 The other members from my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Call, Tom Kester, okay the first order of business for tonight is approval of the agenda I think a motion either to approve the agenda or take any motions to modify. Mr. Chair I'll make the motion to approve the agenda as presented. Motion by Kevin do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Deb. All those in favor of the agenda approval of the agenda is printed please raise your right hand. We have an agenda for the evening. I have a few comments from the chair. One of our members Ryan Kane is missing this evening that's because he's welcoming a new child to the family and on behalf of the board I wish him and their new baby Julia the best this winter season. The second issue is I just want to simply put out there that I will be accusing myself from the second application for tonight the VCFA permit application the Vice Chair Kate McCarthy will take my place but however given that I will not be chairing the second half of the meeting I wanted to make a few housekeeping notes. Our next meeting is scheduled for February 4th which is a Monday. Right now we do not have any items on the agenda so it is likely that any items that will be in that meeting will be either issues that are not resolved tonight or we do have training on the new zoning regulations scheduled for the board that will conduct in a public hearing session but there are no new applications currently but the board will still be meeting. With that we'll move on to the next order of business which I believe is the approval of the minutes of December 3rd and December 17th. The December 3rd minutes include Kevin, Deb, Tom, and Rob. We're all present so we do have a quorum. Do we have do I have a motion to approve the December 3rd minutes or any request to amend and then approve the minutes? So moved. Motion to approve by Tom. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay, second by Rob. All those in favor of approval of the December 3rd meeting minutes that are eligible to vote please raise your right hand. The December 3rd meeting minutes are approved. The December 17th minutes would include myself, Kate, Tom, and Rob. Do I have a motion to either accept or amend and accept the minutes for December 17th? So moved. Motion by Rob. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those eligible to vote on December 17th minutes to approve please raise your right hand. We have approval of December 17th minutes and we can move on to our first order of business, first actual action item for the evening which is 367 River Street as the applicants wish to come forward to the table. And if you both state your name for the record I'll then put you under oath and I'm going to have Meredith do an overview of where we stand given that this is an amendment to give the board some background. Fred Conner, Conner Conner, my brother John is joining me as well. And Jeff Velasquez from Wilson Consulting Engineers, the civil engineer for the project. Okay, if those of you who do intend to testify and John if you are intending to testify probably best put you all under oath at this point in time. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of the perjury. Okay, you're all under oath. Are there any people in the audience tonight that wish to be heard on this particular application? Okay, seeing none, we will go forward with this application and Meredith if you'll give us an overview, update and background. Okay, so this is an application for a site amendment for a active open permit that's for redevelopment of the old John Deere site on River Street and that building that development has been active on so it's in process but the applicants, Conner brothers are looking to add a new use because they have a new tenant to take over part of the space and then make some site plan changes. Some of those are related to the new use. Some of them are just things that got tweaked as they worked on the site plan coordinated with the Department of Public Works about things like stormwater drainage and what was actually available there at the site. There's a couple of big issues that we dealt with. One is that applicant has requested to have the change of use be evaluated under the 2011 regulations along with all of the site plan amendment requests. My analysis was that some of those site plan amendments could be made up of the 2011 regulations but that the change of use and potentially those site plan changes like the loading area that are linked to that change of use can be evaluated for the 2018 amendment regulations. So it's all both sets are laid out in here, both analyses but that's a starter issue that you're going to have to start a determination you're going to have to look at. The other big thing to note is that in here there were some open questions about traffic analysis and since the staff report was distributed we got that traffic analysis review from RSG as well as Department of Public Works comments on that. I'm going to pass those out to you right now and what I think are probably the big picture comments from Tom McCartle have been highlighted in yellow but please review his full overview. The big item that came up in that traffic analysis was whether or not there needed to be a left turn lane and after RSG's full review of the underlying data that's available and then Tom's review of that Tom's conclusion was that Tom McCartle's conclusion was that we did not need that left turn lane but that it was something to look at in the future on 302 development that the applicant had raised that tractor supply did not have a left turn lane which through Tom says well maybe there was more traffic there than they actually thought there was going to be so but for this project I didn't think that they needed a left turn lane based on the numbers so and that's Tom's conclusion as of today Tom's conclusion as of this evening looking at RSG's analysis which is also including that packet I'm going to put two copies of this information on the table over there okay have you seen this final conclusion yes we have thank you so that that new information addresses a lot of the red that you see in the staff report um some of the other outstanding questions and determinations that you'll want to make are some of the big ones are the pedestrian issue with removing the walkway to the rear of the building there's a landscaping question that I don't have the discretion to make um and I think that the applicants have actually addressed the question I raised about capping a severed water connection in their letter which is the new information you were given as well their point two so that was a question I had raised on page staff report so that's been dealt with I've got some we'll you can work through it and we'll I've got my marked up version of the staff report so make sure we don't miss anything I think uh okay thanks that's I think that's all I've got right now I think it would be helpful maybe a project if you want to give us an overview as to what specific changes you're making from the existing permit that you have and I think that's a helpful framework because our decision is is really bad based on what those changes are from your existing permit obviously there's things from the old permit that's not under review at this time uh and so let's let's look at the things that are triggering these threshold issues I'm happy to do that um in conferring with the applicant uh we were helping our plan of attack he was hoping to essentially provide a little more background information to that the reason behind this as a whole and then turning it over to me to specifically by night I'm go through the proposed changes um so if it's okay with the board I think that's certainly fine okay um through the chair I just like to ask if the board can have a couple minutes to read my letter of yesterday um that that's your um just proceed um and simply I just wanted to introduce the company uh the San El Napa Company is a fourth generation family owned company based in Concord, New Hampshire uh they've had this store in Montpelier for over 10 years uh they operate on a hub and spoke system so Burlington is the hub this is one of their seven stores in Vermont that is a spoke uh they have a zero to two deliveries a day uh with their own company box trucks uh from Burlington and they have uh half-dozen employees and hoping that they do uh better at this location to be able to grow somewhat of the store and uh employees so that's just a brief overview where where are they currently live hit where are they currently live hit it they're currently located at 373 River Street which is uh up the it's south about a thousand feet oh okay so it's it's in a general same neighborhood they're just moving to a higher profile location it would be your property they're moving to a higher profile location which is your property and a slightly larger space well I'm happy to have us take a look at this memo thank you fairly short this is the two-page letter from January 21st correct yes Fred if I can just sort of summarize as I understand this letter make sure I under market no problem if I can summarize this letter and understand the import of it just so we have a record um as opposed to us reading the document you're pointing out that part of what's driving this is you've gone from a spec building to one that's actually going to be occupied by an actual tenant with whom you've contracted through release yes uh the second is that um you know your traffic study is well below the threshold that our current zoning regulations require a traffic study and a specific turn lane uh within 302 for is that is that accurate yes and that's been confirmed with um right as I understand that was the import of mccartals letter in response to your your letter yes um was there anything else that you wished us to to take away from this letter uh no just that uh in my tenure and working in this business I have usually experienced a capital P permitted use as being a zoning administrative decision so you know we're almost at the point of paying rent for all the time we spend with Meredith um in going in living on the top of the fence between the old regs and the new regs right that's just it's been a challenge I mean for this issue to take 23 pages for a staffer apartment it's just a lot of work for Meredith and uh we hope we don't have any other uh remaining business before you until we jump into the new the new regs right well I mean and part of this is the fact that we went from zoning bylaws that had been largely unchanged with a few minor amendments for you know 10 plus years to radically new zoning bylaws that have added a lot of detail and process to our review um as well as you know new new staff that are getting used to how we implement those bylaws so you know to the extent that this has caused some struggle part of that's just borne out by the fact of when you get new bylaws like this in a level of detail and scrutiny that they require a lot of trees are fallen I appreciate your comments and we aren't working through it so I don't think it's a reflective of necessarily the applicant or it's just the challenges that are poised posed by the timing in the new bylaws I agree so um okay was there anything else that you wanted to present background good thanks so Jeff so yeah I'll uh I guess I'd start in by uh referring again the the board to our letter submitted on the applicant's behalf dated December 26th of 2018 that attempted to highlight the physical changes associated with the site plan amendments that we're requesting um specifically driven by this uh additional change in use related to uh going from a spec building related to uh specific tenant that um again it's not a plan to represent the entire use of the building which I think it should be clear um the proposed building size uh of 10,000 square feet is remained unchanged lower locations remained unchanged um but the specific use will be 6,000 square feet of that which correct me if I'm wrong Fred is more or less the uh nor are there two-thirds of the building that's right six-tenths of the building I guess I should say um and so that's a change in use component um that the auto parts store they really fall under any of the previously permitted or approved uses and so some of that's the driving force behind this uh change in use which I think gets to the uh heart of whether we're reviewed under the 2011 regulations or 2018 regulations and I I'm not sure I guess it's I'll be at the board's discretion tonight as to whether it's projects reviewed under those the old or the new regs or some combination of both but again I just want to I'll highlight just the physical changes and feel free to stop me if there's any questions on anything specific um but this letter references one through eight and uh the proposed site plan uh we included in the application both the new plans the previously approved plans as well as two sheets that are essentially marked up with revision clouds uh revision revision clouds and then numerically uh kind of try to call out these eight divisions so if you want to follow along with me um the first obvious is just this uh requesting change in use or additional use I should say of adding the retail sales and services we feel it best fits the the new use um as pointed out in the staff report it was a permitted use both under the old regulations and the new regulations and we've highlighted that on the plans um item two was under the old plans uh there was similar to the front walkway there was a five foot uh concrete sidewalk pedestrian access along the back um and that has since been removed and the parking space is shifting two feet closer to the building to free up another two feet of aisle width in the back and then we've uh kind of changed configuration here we still do have two concrete pads at the man doors where they'll be located and then a kind of a bigger dedicated loading area understanding that uh the proposed tenant will need that space to be periodically loading up and unloading parts but I think another component of this is that now under the new proposal the back parking area is really going to function more for really just the loading employee parking is really intended to be customer based so given the amount of parking that we're proposing versus what we should necessarily be required under zoning rigs we're over and that's another one number three actually I guess in combining two and three um we're certainly proposing more parking spaces than it would be required for this use so we feel that we can kind of dedicate the back parking uh to this inter-employees and or loading um so part of that reconfiguration to accommodate this larger larger loading area was a removal of three parking spaces as noted in number three so we've gone from 58 total to 55 with the three just being removed in back here um number four was again kind of minor but the exterior lights on the back of the building were realigned to go over the overhead door over the doors and man doors obviously just from a safety standpoint um number five was uh this northeast corner here the previous plans kind of had the paving and curbing limits kind of very close to the edge of the property line and there was a little more pavement right at this corner and in kind of going through the construction pro uh process and talking to the neighbor to the north the old plan there's an existing kind of dilapidated old concrete retaining wall it's only like two feet tall but it's right along the property line here um and there was some interest in removing that wall and just kind of grading that out and this kind of little sliver of pavement really wasn't providing any benefit to the parking or the access to the property and we felt we could pull that in a couple feet and would allow us to naturally just grade this slope down on like a two or three on one slope and be able to eliminate that wall which the neighbor preferred because they would be backing into it with the cars and it'd be a little more room for snow storage there um so we kind of made that construction decision to kind of pull that in a little bit to allow for um you know again at the neighbor's request and we didn't see any harm in it so um along those lines though I think as mentioned in the staff report is when we pulled that that pavement in it did narrow up this little throat here uh the traffic pattern being one-way in a counterclockwise fashion um proposed for the site uh the main uh throughway width here is 24 feet for a one-way road which is obviously pretty substantial um at its narrowest before it was about 23 over 23 feet now and I believe a little over 21 now um so we narrowed that down a little bit by based on the uh information we've been provided by the tenant as far as the size of their trucks you know understanding they won't get any tractor trailers and all just be box fans at the largest um and also understanding this is a one-way traffic pattern we have no reservations about this this uh revised parking area being able to accommodate uh vehicles or creating any type of unsafe conditions for users moving on to number six I get a kind of a minor one but the underground uh liquid propane tank uh we just shifted this to the south a little bit um to get it further away from the through lanes uh just to provide a little more safety and by doing that previously we had guardrail called for this corner to protect it but we were able to eliminate that guardrail because we have enough clearance in separation now and we've just replaced it with a couple ballards um number seven would be the drainage reconfiguration uh as part of the original approval uh there was always some kind of uncertainty about the condition of the existing drainage features within 302 on the west side of 302 here and and we were originally there's some drainage underground drainage around the back that we were tying into a one specific structure and then we had some drainage out front that we were tying into another structure long story short is in in excavating and review of these structures with the Department of Public Works we agreed that there was one structure that was in better condition to tie into so we've just combined our drainage in the back in the front to catch basin in the front and re-grade it accordingly so that we can tie into that structure now um that was all that was done with the supervision of the Department of Public Works and I believe Tom did provide a more or less a sign off on that um and then the last number eight is just a relocation of the water service alignment uh previously we're coming in tying in about the same location but just based on the tenant the tenant fit ups and the building requirements there was a desire to have the exterior water service enter on a different cornered building so we've just reconfigured that on our property so I think that's a summary of the physical changes obviously nothing major here but cumulatively you know they add up and that coupled with the additional use I think certainly it was the reason behind the meeting with the board here tonight so I think that's again any questions on any of those physical summaries I guess the next step would be able to go through the staff notes and address those kind of in a substantial fashion if that makes sense I think it does well one question that I have initially is uh when when we had this application before uh previously one of the concerns I remember of course was the traffic flow behind the back of the building and Jeff if I understand your representations now is that traffic flow behind the build would going behind the building would largely be either employee or these supply trucks that would be coming around the back to unload supplies to the loading dock behind is the customer then going to be directed to essentially take a hard left and park in front of the building in that area yeah I think that really only entrances to both of the tenant spaces will be on the front front of the building the front doors so uh whether by signage or just common knowledge you know the intent is for all customer vehicles to do park in the what amounts to 1836 parking spaces uh double load of parking spaces in the front so all the pedestrian traffic would be coming from the front of the building and and so if there was a condition that that you know required signage to that effect such as you know stating that the portion the driveway around the back of the of the building is for employees or loading only would that cause a problem or would that be acceptable but to think about what I would say but and I'm not trying to suggest wording but give a general impact or effect of what I'm saying as a condition or with signage just a condition that there would be some signage that would direct the flow of traffic around to the front because this starts to get into the issue of pedestrian traffic and in these changes but no not their problem employee parking or employee slash shipping receiving okay in part because that that leads me to the next question which is if this rear parking then is for employees and or loading and unloading would they be entering the building from the back yes okay so there's a man door and over you mentioned loading just as a minor correction it's a they're both overhead at great overhead doors so for each tenant there's a man door and an overhead door okay and then they would be coming in from the back that I appreciate that correction and I think that's helpful because that leads me to the question as far as one of our concerns at least is on the pedestrian flow that you're proposing to change around the back and I'm understanding from your testimony that no pedestrian at least as you're envisioning it would be coming from the back around the building to the front that if somebody's parking back there they're an employee and or delivery truck and would be utilizing the doors in back correct and if we have this new signage on the right side of the building as you're looking over the road we also are going to have the other left side which is do not enter correct and that that was that was one of the requirements if I remember correctly from your last go around so so this would just be changing the signage on the north side to to employee and or loading only or whatever configuration I might suggest and would ultimately leave this to you but a more straightforward way to do the signage might be to say customer parking to the left so that people aren't stopping and scratching their heads about employee and loading they know that they're customers and the customer parking employee parking only sure or even just the employees will know what to do because they work there it's the folks who may be coming for the first time who need the direction so you may want to focus your signage on the people who need the direction the customers but ultimately it's just an again customer parking with an arrow to the left instead yes okay yes I'd be fine with you really up to you but that might be more straightforward yeah I think that makes sense both those suggestions perfectly amenable to where I'm coming from any other sort of overall questions as to some of these changes if not we'll accept Jeff's invitation to have us dive into the staff report and I think there's a threshold question here if I can tee that up about 2011 yeah it's really how much of this is reviewable under the 2011 regulations generally if they were coming to me with just the site plan amendment I would have just put the whole and originally this is what we were discussing was that all of these site plan changes could have just been reviewed by me under the 2011 regulations and then we threw the change of use into it the change of use generally would be something that would be reviewed under the 2018 regulations but they wanted it reviewed under the 2011 regulations which I didn't think I was able to do plus once you review change of use under the 2018 regulations it triggers a fresh site plan for that change of use which means you have to take a look at the landscaping which as we all know our current landscaping regulations are troublesome and we're working to change those but I can't do exceptions or so it's that's why it came to you because it is it is a permitted use so if we didn't have to deal with those landscaping regulations even under the 2018 regulations I would have been able to do that administratively we just we we came we ended up with a odd little conundrum on this one if I can ask a few points of clarification my understanding is that when this permit originally came and obviously it's predate you yes but my recollection was that we reviewed it largely as a potential medical office in part because that was the heaviest potential permitted use correct that's my understanding that that was the big question that's how you dealt with traffic and number of parking spaces and really what what this represents if if I also understand some of the filings that the applicant has made is that now you are seeking this change of use based on an actual applicant and that this change of use represents a sort of roll rollback of some of the needed numbers as far as traffic and use is concerned yes and if I can just clarify we are asking for this other use for the entire building because obviously retail sales and service would probably lead to the other piece being retail sales and service but we'd like to preserve the other uses that we already have approved any of that that we found a compatible user right I just want to clarify because I think it's more troublesome for me at least if you're going from a less onerous use to a more rigorous use that might trigger some of the site plan amendments and a need to review them because you're essentially going from something that may not have received the same level of scrutiny that it deserves but here we have really the inverse which is we have a spec building that now has an actual tenant which is driving the request for for modification and so the question is are we are we really changing this in the same sense that I think the modification bylaws envision which is when you have this type of lesser use and and you then want to swap out uses I'll just I'll just throw that out there as sort of where my thinking begins the original consideration which I was not part of was for more intensive use I'm sorry is that the case that the original use approved I think was medical that was right that was one of the three original uses approved was a medical clinic which is less traffic more traffic than what we are currently contemplating is it is more traffic hold on I want to look at the most recent item just because we got the updated numbers from rsg thank you I'm a little there were three there were three potential uses that were correct we used to be one of those the other two the business office office my recollection of the time when we approved it was that we're giving it a pretty broad brush type of approval right that was written up as such right that was my that was my understanding and in part because the applicant did not have a specific tenant but wanted to carve out rooms so that the sort of heaviest allowable or likely use would be covered and I just wanted to make sure that that was consistent both with other members but but also laying down and and I think it's clear at least where I'm coming from that that I think as a predicate to our question here we're looking at this specific amendment in those in those lenses as opposed to either a fresh amendment or something that was increasing the use I I see that I guess I'm just as a on an administrative level my only concern is future if somebody's just coming for a change of use to an open permit if there's a change of use going on generally that would be a new permit our evaluation criteria for whether or not for which bylaws right for which bylaws do not take into account the intensity of the use being requested right when deciding which bylaws thank you thank you yeah and so that's why I'm I'm wondering if that if discussing the like you said the intensity of the use when we're trying to figure out which regulations apply can we determine to evaluate it under the 2011 but this is what I didn't think I could do that and so this is why I'm just trying to this is why I'm just throwing that out there is that a proper place to what this all comes into play when I'm doing this sure and I to a to a certain extent I I would say that some of this is the is us feeling through these relatively new regulations and trying to interpret them so when I look at for example the section 4205 that talks about amending a zoning permit or site plan and says that allows the administrative officer to amend an open zoning permit or site plan without a new application or development review board is the proposed change and part of this is I think that you're seeking clarification is not a material change and does not affect the type of character or intensity of the improved development or use to the extent specified below and then it gives those various subcategories I believe that under under section two we meet that's where I'm going with some of the analysis is that what we're talking about is a scaling back as opposed to an increase in the intensity and so then you know you've cited as well 4205 a that talks about a material change means a change in the development of land or structure may have affected the decision made or any conditions placed on the permit if it had been included in the plans as approved so in a case like this I think it's also relevant to that part of the history here is that we it wouldn't have made a difference except for that probably would have had less conditions so it's it's not a material I think it's it makes a material change a very fact-specific determination which doesn't make your job any easier as a zoning administrator going forward because in some ways it has to be up to us as a DRB to make that determination and and so in that case where you can't make a clear determination it's certainly I think legitimate to kick it up to us but then I would say that as the sort of quasi adjudicated body sitting in the view of this it is our purview and ability to take this and look and say is this really a material change based on our collective and institutional knowledge of the prior permit perfect thank you so I'm really comfortable with that analysis and I've seen and I've seen other boards operate to also appreciate that this you know in terms of exercising your discretion it's appropriate to bring it to when it's not and I'll try not to do it too often for you Fred we're hopefully also ending the appointment where we don't have two sets of regulations in place soon so you got one more coming your way Mary different builder but yes if Fred didn't have something to complain about I think it's a consideration that the change of use is very compatible with the area it's not I can see this is a situation where the change in use yes it may be lesser because of less traffic but I may have a greater impact to you know the surrounding surrounding area that's not the case here which I would agree how does the rest of the board feel is anyone wishing to express a consensus I mean I feel like we're we're generating consensus towards a 2011 reviewing this under a 2011 bylaws unless I don't know if it really makes sense I mean you know we've been through this in a very detailed analysis next type of way here it's do it's well documented sure and I agree to even your analysis today and as well as the facts presented in this specific case I think that that makes sense thank you good okay so with that consensus then I think we really have to review the page of other maybe pick a chapter about you know you make a decision you go to a different chapter there you go that's well I'll simply before that though I think we do have to review some other threshold issues and that's that starts with I think number five and no six sorry under the site plan criteria I'm skipping over in the staff report number five the dimensional requirements because you've testified nothing's really changing with with this lot area a lot frontage a lot coverage building height so really it's a question of the impact on the streets under section 702 and we've now received testimony both from you as well as from Tom McCartle that the impact to streets does not reach any type of threshold where we're required to put on conditions or actions specifically a left turn lane in 302 is that fair with the board then the next one is is 703 which talks about pedestrian access and circulation and whether the board is satisfied with the level of pedestrian safety at the rear of the building when the concrete walkway is replaced with a three-foot wide strip stone drip edge and granite curbing as opposed to the sidewalk that you had originally proposed along that back and I understand from your testimony that this is really going to be a limited access parking lot it's going to largely be employees which you know we've previously found are going to have a greater familiarity with the with the traffic circulation as well as the access points as opposed to customers who may or may not have that same level of familiarity and who will be parking in the front where there are no changes proposed is there any other questions from the board as far as pedestrian circulation or any concerns and then there is the the 705 and 707 about the parking that going from 58 to 55 you're removing three spaces however they're still in conformance with the zoning bylaws under the performance standards 714 talks about these regulations require that no use shall emit offensive no noise odor dust smoke noxious gases reflect light because a fire explosion or safety hazard create electrical interference this is going to be a retail auto auto parts store correct and will there be any automotive servicing going on or is this this is simply sale of retail parts and is it anticipated that any of these will create the type of noise odor dust noxious gases light reflection and and this is going to be similar to the existing auto parts store that is currently about a thousand feet away as well as other auto parts stores in the area but there is the water supply and sewage disposal and these were your points I think in 7 so just so I understand the water service to the shed and back is no longer going back there yeah that was I apologize we didn't specifically address that I think Greg had included that one of his notes as far as a comment but there was a understanding that when this project first started there were two separate parcels here and there was a building associated with this portion of Moon Lake Terrace there was a water service that was connected there and as part of the construction process we took that service back to the main and cut it captive per Department of Public Works you know requirements that that's been addressed so we could certainly put a note to that effect on the revised plan if it was deemed necessary it was a mobile home that the city asked us to remove asked come on farms to remove which we arranged for them and as part of doing that job we kind of kept the water on I think it would be accurate just for record keeping purposes to just have that noted in any final plan to review whether the retail the addition of retail sales and service as a conditional use no it's a permitted use right that's what I thought it's permitted use is not conditional it's just that there's normally I would have dealt with it administratively but because there were questions on how to go forward and I disagreed with the applicant on how to go forward the whole thing to you so you get to look at the change of use as yeah under here I'm just sort of so wait did I do the conditional use criteria for some reason I'm sorry that's why I'm looking at some confusion I did more work than I had to my apologies um I don't think I did that before the 2018 did I now I just did the same plan for 2018 right yeah so then you're pretty much done yep that was just okay so nevertheless still nice to understand um with that then I have some understanding and let me ask first does anyone on the board have any other questions about any of the other issues that we have hearing none so go ahead Rob um I just have one question about refuse on the back I guess that you have general refuse but it's on our store everything like motor oil and all that stuff that's like enclosed inside of the the building or maybe that service hopefully provided here we have a loading an enclosed trash area Jeff was pointing it out but we don't expect it to be like a service station automotive trash being generated it's taking it back to your home or shop anything else good um let me just suggest that the two conditions that I'm aware are are we want to have the applicant develop signage that will either affirmatively direct customers to the left or and or um notify them that travel along the north side of the building is restricted to I think Kate's suggestion is probably the other way to do it because the employees are going to know where to go right the customers need the arrow after they get there go there once they'll know the program and and I'm simply suggesting we could make a conditions for both so that you would still have the choice if you go to your signage people or traffic people and they say no no no you'll always want to state it this way okay I appreciate the flexibility because I think either one gets the message across one may be more effective and I do tend to think that Kate's suggestion is on point and then the second being to amend the site plan to show the capital water line for three moonlight terrace are there any other conditions that we're seeking from the previous decision we want to keep all those conditions still in place as well what I understood okay I mean we've let's say other than as modified by the the absolutely this amendment and I think it's a pretty it's important I think you're on I think you're on track that we want to make sure that we are treating this as though it's just an amendment to the existing and in line with that you still want to keep the condition about this not changing the expiration date all right do you let me ask the applicant that this is and could you repeat questions are this is this application is I think timed to expire this summer which would be the like June around June 10th 2019 the project manager he's delivering occupancy by May 15 okay as far as having all site conditions done you're saying paving landscape correct okay I mean otherwise I'm not trying to set you up for failure always an iffy proposition at this time of year okay well obviously if worse comes to worse you can always come back and seek an amendment are they eligible they can't get another one year extension they already got it on this one oh that's right they have the one year extension already right so this would be where they would need to get any sort of extension on that but it also it doesn't need to be a hundred percent complete right substantially substantially which is like 75 percent so okay just wanted to make sure that was addressed thank you very so with those three conditions I'll either entertain a motion or discussion about further conditions affirmative so moved as you have an outline and either way though no it doesn't matter because it's 6,000 square feet sorry the the reason the conditional use right was in there is because it was for 10,000 square feet okay now that makes more sense yes now like wait I know I didn't do that for no reason whatsoever okay so motion motion by Tom do I have a second second by Deb any further discussion could we just for nothing else my notification could we just restate exactly as I understand the motion it is to a approve the permit amendment as applied for with the following three conditions one is that the applicant shall develop and implement signage either either or either affirmatively directing customers to the front of the building or notifying entrance that the north entrances employee delivery only or both to amend the site plan to show the capped waterline at three moonlight terrace and three to retain the existing deadline for substantial completion all other conditions of the underlying and all other conditions of the underlying permit remaining same any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the amendment as stated in the motion please raise your right hand you have your permit amendment very good thank you all thank you thank you I sincerely appreciate Meredith and Tom's finally review of the material is certainly appreciated to get that just tonight so thank you yeah thank you very much well nothing is ever viewed okay so the next item of business on our agenda is the application for Vermont College of Fine Arts at this point I'm going to recuse myself and step down and will allow the applicant to come forward and Kate will take over good luck thank you come everybody this is an application for minor site plan and conditional use review for the Vermont College of Fine Arts 36 College Street so what I'm going to do is just for the benefit of every everyone here say what site plan review and conditional use review are and then I'll just outline how we'll proceed from there so that everybody knows when they will get to say their piece so with that site plan review is a type of review that looks at a project's configuration and its purpose in order to understand impacts on factors including access and circulation for people biking walking or driving landscaping and screening lighting and design this review evaluates the project against site plan standards and for those following along at home site plan review is section 320 of our 2018 zoning regulations so then conditional use review is a type of review for uses that may be suitable in a given location with appropriate conditions it has standards to evaluate the impacts for project on community facilities and utilities traffic and character of the neighborhood and that is section 330 of our 2018 zoning regulations so what I'm going to do is swear in witnesses and others who may wish to testify on this then we'll get an overview of the project from Meredith we'll hear from the applicant about the application from anyone in support of the project we'll ask questions and we'll hear from anyone else who might like to speak on the project the board tends to ask questions as we go and toward the end we will walk through the staff report focusing especially on any question marks that remain very good so with that I will swear in the witnesses so anyone wishing to testify on this application please raise their right hands anyone just listening if you'd like to come to the microphone later would have you sworn in now would have okay very good so do you solemnly swear that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury okay very good so anyone else is here I just also remind you to sign it if you haven't already okay so with that I'll turn to Meredith for an overview of the application key issues so the main reason this is coming to you is because it's a conditional use service parking is a conditionally used in the mixed-use residential district but it is also sort of a outside-of-the-box application and that we do not have a general provision in our current regulations for a temporary use other than construction purposes um but Vermont College of Fine Arts is looking to use the old tennis courts for temporary parking for agency of transportation who is looking for a a interim location for a number of its employees as it got bumped out of the national life building with the fire and the water damage up there and they're looking for a permanent solution but they're not quite there yet so this is not you know they're not looking to convert the tennis courts at this time to permanent parking in light of that because we do have a general definition for temporary use of our regulations which says that everything has to be able to revert back so you couldn't even tell the use was there um the Vermont College of Fine Arts is asking to be able to use this for for parking again temporarily which means that they're asking to not have to do new fencing or new landscaping because inherently those things if they're put in properly wouldn't be temporary would really be able to extract them um very well and and have the use not be viewable um you know keep one reason we're saying this is a standalone application is because in the permanent history there is a master plan under the old regulations for an academic institution beauty um there's there's a whole permit process for that but that has expired so they can't apply for just an amendment under there there also was a full permit to convert these tennis courts to parking permanently but that expired so they can't make use of that either do you know what year that was uh it's in here i want to say it was 2013 2014 it wasn't ages ago right it wasn't the ends ago 2013 2014 they applied to amend their old ai pu d master plan yep it was under that to get among other things um a permit to convert the tennis courts to parking now that permit has been used up they made some of the changes they converted the tennis court area they paved it over but they didn't complete the application they didn't put up the required screening the fencing um or anything right so that permit expired and they can't make use of it anymore um and they're not 100 sure that they're actually going to include that in the next master plan so in a way this is a little preview of something we're going to be discussing in the future but right now what we're looking at is a request for a temporary use which is why they haven't necessarily requested to do all the changes that we would normally do if we were in permanent use and it's a it's sort of uh like if it's outside of the box um but it wasn't something where I felt it made sense for me to deny it and then have it be brought here anyway under appeal and then it made sense to bring it here and let you take a look at it thanks Meredith so we are we are starting from scratch with this for those who may remember the the previous discussions great so I'll just have you introduce yourself and then give us an overview of what what you're requesting and what you'd like to make sure the board knows about sure um so I'm Katie Gustafson I work at Vermont College of Fine Arts I've actually worked there for about 20 years um several different jobs um and currently I'm the vice president for campus planning um and I've been in this role for about two years give or take um and so one of the things I've been doing since I started in this role is really trying to fill up our excess space um we only have about uh 400 students give or take I think we're a below that right now um all that one program are low residencies so they're not all on campus at one time so given that we have uh 12 buildings um they often are empty unless we have students on campus so um it's really been part of our business plan right from the get go that we would have other tenants on our campus um when we originally started out Union Institute and University was there uh Community College of Vermont was there um which were large institutional tenants that took up two um of our large buildings um and since they've left we've tried very hard to have the state come in and they they are there now in their CAPS um capacity which is a training program that they run for all state employees it's a it's a really nice fit with the mission of the college um and we have entertained all kinds of different possibilities over the last few years none of which have come to fruition um but right now I've basically said I'd love to do whatever I can to to get a tenant there and what they need right now is a temporary location that's not ideally what I would have come to campus I'd love somebody to permanently move in or at least a long-term lease um but because of the fire at national life in addition to some other um projects that they're hoping to accomplish the state is considering using our location as a swing space as they attempt to eventually find a permanent location uh for the agency of transportation um and then potentially use it for other groups as they do other construction projects so um in talking with them one of their biggest concerns is parking um again because our programs come and go and they're not there all the time there are some times when it's fairly easy to find a parking place up at the college and then there are other times when it's much more challenging and for them to feel like this is a really good location for their AOT folks um parking was something that uh they wanted us the college to um work on a significant plan to be able to accommodate their needs and so in sort of thinking about this um I I thought maybe we could just talk about it in a temporary because the leases are going to be temporary um because this is something that the college has contemplated doing um turning the tennis courts into permanent parking I actually thought it was an interesting way to try it out because even though I would like to see it be parking that's not everybody at the college does not agree with my position on that and this would allow us a period of time to use it that way um to determine if it's if it's effective if if it works well for the neighborhood if it works well for the college in tenants so I sort of see it as a as a way to try something out that doesn't mean that it's going to be that way forever so okay great um could you briefly speak to the the layout of the parking I know that we have some some images here but um yeah I mean I actually I try to in our former master plan it was it was slightly um more complicated than this and based on um the space and the requirements I knew I had to meet this was the most straightforward way to accomplish it um this leaves um and I would have to do some math which is beyond me at this point but it leaves more than enough space for basically an entry lane and an exit lane so there just would be uh you know two-way traffic would be no trouble at all so in doing that um I was able to carve out 22 spaces on the um tennis court surface um and then reorganize some of uh what had existed um in front of the tennis courts into uh two additional um handicap parking spaces okay and those are the ones labeled 23 and 24 on the diagram here on ridge street but those are handicap accessible spaces correct okay very good um are there any questions from board members about about what's been presented is there going to be any uh signage indicating who's allowed to park there yes all that where's that going to be located um I think that we would do it um in a temporary fashion um certainly open to ideas I uh drove by the I think it's one of five state street the the state lot that is temporary right now and I saw sort of the metal poles with the placards on it which indicated reserved parking places I imagine doing something like that and so temporary I missed it in here temporary is a year or two years I think that based on what Meredith and I have talked about the permit would be valid for two years at this point it's very hard to pin the state down um I wish I could tell you that it was you know going to be one year or it was going to be six months but they have not been able to tell me the why not develop the parking lot I mean I would love to do that it's a it's a matter of really whether or not that's a priority for the college um and just in terms of our capital funds that we have that would be a significant investment I think to do all the things that we would need to do to make it permanent between the fencing the screening um you know any of the other potential stormwater drainage issues there might have what what you're doing without doing that is the reasons why we had conditioned it with those you know screening and so forth before it was so that it would be compatible I'm not sure what you're proposing just like just park there as it is yeah no screening yeah the additional lighting doesn't sound like a good deal for the neighborhood well I mean I guess what I would to speak to that because I understand that and I you know I'm a resident of Montpelier and I care very deeply about um our neighborhoods and the people that live here um if it wasn't critical to the success of the college to get a state lease in I would you know and if we had the funding to do all of that right now I would you know happily do that and um it is a very challenging time in higher education and so we are really looking at every avenue that we can to um keep the college going um and so and and it is temporary so I temporary one year two years you know can slide considerably two years is not really a short well I I hear you just a couple of questions yeah I can imagine during the first snowfall and it's going to you have to worry about how to plow and all that is has any consideration we give to that and the second is it does snow how will people know what the designated parking spots are ie that you park in the right spot and don't go over the park go over the tennis court into the grass or something like that we actually already plow it we we have for years um and so so it is cleared and is it you could like to let it be between the tennis court and the other surfaces around the tennis court and we plow right to the edge of the tennis court so the the snow banks become sort of a natural barrier to to any place else where people might try to and yeah they wouldn't be able to gotcha yeah so we're talking a little bit about what temporary means and we're talking a little bit about the needs of potential future tenant and also this is a pilot project is it is that correct sure okay so um I want to highlight something that's in the staff memo have you seen the staff memo right so um on page nine of that memo there's um there's some suggestions I want to make sure I understand this um per your cover letter you've said that the 50 spaces required by this potential tenant can actually be accommodated in existing parking spaces about three quarters of the time is that right so when we're talking about using the tennis courts as parking for all intensive purposes that's for the 25 of the time when those spaces are otherwise occupied when the other 50 spaces are taken by other things right can you say it one more time sorry yeah so um most of the time if they were to if they were to move in tomorrow and you didn't convert the tennis courts yeah um you have plenty of parking spaces but that's true for only 75 percent of the time right and it's part of that 75 percent of the time is very predictable because we have our academic calendar and we know exactly when people are going to be on campus other times it's a little less hard it's a little harder uh to determine because caps as a training center might have 10 people coming in and upwards to 100 people coming in so there's just an element of um you can't predict exactly what's going to happen on any given day so dedicating a specific area to the state would make it um I think well I know that it would make it a place they would really consider coming to our our ability to provide them with dedicated spaces will in the end I think play the biggest role in them deciding to come to the college or not okay so a scenario where the tennis court spaces are only used on an as needed sounds like it would not be what you're seeking it certainly would not be my first choice that would create a lot more work and in the end I think potentially the state might say that doesn't work for us if that's what I was given I would sell it as best I could um but it certainly in terms of just the college's resources would be a more difficult scenario to manage other questions from the board I'm just going to say that um I having trouble with the scope of this project two years does not appear temporary or do I think that that would be a fine night necessarily a fine night ending of this use the bend board five years ago did get it was very careful and the design that was that was generated at that time useful to the college on long term basis which I expect that the temporary law will come after a couple of years and they will have received change in use there for that stripped down a lot that's my concern and I understand your concern coming from the college administration standpoint you gotta make a big one the question about that I understand that but I don't think it's necessarily by cutting corners and I fear this project and just in case it wasn't clear if we did want to make it permanent we would most certainly come back through the appropriate process because at this point it is even though I'm only in my first draft at the campus master plan at this point it is in there as a contemplated possible so at this point I what a that's good overview and we're getting our bearings with some of these questions what I'd like to do next is invite anyone else to testify who's here to do so just to make sure you're under no obligation I just don't want to forget you there is no pressure just options and you can always later on if there's something that comes up that you decide you want to speak to we'll leave you can always come up to the microphone up here and please appoint that too yeah we'll leave the microphone on great thank you um so I would I'd like to propose that we do next um if there aren't any other questions is to walk through the staff report um staff report contains some items that we need to evaluate more discussions aboard and we have basis of information where we can start from that so I'm just going to go in order and look at the things in red even though there are some larger issues we will get them as we go all right so the first um the first issue raised is on page seven of the staff report and um it indicates that the driveway between the tennis court and ridge street is 15 feet long and the question raised there is whether that provides adequate space for queuing during the arrival and departure times when most folks will be using this um it's our it's up to us to determine whether that's sufficient to prevent queuing on the street for the size parking lot um and so I want to know what folks uh from the board think of that whether it's an issue so the comments from they reviewed the whole thing and they had no issues with that part of the plan whatsoever yeah so do we agree that that 15 foot driveway is sufficient great we accept the recommendation advice of DPW very good um then I will move on to the next section which is um page eight of our staff report which talks about parking and loading areas and it talks about the amount of parking um with certain number of spaces required per square foot of the use and one thing I want to um to ask you is we've got a couple different numbers for the amount of square footage that would be actually used by aot and I wanted to confirm with you while you're here I brought what that is thank you it doesn't change the number of spaces okay um but it does pinpoint the square footage great and so the final number is 50 spaces 50 spaces which means about 30 000 square feet 29 000 40 day court I think 29,864 did you keep one for yourself I didn't okay so based on our formulas for parking requirements that leads to requirement for 50 spaces um and the 22 spaces that are would be provided by the tennis court would be combined with 26 additional parking spaces through on other locations in the campus exactly okay and it relies on other locate off-street locations for campus okay so um one of the things that the board has the prerogative to do is waive some are all of the minimum parking requirements when there's a presence of transit within a quarter of a mile which which there is at this location um but it seems like they're going to be meeting anything is there a desire for a waiver so waivers not being requested by an applicant by the applicant let's see anyone else want to comment on the on the waiver very good um so the next item that we may wish to contemplate is um a shared excuse me let me review this Meredith could you explain this part to us yeah so the issue we have here is that the old tennis court area which has been paved over to be a park you know to be compliant under the old parking area so it's not like it looks like a tennis court anymore i just want to we keep calling the tennis court um so anyway that is not technically on the same parcel as the two buildings that will be using it even though it's all owned by the college they are different parcels um divided by a what is for most of its length all of its length they're a private street rich street there is private okay but it is it divides two parcels so technically the off-street parking is on a different parcel so you're supposed to have a shared parking plan in place right um and to meet all the criteria of a shared parking plan includes things like um that the agreement has to be between the owners and less ease for a minimum of 20 years um and that you have to um supply plans showing the locations of the uses or structures for which the shared or off-site parking shall be provided so in a sense you'd be looking at needing to know exactly where all those aot employees were parking um as well as having to be a 20 year lease that doesn't it doesn't really fit with this temporary request but there there is any clear sort of waiver for this so it's it's one of those things that it's a little tricky so we are technically fulfilling the parking requirements of this use by sharing parking right that's how you're getting the off-street parking is by doing the shared parking um but it's an odd situation because like I said everything's owned by the college right um and the other thing to keep in mind well it doesn't really come into play here but remember that both the college and the tenant who is a state of state of Vermont agency do also both fall under 4413 parking is one of the things you can regulate but you can't um what's the term exactly uh in you have the effect of prohibiting yes prohibiting the functional use okay so I don't know if that would fall into place here or not but that all comes in it seems to me that that for a temporary use the this discussion of having so I think it's particularly as we you know if there's a proposal for permanent parking I think that's the only one that this project should be approach that's right the biggest concern that was raised in previous testimony was that this was the beginning of an accursion into the grid which is anybody who goes to college because I considerations that went into the design and the review and approval process was was substantial with that with that concern so we were talking about a limited time proposal it needs to be a limited time so Kevin is that an argument in favor of some sort of agreement as required by the shared parking provision or do you feel that the limited time could be captured in any permit conditions that are attached here we could discuss that I suppose that's okay well in one just going strictly to the shared parking issue one of the requirements for the under the new campus PUD provisions that the new master plan for Vermont College of Fine Arts will need to have and there is a parking plan so a condition on this temporary permit could be that even if they don't intend to do it right away that the this area be included within that parking plan with you know that that in a way is the shared parking plan you know if they throw in that this this one area might be used for tenants and x y or z buildings or something like that the master plan expresses the shared in a sense the master plan is going to express the shared parking plan because it will have to lay out where all the parking lots are or could be and then if they want to change that they'll need to come back for an amendment to that campus PUD master plan it's just something to think about to cover the shared parking plan for future perhaps I'm thinking of the shared parking plan as being quite explicit about how this particular tenant is being served under this application and so what I was envisioning is something that includes the tennis court parking as well as the uh just a map identifying the specific other lot or lots where each number of spaces would be accommodated that could then feed into the master parking plan without um without predetermining yeah because what I heard earlier is that it's not conclusive that tennis courts will be part of the future master plan that's true and it could we could put a condition on here that aot for where that parking is permits issued or would it be within you know x before the use commences one of those items um I think it would be before the issuance of the part of the same way that you would require a final site plan yeah before issuing a permit does that does that make sense I think so so um to illustrate how the shared parking will take place it would be a map showing the tennis court spots plus the other where the other 26 would be located does that does that make sense to others so we're going to move to the next item in red which is snow storage um we've you've discussed we've you've told us that snow is already stored um I think that it would be helpful for us to have that on a map as well as far as I'm concerned it can be the same map as the shared parking map if others if others agree it's hard to imagine a time when there isn't going to be snow um but the um it is one of the things that is not identified in the current application is barriers around the tennis courts when there's not snow and I wonder what what plans have been discussed for delineating the parking I'm going to leave leave aside the screening in particular and more just talking about delineation right so um the the space itself um like the the paved area pretty much demarcates I'd give one area that sort of leads into another areas where the tennis courts are connected to the basketball courts um and so along that uh that line I could imagine um cement barriers or something like just larger orange um cones depending on if they're you know if something was preferred over and when you say concrete barriers are you talking about the type that might redirect a pedestrian when the sidewalk is closed so the ones that are about this long the jersey barriers that's what they're called jersey barriers I thought that's what they're called sure but if that was if that was not I mean I'm we are open to whatever makes the most sense whether I was thinking of those orange barrel barriers um something like that could demarcate that piece of where the cement doesn't clearly you know that it it continues from the tennis courts to the basketball court like I said there isn't the fencing isn't still up but there's no there's no basketball in the tennis court now okay all the fencing got taken down yeah okay well I think the snow can go off to the side right now the snow is the natural barrier and I wouldn't imagine just where does the snow go onto the basketball court and then there is a the basketball court is not as long as the tennis court area so it goes on the basketball court and then sort of on to a part of the green so tell us yeah what were the jersey barriers no all right so you're saying there's only one place where it's really necessary to delineate because there's any risk someone would nose over into the wrong area and you're also saying those would need to be removed in order to facilitate snow storage right right now without to be movable right okay are there questions about those things all right okay um so we talked about snow storage um we have talked about demarcation we've talked about some possibilities for what those berries could be but not decided we can do that in a minute um that we're moving into the site plan of tom did you have something okay um so around 12 of the staff page 12 of the staff report moving into the site plan standards so there's a threshold um question that's been raised by staff about whether this is a major or a minor site plan application um mayors would you like to speak briefly to that your recommendation and why so um one of the um criteria that can trigger a major site plan review is construction of more than 10 new parking spaces or 2000 square feet of a previous surface and because I mean yes you're you're using this space asking to use this space for more than 10 parking spaces but there's no creation of new appropriate surface it's not you're not constructing anything and so my analysis was that this would be a minor site plan but technically it's more than 10 new parking spaces so it was just it was a question for you that you're basing that upon the fact that this would be a temporary use um not even just that there's nothing there's nothing being constructed that's that was the language I was looking at you know this because this line literally is construction of more than 10 new parking spaces or 2000 square feet of impervious surface there's nothing being constructed right now so it seems to me that reviewing this under major site plan doesn't seem to make sense because major site plans some of the big things that are triggered by that review are um due to you know solar access and shading and energy conservation we're not dealing with with anything where we're going to deal with impose on those items architectural standards that's triggered by major site plan it doesn't seem to make sense to apply that here um you know street trees that's not something that we're dealing with here that's something that would be triggered under major site plan review it just didn't seem to make sense to call this major site plan review when you're not constructing anything new and all the things that are triggered by that wouldn't apply here anyway it seems sort of by default so I would agree that a very strict interpretation regarding construction would put this in the minor category um I want to know if others have opinions about whether the fact that we're changing the functional use of this space uh would be of enough concern to rise to the level of major because it's built right now but it's not being used as a parking lot so that's the change we're seeing I mean one could make an argument that there are substantial changes taking place not based upon the fact that there's construction projects but that's the visual acuity provided by this new project uh could be of such a nature that it would rise to a more alarming level whether or not that fits into major versus a minor application that's the question and that's and since it was since the surface parking is a conditional use here it felt like a lot of those concerns were already dealt with under the conditional use analysis but like I said it's so we could address the private relevant criteria I think so I don't think there's anything under major site plan that matters so much as the things under the conditional use review but that's my opinion I don't get a vote but thank you for your anything else folks want to say about major versus minor if not we'll continue with this as a minor or for making a determination I think we can reach the questions that are we feel are most relevant yeah I don't think that uh the minor versus major designation is thank you just wanted to make sure to get to that point because it was in red take very seriously red text in a memo if you ever want to get my attention so you do it okay so we're going to go through now the site plan standards and then we'll move on to the conditional use standards access and circulation has to do with how people get around whether they're on bikes or on foot and the staff comment is that pedestrians would benefit from a crosswalk or other signal to drivers that the pedestrian traffic across ridge street has increased board may wish to condition any future extension of the use past the temporary end date and such being installed um is is uh is a crosswalk something that can be added to ridge street is this sort of a ridge in west is that what we're talking about yeah well so this is the ridge street where I'm seeing where I'm seeing the aot employees crossing the from this parking to their building they'd be crossing ridge street which right now is a private road owned by the college and at one point fairly recently it was closed to the public that's right right there was no three-way there but right now it's a three-way not three-way but you know what I mean there's through traffic um and so this was more of a you know I think that the current application meets the standards of section 3202 as it is right now like I said this is more of a concern when we hit beyond this temporary okay and it's I mean it's something to discuss and we've got more people potentially now crossing ridge street um and there's no there's there's no crosswalk there I know that that that was something that was the old master plan contemplated something there's just something for you to consider is um ridge street two-way or one-way traffic and there is no stop sign on west street is that correct they've actually added one right at that corner okay so the cars will be stopped at west or stopped on ridge how about the other side of ridge street do they have a stop sign as well as there so cars coming down from college street yeah uh down college street yeah over towards ridge street there there is no stop sign there okay all right I would propose that we not condition future extensions of the use one way or another I think that when and if that comes before this board it will be a part of a bigger plan and we will know different things than we know now so we shouldn't try and predict that okay so so uh hey what was your your suggesting that we not to tell just say what you said again sure thank you um I suggest that we do not require the addition of a crosswalk at this time okay okay others and this wasn't something that dpw brought up okay this was something in my analysis no thank you it's good it's good that we're looking at it okay so um moving on the the landscaping requirements under site plan review are only triggered for major so we are moving through them um some of them are only triggered by it that's the having to have a landscape plan by a professional landscape architect plant materials okay so are we now to item f 32 of 3g site landscaping requires one shrub for every five feet of building perimeter and one tree for every 30 feet of exterior principle building exterior so this is our fun landscaping provision that we keep revisiting because there's no waiver for previously approved site plans or you know prior development where it triggers the entire site plan to be analyzed so you remember this is the one tree perfect x number of feet of building perimeter etc and we've already made decisions recognizing that the bylaws really didn't fully contemplate where there was no change as the board used our discretion 302 3g rules and it's supposed to go before city council been a problem for us similarly there are requirements related requirements for trees to shade parking areas that for the same reason may not attach here um however we have that's a would you like to discuss landscaping further now under the conditional use criteria because we have it has been raised that that screening of a use even temporary however temporary it ends up being um is is a concern in in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and just overall visual impact we can discuss this further under conditional use review or we can talk about it now well i think that i think that it has a place in both these reviews both site planning and issues and clearly what we have got through the criteria i want to make sure that we are talking about the needs and requirements we will be sure to do that in the next section yes okay great um so we do recognize as a board um from previous experience and just discussing this tonight that that screening may may be appropriate and needed for this all right so um what we are doing next is we're looking at um page 17 item 26 section 3303 of our regulations and that is traffic and what this does is make sure that a development doesn't have an undue adverse effect upon traffic in the area um the testimony submitted is that there be 20 additional cars in this area of campus arriving in the morning between seven and nine a.m. and departing between four and six p.m. and um it's noted here that the 20 additional trips is based on the increase of this one project that we are contemplating not the total number of aot employees who may be parking in other spaces but this is what is before us um the testimony from or the submission from the applicant is that there will be no measurable impact um we do have the option of requesting a traffic impact study uh using the board our discretion as a board even though it won't be more than 50 new trips we do not have any comments from dpw expressing concern about this there were there were no concerns about traffic where this this use as a parking lot when it comes to the traffic from dpw the chief police neither have any issues um especially because of the recently added stop sign okay do any board members have questions or concerns about traffic okay very good i forgot to note that we have moved into review of conditional use standards now um traffic was a conditional use standard and the next one is um the character of the neighborhood standards which is a standard that the proposed development shall not have an undue adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood um so this includes architectural compatibility which is not applicable because this is not a building um but then it also includes yards lock coverage and landscaping new development shall maintain the sense of open space appropriate to the neighborhood by balancing the size of the foot building's footprint with the mass of the structure on the lot this does not mean a new development can't reduce the total amount of green space rather the balance of building area to open space um so this is not about a building going up and compromising green space but it is about a use being put into place that changes the interaction between that use and the green space that currently currently exists and so I think this is the most appropriate place to discuss some sort of landscaping um we I think have an opportunity to minimize the visual impact through the choice of barriers between the tennis courts and the basketball um court um I think maybe orange barrels would not minimize the visual impact um whereas movable concrete planters could perhaps be an option I'm thinking this is my own idea and I love others to to share their thoughts were you thinking about the post office we were thinking about the post office so um so this is I'm sure there are other other models um but that that would be one of the two sides that that should be contemplated for that that's one idea that comes to mind but I would like to turn to other board members for ideas about landscaping and the needs we also have talked in the past about reduction of glare um in these cold winter months where the lights are on when you're coming and going so I'm I'm concerned about the about this project I'm concerned about what it's long-term impact will be I know it's being being billed as being a temporary temporary use but temporary uses have a way of becoming permanent uses if not if not adequately uh monitored and controlled so I think to to me that's the key issue is if it's temporary how are we going to make it truly temporary and as far as the barriers that have been discussed so far I'm not I'm not sold on I'm certainly not sold on orange barrels definitely not sold on jersey barriers the planters in front of the federal building down on state street um maybe slightly better but only slightly and I don't think it addresses the concerns that were that were were articulated and addressed uh five years ago when this project was before us at that time or the board as it was constituted at that time I couldn't live with an adverse situation if it is of is if it is of a finite length and there's enough conditions uh conditioning within the decision decision itself that would guarantee that a maximum of whatever it would be 18 months or 24 months and at which time the that that use would must cease unless there was a dually uh does uh thus there was a landscape plan that was dually uh took into consideration all of the factors that would keep the neighborhood in the college street area as beautiful as it is and uh so that's my concern I can I can accept the temporary use if it's truly temporary I really get nervous when I start hearing about these orange barrels and jersey barriers and it's exactly what we worked hard not to not to sanction last time which I guess because there is a cost involved perhaps why the uh former tennis court sat there for this length of time um so I think that that maybe there's a problem that has developed simply because it wasn't addressed appropriately like some years ago I just want to just briefly go over just the the current landscaping there based upon the staff notes uh there are three crab apple trees adjacent to the parking lot and the staff's visit uh the entire parcel also includes five large trees around 20 small or medium sized trees is that roughly would like around the whole green around the whole okay just agree with that assessment three three crab apple trees three crab apple definitely are right next to the tennis courts um there's actually another grouping of trees I I couldn't tell you what they are yeah um which is on page 14 you can see that other grouping it's kind of right next to the basketball court area that corner there yeah okay so those are the two areas of trees right next to the tennis courts and then I couldn't tell you the exact number trees around the green but certainly that sounds right within them now I'm just taking a look here on the west on west street you've indicated here on the layout here that the c portion doesn't it see as nine feet eight inches wide and that is from the sidewalk to the edge of the of the paved area correct and there are any trees exist or shrubs existing in that area all on west street that strip that nine foot eight eight inch section no not currently would you be amenable to have any condition that shrubs be placed there you know screen and shield off uh the view of the cars from neighbors and you know to keep the character of the neighborhood intact I wouldn't be opposed to considering it I would love to talk a little bit more with my landscaper just about um what would do well there yeah um it's you know I don't want to put something in that's that's not going to thrive yeah I mean it wouldn't be like you have to put in like this sort of you know shrub or this sort of thing it would be led to discretion that as long as it comports with design as long as it's you know not a you know invasive species or whatever we have under our rules but with that something that the the college would be amenable to that have like shrubs along there I would need to go back and talk to people about that but I imagine that that would be something we'd be open to obviously you can't plant them right now but sometime when it's available correct can you describe where I don't understand where you're suggesting sure sure so uh on the proposed site plan so it's right along the yeah along west street there there's a strip by sea here the falls right along the plan I was looking at it dot nine feet eight inches wide which I think would be sufficient space for okay and it pairs that it goes you know the length of B which is 109 feet presumably longer too because of the basketball it's not going to be tennis again but you're absolutely correct it would not get in the way of tennis so just for a little orientation in case you missed it in the description of materials the actual items from the applicant and once you hit the second bcfa design item everything after that are materials that staff supply um and I'm gonna actually give you I have that you have the attachments so this so everything after the current bcfa proposal that starts with the dina bookmeyer banker item the plans after that are the plans under the old permit so I included them in here for some history and perspective so that when you're looking there you're seeing what the old landscaping plan was that was approached so you can actually see where back in 2013 2014 they approved adding some shrubs and fences along the area that the home is discussing right now you know this is a lot of times we don't look at those past permits but in this situation it seemed really appropriate to be able to give you that perspective well these are questions we you know I guess I was the only person that was on the board at that time but these these were the questions that we were asking at the time and there was a I mean that's where this came from yeah we didn't design it bcfa designed it their landscape architect designed it but it would the design was based upon the concerns of the board not just the board there was a lot of community involvement at the time we're coming to the end of the things listed in red and regarding landscaping I want to see it and Kevin's concerns and all of our concerns I think about a temporary use let me let me see if I can summarize and please jump in so there is a concern that a temporary project can continue on or be rolled into a more permanent project and the risk of that is that we have things that were intended to be temporary remaining it seems possible that any that there could be a condition on any permit that conversion of the parking lot to a permanent use at the college would require reapplication in the installation of permanent landscaping to be determined at the time to make to create that finite period that that has been raised yeah I mean can't you just put a deadline on this permit that you just have to expire by x unless you did you just require a new permit right yes I think what I'm getting at is that any screening which we'll get to would be seen as temporary screening and reevaluated to avoid the rollover effect okay thank you I'm just trying to make sure it's something that will make sense to other people and not just to me so the I think at issue is a goal that any screening that is part of a temporary lot not automatically be considered the appropriate screening if the lot becomes permanent and having some sort of condition that not only has an end date for the temporary use in the permit but further says and when there's a reapplication the land the temporary landscaping can't carry over has to be revalued right you're right yeah so that brings us to the question of what what would temporary screening what would constitute appropriate temporary screening and we've had ideas for concrete planters a la the federal building we've heard concerns about those because there has been extensive work in the past on what's appropriate this site and we've also heard from you that you are not not able to commit at this moment to the types of planting suggested by Tom or or the other pieces so where I'm going with this is that I might propose requesting you to return with a proposed temporary landscaping screening with with a temporary landscaping screening proposal a proposal for temporary screening that may involve landscaping on this site based on what you've heard that could include shrubbery as um mentioned by Tom it could include some sort of movable barrier between the tennis court and the basketball court that is prettier than a concrete planter this three feet off could you you're right on target from my perspective Kate and I think that that the college needs to do just what the chair has articulated which is to provide a temporary landscaping plan and not just assume that because it has the word temporary as part of the application that that means you get a free ticket on this one because you know you need to make it look like it fits especially if it's two years I mean that that concerns me the two years but yes it is in in you know something like a split rail fence that's movable with a bet with a with a platform that that keeps it upright and doesn't allow it to be moved too easily is a heck of a lot nicer than than a jersey barrier but there you can do a lot of things with wood so perhaps we could modify and say landscaping or screening because we're talking about screening as much or more so than plants is that correct would that capture and it's not just screening to block view but also as a definition of where the parking area is right both between the parking area and the green and the parking area and west street along that right by the boundary and also create great but the definition physically as well as for visually right yeah just one question I think part of the reason why I hadn't given a whole lot of thought about what those things might be is because in in thinking about this Monday through Friday state office parking so that on the weekends and in the afternoons it's gone there's literally no evidence of it being there so I just just to make sure if if we're go down this road and I'm going to come back with a proposal I want to make sure that um it would be more agreeable if there was actually something there that demarcated it in a way rather than it just when they're gone it is it is exactly how it is right now did does that make sense what I'm asking are you asking whether it's necessary to remove those screening on Saturday I'm assuming if I'm going to do screening they're going to stay and my goal originally when I was contemplating it Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. when they were gone it would look like it does right now gone there's no evidence whatsoever so that you know for the neighborhood for all intents and purposes there's just those and and I'm that that is honestly just the way I was sort of looking at it but what I'm hearing from this board is that the way you need me to approach it is to say how can we make some whether it's screening or landscaping or barrier so it's really clear where the area is in a way that the the one thing that we as a board have to be very careful about is not to get into designing projects we can give advice we can give you and that's what I'm looking for our opinions our concerns our fears our whatever as far as what you want to propose to this board that is between you and your and your college colleagues but I think it's I think what this board is articulating with regards to this project is is there's a concern and that concern has to do with the fact that as you know the the College of Fine Arts campus and particularly the green is is one of the jewels of Montpelier and one of what you don't want to do what we don't want you to do is start encroaching on this in a way that just doesn't fit and as far as what type of screening you use we're making suggestions movable screening is probably a good thing but probably jersey barriers are probably not right and I want to make sure we're hearing your point which is that originally you didn't come forth with something because you were thinking temporary not just on a say a year basis but also Monday through Friday it's up Saturday Sunday it's down Monday through Friday up Saturday Sunday down and you couldn't think of a screening that would accommodate that so I think what you are hearing from us that you are correct that you are hearing that in lieu of that temporary approach would so prefer would so much prefer the screening that it could stay up on Saturday since on days two and we certainly hear here Kevin's arguments too about the overall character which I know is a priority for many including you so what I would like to propose is that we ask the applicant to please come back with a screening or landscaping plan as we've discussed for the purpose of delineating the parking area as well as minimizing the aesthetic impact the other things that we've asked for to be represented are a so that would be the what I just said would be the priority for the next meeting if in addition you could provide for the next meeting a map showing how the shared parking would be distributed as well as showing where the snow storage space would be I believe those are the things that we've discussed as needing as outstanding and needing to be shown the main in the other areas that we've reviewed we've just oh Kevin go ahead I would just also like maybe a little more definition on what the college is thinking about a time frame for this thank you thank you that would be useful useful additional evidence we've resolved the other outstanding's required regarding minimum parking requirements regarding traffic impacts the 15 foot driveway square footage being leased to aot and so what I've just the things I've just listed before or what we need to um further evaluate this application and I will uh I will move that uh per the chair's pronunciation of all those things um so we have to continue to a specific date yes we're continuing to February 4th and do we need to confirm with the applicant that that is an acceptable time frame in which they can get this information and should we continue this to the one after that thank you I will turn the question to you um we can talk to you again as soon as uh February 4th which is our next meeting would that be sufficient for you I believe it would be okay so then a motion from the board to meeting to a time and date certain would be in order so moved motion by tom second by dem all those in favor please signify by raising your right hands any opposed none abstaining all right thank you we will give you February 4th and thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you oh all right do you have other business uh no I'm just to make sure that when we sign revisit this that I mentioned the design review okay good so um the other business uh we now know that our next meeting is Monday February 4th um are there any other announcements um just a reminder that in addition to the continuation of the 36 college street application um the only other item of business on that date will be DRB training DRB public is welcome to review incident yes thank you marita that's that's what I was going to say as well um if you this is the moment you've been waiting for to learn about the zoning why we have it how it works how it relates to itself I think it's going to be a great overview both for those of us who've worked with it and for people who may be observing it from afar but uh tune in well it's uh it's a it's a project that's in process as well there's uh what is the planning commission done with making revisions yet no no so the planning commission is currently working through the rest of the hit list of items that need to be addressed which is more yeah which is more you know an and needs to be in or or in there's something that is clearly a typo or something that was easily fixed so yeah so the planning according to the planning commission addressed them um they've been bumped on the city council agenda to I think February mid to late February because of other pressing matters but um yeah they're being addressed perhaps we could get a a brief update on that if it fits in on February 4th though I realize that is we might need to shorten up our trainings I believe in that thanks yep all right so we adjourned second motion by deb second by tom all those in favor please raise your right hands your way okay we are adjourned thank you all