider flipping the road and the drive, the private drive for units nine through 14, basically putting the drive closer to the wetland buffer and putting the units on the high side. They, they recommend, they recommend that and go on to provide some support for that recommendation. Couple, the flip side of it. This works much better for this property and it's nothing about what we're talking about on unit heights and such. Unit one two, as I said, is a corner unit. So that you got a front facade. So first and foremost, if you flip things, you'd be looking at the back of those units coming down Park Road would not be nice. If you Sorry, we're talking about units nine through 14. Correct. Okay. So if they went to the uphill side of that road, the backs of them are going to be looking into the back of unit seven, eight, and, and you're going to see the backs of those from Park Road. So the backs of seven and eight would be two of the backs of nine and 10. And the back of nine and 10 would be fully visible from Park Road. So, so that's, that's one reason the, the staff suggests that there's not much backyard because the proximity to the wetman. True. These are condo units. They don't need backyard, but they do need privacy. And these would be excellent backyards. You put up the split rail fence at the, at the buffer limits of the wetland and you have a nice private use. It doesn't matter if that fence is 10 or 15 feet away. It's nice and private. You flip these around and unit five, six, seven, eight are going to have, you're going to have backyard to backyard with very little space. But the main reason we did it this way is that where you see the, the change between the two plateaus, there's a, there's a fair amount of ledge on this site just as there was across the road when you reviewed that not quite as much as across the road, but the majority of the ledge is right in between that area where we're not proposing anything. So you flip things and it gets, it definitely be significantly more blasting. But my main concern is the backyard to backyard with next to no space. We, in theory, Jim McDonald's not happy that we don't have 15 units here because he has a court settlement for 15 units, but 15 units just doesn't work. As Mark mentioned, nine and 10 is a tough unit to make work. Nine and 10, that's going to have to be a dip driveway with the grading off to the sides, 11, 12, 13, 14. Those driveways are only slightly over 20 feet long. You know, it just barely fits a car. But nine and 10, we're definitely going to have to dip that. The triangle area in the northeast corner, that's where our stormwater is going to go. So it'll be easy to grade that unit nine, 10. And will it be up from the back? Yes, it'll be up, but not up with a positive grade on the driveway going back to the road. You know, I look at things on the engineering perspective of what if I live there? And I don't think there's anybody that can say that units nine through 14 don't have a nicer backyard here than if flipped up against unit six, seven and eight. And positive drainage from your garage. I'm sorry if that's a bad thing, but I do that whenever I can. And if I have to dip a driveway, nine and 10 is longer. So the driveway's longer. So we've got the ability to have that dip in the driveway so that you're not getting runoff into your garage. But it just, it fits the parcel. I don't disagree with what staff is saying as far as the supportive information, but I do disagree for this parcel and for the privacy of those units and the impact on the public, in my opinion, if they're flipped of looking at the back of the units. So before the board enters into discussion on this, I just wanna bring up the two other points that are in the staff notes about in support of them being flipped. And I understand what you're saying, David, but I want the board to have the full picture. And one is that on the right-hand side of your screen, there is a wetland and associated wetland buffer. So this is the buffer. So those backyards are almost negligible considering the location of that buffer. The second point is that I do have some concerns and maybe the board wants to see additional testimony on this about the location of the driveway here versus the location of the driveway, somewhere farther down the road. It's very near to the other driveway. And as exerted in the staff comments, there is the city's policy is to align driveways across or nearly across from one another when possible and to have entrances to PUDs be 400 feet apart. So this is not aligned with this driveway and nowhere near 400 feet from the other. It's not a, it's no harder and faster a rule than any other consideration, but it is a consideration in this conversation. Is Park Road a street to be built as part of this project? No, it exists today. It exists. And where does it go? Into, yeah, there's a big neighborhood back there. I'm sorry? There's a big residential neighborhood back there, single family duplexes. So it's a fully traveled road is what you're saying. It goes into the north end of the development and it's a looping development. So folks can go either this access, this is one of the main access points. So what is the separation distance between the two driveways as it were? Currently. Yeah. The two outlets on the Park Road, what's the separation distance between? 116 feet as they're proposed today. 115? Yeah. Can I ask a question there, guys? Is there a way to configure it? So we've just got one curb cut lining up with kind of where she's got the, yeah, that one there. Is there a way to configure it? So it's more of a, a T. I get it because you got that ledge, but it's kind of, I mean, it's only seven buildings. It's hard to make a grid and a neighborhood feel. And I like the idea of, you know, it's the hypothetical, oh, look, the kids are playing on the street. And so, but then I, you get the eastern most driveway and I'm kind of like, is that really, is it really necessary? It'd be great if it was just a little, you came in off of Park Road, you turn south and you go west or east to access. And there isn't even a curb cut there at all. Right, right. Well, I think if you had one, it would line up with that westerly entrance across the road, you know, where it's highlighted now. You would, you would lose units. And even if you would probably lose at least the duplex, if you were to try to split there, and then you'd have to navigate that grade change from the upper, what I call the upper plateau and the lower plateau. Sorry to interrupt, but can't you just orient the building? So you just got one curb cut there with the hypothetical new road and the other development and you come in and you make a T or just as the ledge is basically, is it impossible to build a west east road or a U shape or the pedestrian path? The pedestrian path and then reorient the central building number seven and eight is flipped or something. So it's got a southern exposure instead of an eastern exposure. I think the real answer to this is your regulations don't allow us to. It would have to be a public road if it served that number of units and we don't have room for a public road with setbacks. So the city regulations, there's different numbers, but essentially once you get to 10 units, you're a public road. Is that true in the 2003 LDRs as well? I know it's true now, but you're in this weird place. I'll double check, but I'll double check, but I believe so. I started in 1986, so unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it was there in 2003 also. Because I just, I mean, I, again, you kind of have to deal with what's your, the hand you've been dealt to get the units in there and all, but at the same time, I'm looking at like, that's a throw down to second base. And that's the real, the real issue, Dan, is the kind of the hand we're dealt with. And I mentioned it, I think at the city council meeting, Jim McDonald spent a lot of time and a lot of money and got a court settlement that included 15 units on this parcel. He's already not happy with us, but to get geometry to do something like drawn there, you're not gonna meet any geometry and not lose additional units. I would suggest it would go from 14 to 12. What is the, well, going to the other direction? What if you moved, is it feasible to move the Easterly driveway further northeast? Yeah, we can look at moving that. It's not a, as I read it, it's not a requirement. It talks about, it's kind of geared more towards public roads on that separation. Certainly we try to have better separation when we can. We can look at that to provide better separation, shorten the drive to the lap nine, 10. We want our geometry to work where we're not running stormwater out onto Park Road. So as you slide down that hill, that becomes more difficult to make that work. And most of these folks going into units nine through 14, they're gonna be coming from Dorset Street. So you don't really want to have a switchback road like was just drawn in orange. It's just not the geometry that you want when you're always coming to and from Dorset Street. Right, right. Does it, you said the four plex is the max, or does this work with any, is it achievable to get 15 units, but do a four plex or a three plex on any of these or? Well, there's not, I mean, there's not with the wetland buffer and staying back, we're back more than we need to be from Dorset Street. There's not much space. The space that's left is that area in between what I'm calling the upper and lower plateau and then the area that we're gonna use for stormwater. So I don't believe so. The plan that was in 2016, same two roads, except there was a triplex. I think the duplexes were smaller. So the answer is you can get to 15 if you're doing smaller units. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I think the one comment I would have with is regards to the separation of the two driveways. And when we reviewed the project to the north, there was quite a bit of discussion about the location of the two curb cuts, one sort of at the bottom of the sort of the grade and one's at the top of the grade. Now we have a driveway at the top of the grade and a driveway that sort of in mid gradient down. And the other discussion on the parcel to the north was, well, it's a road. So you can either go in the southern, in the Eastern or in the Western. So people can come out and all come out at the top of the entrance and go out to doorset. Units nine through 14 are gonna have to come out sort of mid steep slope down and people coming down Park Road to go into the golf course development, you're sort of coming down the road with someone coming out from it heading up to doorset. I do have a concern with the separation of these two curb cuts. I agree with you. I don't see the alternative. I think that you have done from a layout standpoint, from a programming standpoint, from what you have to work with, the court mandate. I think this is sort of like without that concern of the separation of the two curb cuts, I do think you've done about the best you can, but I still have that concern. And I'm not sure how to alleviate that concern at this point. I mean, one thing to keep in mind here, we're not comparing apples to apples. So the other side, yes, it's a loop road. It's three times plus the units. We've got six condo units, which is equal to about four homes as far as traffic. It really is a driveway. So that's helpful. I'm not talking about volume. I'm talking about actual functionality. Right, but part of functionality is volume as far as conflicts. Okay, that's a tough one. Any other questions or comments? Marla, do you? I just wanna add, I do like the staff comment number three, the concept of some sort of connectivity, you know, little sidewalk amenities, and if there are the two driveways, the two private roads that I do like the idea of a little connecting sidewalk and trying to make it feel like a little mini neighborhood. So the path, the cinder path and some things like that. Right, and I do think if we're moving to number three, you know, a little bit further on section 1407A, staff supports the pedestrian path that we've shown to Dorset Street. Again, that came from me being at the hearing and then following up with the minutes of that hearing, that internal path connecting the roads. So anybody in these units, it's all common land, they're gonna maintain it. It's not a public sidewalk that might not be maintained. They're gonna maintain it. They're gonna get between the two roads and they're gonna get to the multi-use path and they have an existing crosswalk at the Park Road intersection. I'm not a huge fan of adding another crosswalk just down a little bit. I think the compromise to this, I don't feel that we should be adding sidewalks and increasing the impervious area, which staff does kind of say is a trade-off here. But you can see my unit 11, 12, 13, 14, and 7, 8, those driveways are just right around 20 feet. Nobody parks right up against their garage. They leave a few feet and the typical car is about 15, 14, 15 feet long. So you're not gonna hang out, but if you add a sidewalk to these, we're gonna start getting into internal issues ourselves. But I'll go back to that. There's six units on that lower road and eight on the upper road with a 20 foot wide paved surface. I don't feel that functionally they need a sidewalk in addition to the multi-use path. I think a compromise that I'm okay with regardless of where the entrances end up if we're shifting or not, a compromise of a sidewalk between the entrances, I think that that makes sense. Staff notes that that doesn't add to the impervious discussion that we had because it's within the city right of way. And I suppose with the road across that if a crosswalk is desired there to match up to the sidewalk, that's gonna be a public road on the other side. And there's the existing multi-use path on the other side. That is flat and very visible from Dorset Street. So while it won't be too far from that other existing crosswalk, you've got great site distance to that intersection. Both intersections have good site distance. Any other questions about this? So for, I mean, let's finish discussing number three because we moved on, I do wanna go back to number two because I feel like there hasn't really been clear direction. It's been a lot of, we get in this situation a lot and I'm sorry to put you on the spot here, but where applicants come in and they kind of say what they want and then the board doesn't really respond. This is an opportunity for the board to provide that response so that they're not coming back with a plan for approval that the board isn't able to approve. So regarding the sidewalks, so comment number three is based on staff in this department, the planning and zoning department, but also the comment of the director of public works that history has taught us that even on private roads, future residents clamor for these types of improvements and it often gets shifted to the city to resolve. I think that Justin's depth of experience here is pretty great and I would just take that comment seriously. If a sidewalk, I take David's point about, you don't want a sidewalk on the east side because it's got 9,000 driveways and the driveways aren't nearly long enough. If a sidewalk were to be proposed, we wouldn't envision it to be on the west side of both of those roads. And I just don't wanna have 14 residents coming back and saying darn, we really wish we had sidewalks at the expense of taxpayers across the city as opposed to at the expense of the applicant. Is there a, when you say a sidewalk, just cause I don't know, does that imply an engineering standard a certain width or is it flexible? Like for example, the multi-use path discussion we had over on that. So there is a city standard, however, we have done other things. In O'Brien hillside, you were on the board at that time, there was this sort of experimental sidewalk integrated into the road cross-section design where the road was narrower than 20 feet and the sidewalk is different material, it's concrete and the pavement is asphalt, but it's flush so that when you need that space for two cars to pass, you can drive on the sidewalk, but generally it has the appearance and feel of a sidewalk on these little roads. So it's not, it's guidance, we do have a standard five foot sidewalk, five foot grass strip, but we've seen other designs. And we're open to that, in other words, there's nothing that prevents us from allowing. Well, what I was thinking about specifically, I mean, originally from a big city and I just have childhood memories in some neighborhoods, a very narrow sidewalk, actually, I think, it might have been slate, I mean, it didn't look like cement, they were almost. A lot of the older sidewalks are four feet wide. The standard since I've been doing this is five feet wide unless you get into some kind of hybrid proposal. Now, I wouldn't know and I would like to follow, you know, state that I will follow up with Justin because he states there's no pedestrian amenities. So I'd like them to understand the plan a little better because there is pedestrian amenities. And there is, he mentions no pedestrian amenities and no way to get to the multi-use path. We've got a direct path proposed to multi-use path and we've got the crosswalk existing across Park Road. So that along with a sidewalk between the entrances, I'd like to think that he'd be supportive but I'd at least like to have that discussion with him. So what to put the question squarely, how do you feel about four foot sidewalks as opposed to five foot sidewalks? Or a hybrid if we go that direction. What would a hybrid be? I think like Marlowe was saying whether you're building your road base but you're kind of defining some towns have tried just a white line to keep cars in. 20 foot's not necessary for cars. 20 foot is narrower than we were doing in the 80s and 90s but 16 or 18 feet works when it's not curbed, so. Just so I understand to the south, I mean, I don't get the sense that there's any all the interior movement areas, so to speak, are just that, their interior, none of them. There's no staff points out that there's no connections that they're looking for to other properties because the other properties are developed. So the main thing going back five years ago was there was no pedestrian connection. There was no pedestrian use whatsoever. So that's why there's now the path proposed between the and the crossing unit 13, 14, up between unit six and seven. And then off the hammerhead, there's a path proposed out to the multi-use path. So people can trap with this proposal, people can travel safely to the multi-use path on the south side of Park Street. And if they want to go to the multi-use path on the north side to Carnes or something, they go across the existing crosswalk. So it's a very friendly, safe, low and pervious coverage design, in my opinion. But Marley, you don't share the opinion. Well, I mean, David said himself, when he designs a project, he thinks about what it would be like to live there. I think about what it would be like to live there. And I think, gosh, if I lived in any one of these homes, I would want to go up the hill into Wheeler or walk my dog on the loop of Park Road and Golf Course Road. And to do that, right now, as designed, I have to walk out to Dorset Street, cross at the west end of Park Road and then walk east again back up the hill. And I'm not doing that. I'm gonna cross the road illegally. And it should be great to have the ability to get there without having to cross the road illegally. Well, I think- I've agreed to the sidewalk between the entrances and the crosswalk. So if that's the consensus of the board, I've already agreed to that. Yeah, yeah, because- And then that allows either way, that the 20-foot, as I said, is for this number of units is on the higher side. So again, if you live there, I know what I would do if there was a sidewalk on the west side. I wouldn't go to that sidewalk. I'd walk down the street because there's no traffic. I'd walk down the street. I'd get to that, the new sidewalk that we're talking about. And if I was going north, I'd cross at the new crosswalk. But I wouldn't cross over the street, maybe a parked car there and get to a sidewalk on the opposite side. So what is the board's final direction on sidewalks on these streets? I mean, it doesn't have to be a consensus. It doesn't have to be a vote. But where are people? Yeah, I guess, I mean, these are sort of glorified driveways and it's sort of like a internal, what sort of, it's kind of like a condo or apartment complex. And you're trying to think about internal circulation with people parking their cars. And I mean, two car garages plus two in front. I mean, they'd be occasional visitor or whatever. And I was trying to think about some sort of, I think internal sidewalks would be really hard to accommodate and kind of overkill in a way unless there is something super creative. And I think about my old neighbor in Bethesda, Maryland in the 1950s, split levels. And yeah, there's a three-foot sidewalk. Skateboarded down, there's still that. But it's cozy, you know? And people like them, but that's ultimately a marketing decision for you guys to make. And it's a private road, so it's... I think one thing that I'd like to consider is the, I forgot to do this whole North-South thing when I'm looking at this. Okay, so going North-South on the Eastern Access Driveway. The idea of possibly putting one on the street parking side so that people parking on the street can walk on sidewalk, you go from Park Road on a sidewalk to the path connecting units, lower unit and upper unit. And then you can go out to Dorset Street because the other one, it's very broken up. The one to the West, that complex of the West is very broken up with the way the driveways and the roads are. But I think that that long straight run, it would be nice to have a sidewalk connecting Park Road to the other path connecting the upper and lower developments. That gets you sort of like a circuitous loop that makes you all the way through to Dorset Street. What's the board's consensus? The previous proposal didn't have as much parking to each individual unit. This one has at least four spaces for each unit, which hardly ever get used unless you got company over. But I think because of the previous proposal, there was the request, which we incorporated into this for the additional on-street parking. That green line makes sense to me if I eliminate those on-street parking spaces because if I have a friend over and I'm in a condo with a two-car garage, I'm gonna move my car if they need a space in front of the two-car garage. I might not be in the garage initially or the second car might not be in the garage initially, but if I know they're coming, I've got adequate parking. Right. That would reduce us from currently eight total on-street spaces to two. We exceed the standards without any of those on-street parking, but that was specifically something that was discussed in 2016. And that's why we incorporated it in this, but I could agree tonight that that green makes sense if I don't have those spaces. Well, I think that if you have guests over, say you're throwing a party, they're just gonna park in the street or they're going to park in your turn-around areas. Like that, I think that's what's gonna happen if you eliminate the on-street parking. They're just going to park wherever they can. Yes, unless there's space, yeah, I guess if you're having a party. So you have a birthday party for your kids. Right, right. If you've got six vehicles coming or something. Right, you have a significant amount of people coming over that eliminates their ability to park. And if you have that green sidewalk, the green path, I'm more okay with parking on the street if you have a safer pedestrian flood. And it's not a public street, so it's a private drive kind of thing. It's a private road. And the private road width would have to be increased to 24 feet from 20. If to allow parking on it. Right, so this is a different design that they have shown. Can you erase the stuff so we can see it a little bit better? So what they have is they have a 20 foot road plus eight feet of parking. Our standard is for a 20, maybe it's 26, maybe I think it's a 26 foot road just period if you don't have specifically delineated spots. So you'd only be reducing the total width there by two feet because those spaces that they have shown are eight. Right. 20 plus an eight versus a 26 flat. And one of the things that we as staff are kind of appreciating about the delineated spaces is that it encourages a little bit more organized parking. You don't have people parking on one side and then in front of the next house, they park on the other side. What is happening in my neighborhood right now is driving me crazy. So that's kind of nice about what they have to do. The agenda. We can, if we reduce the widths of those roads down to whether it's 24 or 26, we can add that sidewalk on that lower loop. What do, Mark, we've heard from you, that was helpful. What do other people think? I like Mark's solution and the sidewalk could be quite narrow or it's a place for you to be. It's safe. Yeah, it's safe and it could be, from my mind, the sidewalk could be a foot from the edge of the road, but it's clearly to define sidewalk and all. And to some extent that those parking spaces won't be used that often, that people will say, oh, they can see their kids there on that little sidewalk or whatever. Well, we're getting rid of those parking spaces if we go to a sidewalk and we're making the private road wide enough that you can park on it. Right, but what's, we're not getting rid of them. What staff is saying, I think, is that I can go apparently two feet less than we currently show, but there still would be designated parking there. What's the, just for two people to walk a breast, what's the minimum? Four foot's tight because I live in the Village of Essex Junction. A lot of sidewalks are four foot and I'm talking pre-COVID, it's tight. But let's be realistic. We're not talking about a sidewalk that is a, I mean, to me the sidewalk is... Oh, four foot would work here with the amount of people. Four foot will work here for the same. We're not talking about a lot of people walking here. We're just trying to create a little light separate and encourage circulation within the development. But going to five feet is not necessary. Right, no, no, I was answering the question about this type of thing. I was thinking, I mean, I was thinking in the downward direction because I just don't know. I mean, I don't have a good sense of it, but I think all the people who know it, they're talking about agreeing to four feet is about as narrow as you already got. Yeah, but the thing is you're gonna do five feet on Park Road between the two entrances or we're really gonna go from different sizes, you know, and a foot isn't really gonna make a break from an impervious standpoint. I think it's nicer. I think... You're saying go to four feet on the sidewalk between the two entrances on Park Road? I think that... That's gonna be a city sidewalk. I think that needs to stay the city. That could be five, but it... That needs to stay the city. The sidewalks didn't even require internally in this development, am I correct? Okay, so then let them do it three feet or four feet and maybe there's, let them be creative. Yeah. Because if there's just not that, we're not gonna have 10 people using this at any one time. It'll be great. Does that give you a sense of where the board is? Oh, it's not for me, it's for them. Okay, no, but I know. But you're... I'll say. I'll ultimately write what they... But we still ultimately haven't given them clear direction on the issue of the site lines and the distance separation of the two private roads. Right, and that's what I did wanna go back to that because I was a little bit worried that they're gonna submit the same plan and you're gonna say, no, no, no, no, that's not what we're... Well, I think we, as board needs to figure out, if we say no, no, no, why are we saying no, no, no? I mean, for me, I would say it if it's a safety issue and if it's a regulatory issue, because I think this is about as good as you can get with this layout, because I do agree that from a layout standpoint and a site layout standpoint, this works the best. Now, from a safety standpoint, do we need to flip the road and the units and put them back to back, which I agree is not as successful as what this is from a livability standpoint, but I don't wanna create an issue where the access points are too close together and I don't know how we answer that question, so. And as it stated in the staff report, it's a general policy, we certainly support where we can have better distance. I'd prefer better distance also, but to me, you hit the nail on the head as far as this is what we're kinda stuck with unless you're telling me that you don't agree with everything I said about flipping the units. For the sake of everything else, move that road down and flip the units. That would be the way to get significantly, you're not gonna get to 400 feet. That standard's a general policy and it talks about subdivisions and PUDs. And again, I think you need to take this project in context that there's six townhome units, which is about the same as four single-family homes with traffic on that lower road. Most of the people that are gonna be coming out of the road up above are likely gonna be going two-door street, not conflicting that lower intersection. So as we move it down the hill, we're getting more conflicting with the one that they're coming out of down the hill. And that's where the conflict would be. So in that sense, better separation there is better. So I don't see it as a safety concern. If you're trying to get a sense toward consensus, here's my non-voting vote. I think I've been persuaded by March General, a combination of what the developers argument and March General appreciation of the reasonableness of the overall layout. So I would not insist on the wider separation, particularly because it's only a few units. It's not like there's a thoroughfare going back and forth. So I tend to not want to give them a hard time about that layout. Stephanie, Dan, Jim, Stephanie, it looks like you were gearing up to have an opinion. I'm just thinking about it, you know? I'm thinking about it from a safety point, like if you've got the road, say we were to shift it further to the east to align with the other driveway, you're kind of, you are at the bottom of that hill. And so in the middle of winter and you're coming out, you have to come out and you're likely gonna go last and try to go up the hill to hit Dorset rather than try to go the other way. And I think it's, cannot be across from the other road. It can't be down that far and staff, I don't think is suggesting that. That lower area is gonna be the stormwater area. I think what staff is suggesting, it would come out like where unit nine is and it would go to 200 feet in that range, kind of somewhat centered between the loops across the road. I mean, that is putting it sort of right in the middle of the gradient down. So yeah, from Stephanie's standpoint, you're pushing it away, so you're going further up the hill and that might be something to take into consideration further. Okay, any other comments, Dan? Yeah, but I've only got a little bit of it. And there's no practical way to have people turn in south into the development and have it split into a Y is there. You mean how much driveway I mentioned? Upside down Y. Yeah, what you'd mentioned before. I think the only way to do it isn't what was drawn in before. You'd have to come in a little ways and you basically would have a mirror image of that upper road. So the lower road would turn through unit seven. It would eliminate unit seven and eight. And then you'd still have a hard time getting three duplexes served off that down below. And is there any way if you were to head in south immediately, but then immediately either you could either go straight or swing to the left, like on the north side of unit eight, is there a way to do a sharp left turn there as soon as you came in for those units to get for unit three? It would have to be a T intersection. I mean, you gotta have proper geometry even though it's a private road. So that upper road, I forget exactly what it is, but we've got that at what I consider the minimum radius for the private road, you know, that shape. So that's why I say to do anything down below is basically taking that and mirroring it. And you're using up the usable land for the road versus the units. But I thought we also determined that if we were to do that, we weren't sure if we were going to be having to go to a public road geometry. I wrote that down. The question is because of the 2003 standards, was that also, you know, is it just off the table because public road doesn't work? But I don't know for sure, but I wrote it down. Any other comments? Do you think you have enough feedback from us to work with? Yeah, no, absolutely. Public road. No, we're gonna, Marla wants to go back and talk about too. That was what we just did. Oh, we did, okay. I thought we were still on three. So just make sure there's no other thing. Maybe the staff report. Maybe the only other thing that I don't think was a numbered item, Marla, but there was discussion on page 8, 1406, B1. Staff considers the board does not have enough information to provide feedback on criterion because we're at sketch and staff, you know, that's the way it's written. However, staff recommends the board direct the applicant to demonstrate robust compliance with this at the next stage. I'm assuming that's meaning landscaping and then earlier on, it says landscaping really doesn't apply. We're obviously gonna have landscaping, regardless of whether it applies or not. So the standard is about more than just landscaping. This is the transition. Yeah, it's about the architecture and the appearance of the homes, you know, and how they relate not only to each other, but to the general aesthetic of the Dorset Street area. So we'll be looking for elevations, even if they're not true elevations, more like a flavor of. Yep, okay, great. That was the only other thing I know. Thank you. So any other comments or questions before we move to public comment? Well, I guess I do have one more question. So I know we were previously looking at an application that had wetland buffers on the plan they're putting in split rail fencing to kind of delineate that. Do we wanna recommend something of the sort to also protect this wetland buffer on this property? We will very likely have it because we haven't, because we're at sketch level, we haven't circled back to state wetlands, but they always want something. And usually with this proximity, it's gonna, it would be a split rail fence. Steve, you had thought about boulders being a potentially better solution. Yeah, I mean, here you got multiple units. Fences probably are okay that people will know. There's enough people in the development to know the rules that nobody's gonna. The nice thing, and the nice thing, and the not so nice thing about HOA, somebody's gonna tell them if they're doing well. Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. In the chat box, are there any members of the public who wanna comment? So they may not know that this is the right time, so give it a second and, okay. So if there's anyone in the digital meeting who would like to comment, please unmute yourself and show your camera. And then after that, we can enter together in person. How many people in the audience wanna provide comment? Just one, okay. Let's invite you up and then we can see who is attending virtually if anyone has any comments. I'm assuming it's right here, right? Yeah, yes. This is all new to me too. Yes. And I wanna, I'm John Boussaint from Golf Course Road, and I'd like to say how nice it is to see you in person. Yes, we all agree, whoa. It's like a James Bond movie, you know? It's been nice knowing you, Mr. Boussaint. Yeah. Thank you, Dr. No. It's pretty impressive, Marlon. That is very impressive. The microphone was too loud. No, I mean that sincerely. After looking at all of you in a screen, you know, a little box, it's really nice. And it's building this beautiful too, right here. And I say that because I want the applicant to know that for a year, these people got pretty tired of me and dozens of residents that were concerned basically about traffic, and you heard a little bit of that today. The two curb cuts on a steep curvy road just were hard to envision in the wintertime and pedestrian and traffic safety was our concern. And the thought of two more on the south side could go off like a bomb in the neighborhood again. And this is the first time we've seen this and people will be very upset. I don't know how they're gonna respond, but we don't want it to be like it was last time. So you have addressed this, I think you have Mark and others are looking at this. My solution is, or it's a suggestion, is that if we can't have one there, can this development be accessed from the southern side? There are homes down there. There's a cul-de-sac, a little circle down there. And I don't know if you can come in that way off Dorset Street and not even come in off Park Road, come in from the south. There's an old abandoned house we know is there. And I don't know what development that is. I don't know who built that, but it's very close to there and could we come in that way instead of coming in on Park because pedestrian and traffic safety is a huge issue for us. And just two more curb cuts. It just doesn't feel good. And I don't know what a traffic study will end up showing, but that would be my idea if you could look at that and come in from the south. You know, I don't know if that's possible or not. I don't even know what's down there. Folsom Hollow is to the south and it's private properties. There was no right away left. And then the upper one with the abandoned house, if you're worried about traffic safety would not be an improvement because you'd have another intersection on Dorset Street. So traffic always goes back to the main road and not Park Road is a development road, but it's a side road. It's not in the same realm of Dorset Street. I understand. If I could just respond, because I thought the same thing. And I actually went and I looked through the deeds for those southern properties to see what might be available and David's right, there is not any publicly owned easements or rights of way or anything down there, unfortunately, but I appreciate the suggestion. Yeah, I'm just trying to think of not a really contentious time when people are taking your time and you got a lineup of people here taking it because it wasn't a fun year for anybody to go through that. So I would ask them, given that Marla, that I know Mr. McDonald is one at 15 and you got 14 or whatever and 12 does it, but I mean, pedestrian traffic safety and good feeling and good PR in relations with the neighborhood are important. And my guess is people would buy one curb cut, figuring out how to do that. Two is not gonna go over well in neighborhood at all, I think, and I would ask that you look at that and revisit that and try and come up with one way in and one way out. That's all, okay? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bossange. You bet. Anyone else and anyone on the virtual meeting? No, okay. So it sounds like we can, we don't need to vote to close this. Sounds like we can conclude this hearing proposal and thank you for your patience and your time. Thank you. Thank you. We have two meeting minutes to review. We only have one, no fault of Zeus, that's entirely on me, I ran out of time. So all we have is the July 6th minutes, yeah. Have people had a chance to look at these? Good. Would someone like to move acceptance? Make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes of July 6th, July is drafted. Do I hear a second? Second. Any discussion? On favor of approving the minutes of July 6th, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any other business? No, if board members have a few minutes to discuss the one that was closed tonight, that would be great. And shall we add your data motion to close the meeting? I'll actually second that. All in favor of closing the meeting? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Are we good to talk? I have a quick, actually this is a question for staff here. Just sent the meetings over, I just have a quick one. So shall we end the meeting? Is it relevant to the, we haven't hit end. Oh, okay. We adjourned. Yes, we adjourned. Yes, we adjourned. Okay. So shall we end the meeting? No, we did. We haven't hit end. Oh, okay. We adjourned. We adjourned. Yes, we adjourned. Okay.