 And we ask that you not use the chat function to chat amongst yourselves because it's not part of the public record and it's very distracting for us. So agenda item number one, emergency evacuation procedures in each corner of the back of the room. There are doors to exit the building in case of an emergency. And you would simply exit those doors and go either left or right to get to the outside of the building. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Yes, I would like to suggest that we move the minutes to before item number eight because Jim will be recused for item number eight. Do we need to vote on that? Nope. Okay. I have no problem with that. Any other additions, deletions, or changes? Okay. Any announcements? This is Jim's last meeting. Jim Langan, we will miss you. You've been a great contributor and it's been fun to, fun, it's been fun. Yeah. It's been good to have you on board and good luck to you. We will miss you. Oh, thanks, Don. Any other announcements? Okay. Are there any comments or questions from the public that are not related to the agenda tonight? Hearing none, let's move on to number five on the agenda, which is our first project. And this is a continued final plaid application, which means it's kind of the last stage of a review of a project before the board makes a decision about it. It's the continued final plaid application, pardon me, number SD-2205 of a Brian Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two five-story multi-family residential buildings on lets 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 square feet of commercial space and associated site improvements at 255 Kennedy Drive. Are there any recusals or disclosures? I will disclose that I own a property at Hillside at O'Brien Farm, but I don't believe it will impair my ability to be objective. Okay. Who is here for the applicant? Who are here? Who is here? Hi, Evan. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers? Hi, Andrew. Evan, is your mic on? Is there a green light? Yep, it was just a little far away. Pull it a little closer. It's been a while. Yes, yes, welcome. So, we have the staff report and I understand that you have submitted some comments in response to the staff report. So rather than ask you to give like an introduction, I would suggest unless board members feel otherwise that we just go through the staff report and you can make your comments applicable to each comment. As we, as they come up. Yeah, I think we were hoping that as part of this we might be able to play a little presentation that we prepared because I think some of the discussions are revolving around the architecture piece. And so we're just trying to provide a little bit of context. Okay. Yeah, we have that available. And so our thinking was that if the board doesn't have any questions about the architecture, making a presentation on it is not a productive use of time. So we thought start with the staff report, see where the board is, and then if you feel like your presentation would help answer the board's questions, then we'll go through it. I'd be kind of interested in seeing the architecture presentation to tell you the truth because I, relative actually to what I was commenting on before, which is, I just to perceive, realize a little late how massive these buildings are. And I think the staff report starts with discussion with traffic, but then after that we go into the buildings and open space. So what do other folks think, Mark, you're the architect. I could go either way, honestly. I mean, I think that, you know, I think that there are some important issues outside of the architecture that's actually more to relate to open space. Like the traffic and other things like that are more like what I call the boilerplate that we just need to work through. So I could either go through it one by one or have them present it. But I think that we may bounce around a little if we do that. So I'm not sure if we at least knock off, you know, low hanging fruit and then focus on the, because I think pretty much for me it's architecture and open space. Well, and just to be clear, the presentation also touches on the open space and amenities too. Do we want to sort of look at which staff comments are, you know, just the ones where you guys can say, yeah, we'll do that or yeah, we agree. And then we'll focus on the harder ones as a group or do we, I mean, right. So the, I think that, you know, our intent was to get through that presentation and, you know, under 10 minutes includes like a two minute virtual video that we had made of the project site. Dan, if you want to just jump in, you don't need to put your hand up your board. I don't see where's Dan, I don't see him. Yeah, our, our view here Dan doesn't show hands. So only Delilah is looking at him. Right. Oh, doesn't Delilah have a buzzer under the chair seat. Yeah, so Delilah does, but anyway, just jump in your board member, you're fully entitled. Yeah, okay. Um, yeah, I guess that would be nice to see their presentation. It's sort of similar to introductory remarks of a project. So that's my feeling. Let's go with it. When we get to the staff comments that address, we can say, yeah, we agree. It'll be context. Okay. Okay. Go for it guys. That'd be great. Yeah, I can. I don't have the ability to. It's just 146 megs. So it's going to take her a second. Michael. Yeah. I think that's the video. Oh, I can do that part. Um, I failed to say that this is being recorded. No, you did. Did I? Okay. Um, Delilah, if you make me an organizer, I can help with that piece. I know there's a lot going on. I feel like I'm at the UN. Yeah, that would be great. Awesome. Well, so this is a, like I said, I'm going to keep this under 10 minutes, which will be a test of how fast I can talk. But essentially, we just sort of wanted to take a step back and introduce the project to everybody and make sure that, you know, the sort of overall look and feel of the development and some of the renderings and imagery that have been produced were, were sort of top of mind as we got into the discussion. You know, this project started back in 2014, the first sketch plan application that we filed for it. We've been working ever since that day to get, you know, this point in the project where we're building the last multifamily buildings at the, you know, the sort of completion of it. So we're excited about it and wanted to share that with you guys. So this is just an aerial overview that was updated this week to include some of the new images and, you know, metal screening and things like that. You can see and we can move forward. Could you pull the mic a little closer, please? Yes. Thanks. That's much better. So we talked quite a bit about the Kennedy drive elevations and previously we had not had a digital rendering done of the Kennedy drive frontage. So we did have that completed once the staff comments were received this past Wednesday. And this is that rendering. So you can see in the lower left a sort of screenshot of the site plan. This is from the rec path on Kennedy drive looking at the building on lot 15. It just gives some good perspective of the grade on Kennedy drive. You can see the large bank going up and you can also see how the landscaping and these are the immature trees that would be planted, sort of obscure the view of the lower levels of the building. We can keep moving forward. This is the intersection in the four corners that you guys have seen before. The pavement, brick cement is all approved as part of the summit project that got final plat approval and is going to be hopefully under construction soon with their project. And then you can see our building on lot 13. You can see the cafe that was added as part of that neighborhood commercial use, which is an amenity that was not contemplated a preliminary plat, but which we brought, you know, forward to sort of try and activate this streetscape. And if you go to the next slide, I think that's the video. So if you move the mouse toward the bottom, I think you can hit play. This video just takes you on sort of a ride from the four corners down to Kennedy drive and then up Kennedy drive. So you can sort of feel how, you know, you would experience the project if you were driving down the road. It's a little bit delayed there, but we sort of thought this was helpful. Just to get an idea of the scale and sort of what it feels like from, I think this view is from the recreation path. And you can see some of the new details that we put in along the foundation wall, the metal screens, sort of alternate light and dark colors to look a little bit like mountains going up and down. What's not, what's not shown on these renderings are the headers that we were directed to add at the last hearing in which we have added to the elevations, but we have an added to the elevations but we haven't incorporated into the renderings yet. And here you can see sort of the bank along Kennedy and how that makes the building sort of disappear as you head up the road. So that was the, you know, sort of important part of that visual that we can keep cruising through. Hold to my ten minutes. I think in the context of open space, you know, we sort of wanted to take a step back and look at the broader context of the project as part of a master plan. There are two, you know, significant open spaces connected to the project. The total open space in the master plan is, I think, 9.1 acres, which was associated with the full density of the master plan at the point that it was permitted. The two primary spaces are highlighted here, you know, within a few hundred feet of the apartments there's a walking loop around the stormwater pond as well as a four-acre wooded park with trails to walk your dog and a full playground, which is already built. And just in the context of the overall project, you know, sometimes we, you know, we also don't talk about the setting of the project and how central it is to walking trails and recreation paths. This is just a quick highlight of sort of where you could go out of your front door to walk your dog or get some fresh air while you were working from home. Can keep right on trucking. We had a rendering done of the rooftop open space to sort of give a look and feel of how it would be for residents. So you can see the fire pit, the sort of artificial turf areas, the different exterior rooms that have been set up. We can move to the next slide there. Back a couple. Skipped over. Or maybe I didn't have it in here. Okay, yeah, there we go. So then this is just a quick overview again of the four-way intersection, which is also an amenity on the site. It was permitted as part of the summit project, but you know those benches, those plazas all along the four-way intersection sort of activating the street are really important to the overall context of the project. The other two on-site open spaces are the food truck parking area and the area in front of the building on Kennedy Drive, both of which I think you can scroll forward. We're contemplated at the preliminary plat. I think it was one specific comment at the preliminary plat from the board in regard to using some of the adjacent areas to the buildings to create areas, places to read a book, small urban plazas where people could get outside within the context of the overall master plan and also with giving consideration to the adjacent Eastview project and the future open spaces that that's going to bring. This is just an overview of those two spaces, the food truck amenity where you can see the truck there, some planters, a fire pit, sort of a nice sitting area. We can keep cruising through. The other thing the board had kept in mind at preliminary plat was what's coming next. This slide is just a quick overview of the open spaces that are proposed for final plat adjacent to the project. You can see the large playground on open space slot 19, the natural play area. You can also see the dog park that's proposed as part of Eastview and how those two locations relate to the project. We can keep I think there's one more. Another view of the open space proposed on lot 19. This is the natural playground with the slide and tree fort benches tables and you can see lot 13 there in the background. I think in the context of open space I think the board often doesn't look at interior amenities. I don't think it's necessarily something the regulations get too heavily into, but I think in the context of whether there's adequate tenant amenity in this project that we can't overlook what the project is delivering for the tenants on the inside of the building. This is just a stacked view of what's inside the building. You can see the tenant amenity spaces highlighted in color and there's a list of what the project is providing for the tenants on the right. It's over 8,000 square feet of amenity, pet spa, gym, yoga room, coworking, cafe, club room with a pool table, ski tuning shop, bike tuning shop, bike and ski storage, tenant storage, parcel room, rest rooms is the short list. And if we kind of keep going through this is the lot 15 building amenity layout and you can see that stacked amenity in the central tower. Those spaces include a gym I always say this word wrong. A hearth room, game room type area with a fireplace, TV, chef's kitchen for bringing friends over, entertaining as well as another co-working space. And then I just wanted to include a little bit of like the character of what the building is proposing. Now these rooms are not just like an empty room with carpet. The gym is laid out with a full service of equipment. The yoga room, TRX wall, you can see some unique ceiling treatments, color pallets, it's got a bar wall. You know so it's really got a lot of amenity space in there for the residents. What's the overall square footage? The footprint square footage of the building. I don't know off the top of my head. The overall built square footage including the garage between the two buildings is 320,000 square feet I believe. So 60,000 something square feet to the floor. Yeah that's probably about right. So this is just a quick overview of the cafe, color pallets, the upholstery, the different, you know, we work spaces, tables and chairs and I think you can kind of just cruise through to the. To be clear that the square footage that was referenced on that slide was one building of amenity space. I understand that. And it's also consistent with the form-based code requirements for interior amenity space too. So this is not out of the norm for a multifamily building of this square footage. So that was sort of the end of the presentation. So we just kind of wanted to give a little color and character to sort of not only the exterior the interior and sort of give that perspective of those new renderings that were submitted. Can I just clarify nothing you showed here is a change from what the board has already seen on the other plants. Aside from what Evan mentioned about the headers not being yet updated. Correct. By the way what are the headers going to look like? What are they going to look like? I think they're included in the packet. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for letting us do that. Appreciate it. So let's go ahead and start walking through the staff report. And I did try to organize the staff comments generally in order of big to small. Though they're not perfect. I'm kind of trying to head that direction without completely upsetting the apple cart. Hopefully the stuff at the beginning is the bigger stuff and as you get towards the end it's more like checking boxes. Okay. So number one and we've already discussed a lot of these. So this is just making sure that we have everything locked down. Number one refers to the need for traffic impact study addendum and whether or not lots 10, 11, 13 15 warrant the light. Yeah. So you know, I've got Roger. I think I can't tell who's he is here. Yeah. Okay. You know, I think Roger could speak to this. I haven't sworn you in. I'm sorry. Is it because it's okay that was Roger. No, I did testify because he said the piano that was very memorable. Okay. All right. That's all right, Roger. We got you. Yeah. Did you want to provide information about this, Roger? Okay. So lot 13 and 15 construction will include the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of two brothers road and Kennedy drive and then the traffic impact based on our estimates of the trip generation that the signal will be warranted for full operation upon completion of the proposed buildings and their occupancy and I believe that you have in your packet a memo essentially agree with that and they recommend that the signal be installed in operational when the number of trips exiting the project at this intersection exceed 100 trips during the morning peak hour and so that will require some monitoring but as the building is occupied but we do anticipate that it will be a it will be warranted so the process basically will be that the applicant will install the traffic light the traffic light can operate in what we call a flash mode until it's actually warranted and then it could be turned on to full operation and I think that's the best possible scenario for that traffic light it could also be structured that as it's operating in the flash mode until such time as it's warranted that the pedestrian signals would be functional so that if pedestrians do want to wish to cross a Kennedy Drive at this location they would have the benefit of a full pedestrian signal which would stop vehicle or traffic on Kennedy Drive and make it much safer to cross Roger that sounds wonderful but I do have a bit of a concern I don't know if the city has the authority to require ongoing monitoring did you have any suggestions for how we might how we might deal with figuring out when it is triggered well I in many projects that I've worked on have had conditions from DRBs that have required traffic monitoring I don't know why that could not be a condition of approval that the traffic light be installed and be made operational when the traffic volumes exceed that 100 vehicle per hour threshold or the peak hour who determines that go ahead Frank I was just going to say is there some humongous expense or some reason not to make it fully operational upon construction what is the delta there in cost our expectation is that we put in the light and turn it on Roger we avoid the monitoring problem undesirable impact of having signals when signals aren't warranted or do I misunderstand that the menu on uniform traffic control devices basically leaves that question up to the engineering and municipalities the that question the million dollar question that we have to ask and answer is will the traffic signal produce a net benefit to traffic flow and if the answer to that question is yes then the signal can be turned on and made fully operational so I think in this case with Kennedy Drive being a four lane highway and anticipated volumes of traffic exiting the hillside development that there will be a net benefit here to having an operational functional traffic signal I didn't understand the answer I think the answer is we would love to put the signal in and turn it on so if the board is agreeable to that let's go ahead yeah so I think what Roger is saying is that the MUTCD which is the manual that sort of dictates how to design traffic control says that you can put it in before it's warranted as long as it produces a net benefit is that correct? Good adequate care phrasing? Okay and this is a matter of regulation or just good practice from an engineering standpoint so the MUTCD governs state highways I don't know if we have adopted it as our municipal policy or not but I mean it's a good practice certainly it sounds like it would be a benefit so it would comply we could have Roger write a letter that would say that people use it would be a net benefit to have it operational and you put that in the file and proceed with constructing it did you want to say something? Yeah I mean can we write the permit so it just says you'll build a traffic light and it'll turn it on when you're finished construction I think would hate to build a traffic light and have it sit there idle that seems absurd so yeah well I think we need to be clear about if this is not required if they want to build it it's permitted so I should know this probably but did the traffic impact study just measure the impact of the two buildings you're presenting now and the two that have already been proposed or did it also include hillside? it includes everything so it's the full project because I was going to say I know if there's a traffic light there when I'm heading to the highway or heading anywhere toward the airport I'm going to go that way and not up in Don Eldridge so I'm glad to hear that it sounds like there's relatively low risk of it not being acceptable to turn it on with the construction of these buildings it would be good to just double check with DPW and our traffic consultant to make sure that there aren't any other concerns what I would suggest at this juncture is put a pin in this and if there's other outstanding issues this will be another one that we look into and if there are outstanding issues we'll have to decide if this is something that we continue hearing on the basis of or if we just take the risk okay can we live with that? I would say I'm wondering if the CEO issued for the second building triggers it being turned on rather than having to worry about once enough units are occupied like that 100 vehicle trip threshold it's basically the buildings are occupied and functional and then they can just start to become occupied as more and more tenants we certainly want to have the light on so we don't push back and are happy to see that okay we still need an addendum Marla I mean I think that Roger has testified of what the addendum would say okay so it's not an actual question from staff but in the body of the staff report it asked for an explanation of the reduced outdoor common space that's not the word we use not common space what is the term outdoor open space and I think what your presentation told us was that you have a lot of indoor kind of open space that you consider an amenity and I think what we're really getting at in this staff report is that we did as staff a side-by-side comparison of the preliminary flat drawings and the current drawings and it's the same between the preliminary and final and the outdoor looks like it's slightly reduced so that's kind of where we get into staff comment number two and three actually just two about you know 30 more units reduced ground level open spaces same amount of interior common spaces how does the board know about that so yeah so just a few sort of corrections so with the interior common space is increased by 2,000 square feet from the preliminary flat submission to the current submission the exterior amenity spaces at the preliminary plat were presented as conceptual sketches hand drawn on the plans in a discussion and in the preliminary plat finding it said that we would firm up the designs at final plat which we've done the food truck area that you're showing currently you know I think there's just a little bit of misunderstanding about how it would be used maybe in the letter we submitted today explained that we put the bollards where they are sort of to protect people from the food truck and maybe that was a bad choice so we went ahead and moved the bollards to the other side of the food truck and made them removable so that the orange area is now going all the way to the bottom of where the access road is and so now that amenity is actually 200 square feet bigger than the hand drawn sketch that was shown that a couple of things that I'd just like to note so we increased the building number of units by 30 but we decreased the number of bedrooms by 10 so we had a lot more two bedroom units in the old plan and we pushed those to add 30 studio apartments as well as some more smaller one bedroom units and so while there has been an increase in the number of units there was not an increase in the size of the parking lot there was not an appreciable increase in the size of the building and we actually reduced the number of bedrooms in the building because studio apartments aren't considered a bedroom so that's taking those 30 studios and saying those bedrooms don't count so there is a little bit of a I think it's overstating the significance of the increase in units to just say that we went up by 30 we reduced the size so in terms of the number of residents it's probably roughly comparable thoughts and questions board I think for me I know we always try to look at preliminary to final and compare it kind of apples to apples I understand because I've been on both sides of the table I totally get the conceptual to the engineered and I really just wanted to look at what's being provided is adequate for the project being presented at final and I think the food truck area still feels fine I'm not concerned but I do agree that the whatever the top one is that the one that's on Kennedy Drive that's at the sort of like the knuckle of the building and then goes down obviously that one is more significantly reduced in size and function I still I think given the location and given the way it's going to be used it's probably still fine because I think on the building to Kennedy isn't as much of going to be as much of a common area usage as something that's more on the interior of the site so I think it's as an amenity and as an open space it still to me feels like it's probably adequate I'm a little disappointed because it definitely changed in functionality and layout when you went from conceptual preliminary to final because of the fact that it looks like you had two different levels with like the ADA ramp and now you just have one flat surface but again I know these things happen during engineering phase Other comments? I'll chime in here I mean to me the only thing that's operable is what the standard says and that's talking about open space and joining parcels and stream buffer areas so yeah Mark's explanation of how the process works is a good one and to me the process from preliminary to final is about providing more information and refining and preliminary is a check-in not a thing of you can never change anything it was approved in preliminary and final hopefully that's my understanding that it's not that we're in trouble but yeah I like what I see yeah and it fits with the standard if we were to see this just as one combined application it works for me so so I just want to say last week I was in Michigan one of my daughters was graduating graduate school at the University of Michigan and one of her she has a friend group and one of the friends of means as opposed to my daughter who lived in this tiny graduate student apartment lived in a complex like this and it did have a pool but it had a lot of outdoor patios and it had common rooms and one night the four graduates and all their family members were invited to a cookout and the kids all arranged a cookout and I couldn't help but think wow this is great space this is wonderful to have this kind of kitchen and then you walked outside and there were grills and it was really delightful and it occurred to me that we spend a lot of time indoors in Vermont it's not we're not always using outdoor patios and whatever we spend a lot of time indoors and I think that I really got to see the functionality of that kind of indoor space and amenity in a complex so I like what you've done thank you other comments? questions? so can we move on? alright what is that room? the secret room I'm pretty sure that the design architect Tim is on the call but my first glance I think the design architect is on the call he can confirm me if I'm wrong but I believe that room is a mechanical room of some sort like a water sprinkler valve room it's not a way for you guys to escape no Tim can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm online so I can't see it which room are we talking about exactly? there's a lot 15 facing Kennedy Drive there is an exterior door that enters into a small room with no other entries or exits it's on the other side of the stairs from the new bike rack room in the corner of the garage it's definitely a mechanical room I like that just give me this I'm going to pull it up I'll pull up the plan here in just a second so it's not an O'Brien Brothers den no and you said it's on the Kennedy Drive side yes storage for the removable bollards we put it in the parking area and you said it's next to the stair yeah small room accessed off the little terrace yeah we have that labeled as a riser room um potentially if we need to do something for the fire marshal um or it can be used as a mechanical space it's a mechanical space so to speak thank you and then below number three which is in red there are some LDRs quoted and then there's a paragraph that Marla wrote and I think it should probably be in red because it said staff recommends the board require the applicant to correct this grading without changing the configuration of the walkway or sidewalk as a condition of approval yep we saw that we can get that okay looked at corrected our intent would be to you know to get you that prior to the next conversation okay so number four we need a revised plan that's consistent with the LDRs yeah we submitted that today uh with that full explanation as to what happened uh lighting plans been corrected we swapped out two fixtures that were causing some problems um it should be all copacetic I think you know the one outstanding question is that I think you say there's a 0.3 foot candle limit at the property line but there's a bunch of street lights at the property line um so I don't know how that interacts but I assume there's some kind of exception for that but otherwise you know the property lines are on the plan every fixture has been given a height every fixture has been given a number every fixture uh has a you know model number that correlates to a spec sheet that was applied so it should be pretty rock solid at this point what's your um average what's your maximum foot candles I'm just trying to like close this item out by having a conversation about it you know we I don't have the plan in front of me it was low you know so in the supplemental do I love there is should be something called the lighting plan yeah I think it starts with combined combined lighting plan is the name of the file combined lighting plan um in the supplemental it's sheet I got a real crash course in lighting to get that thing this project has taken me to lighting school so we've we've all been here that once for us it was on FedEx so in the top right of the page there's a says the maximum foot candles is 4.8 um overall and the average is 0.15 and then the average in the paved area is 1.2 and in the roadways 0.75 um so yeah it looks like I'm zoomed into like where your cursor is right now yep and then the table down below is every fixtures number and the mounting height which is the z coordinate okay so there is another comment that's not in red it says staff recommends the board require the applicant to locate building mounted lights within 5 feet of the top of doorways in order to prevent the effect being that of a floodlight I think that's fine okay I mean we're not looking to put lights more than 5 feet above a door okay um um number 5 deficiencies in lighting plan need to be addressed it sounds like you've done that yep okay good any questions from the board okay um moving on to number 6 um this is I'm going to read this staff recommends the board direct the applicant to significantly increase the variability of glazing and if creating penetrations into the garage space is no longer viable significantly improve the appearance of the garage walls what have you got to say well so the um you know when we had a pretty long discussion about this on the 15th about the architecture you know the outcome of that conversation from our notes and from what we resubmitted to the board was that we would look at adding headers to the windows that we would fill in with some glazing on the north end of lap 15 where there was a sort of large blank wall and that we would drop the store front glazing down to grade at the knuckle of lap 15 in lieu of the sort of metal door shown there in the middle so we did all that we submitted a new um lap 15 elevation we just submitted one sheet um which you know you can zoom into to see the headers and things um you know a sort of detail but in this picture you can see sort of the black window headers over the beige uh windows on the right um and you can see the sort of effect of that change um and so you know we we think the headers look good you know we like it the other way we like it this way uh you know we're happy to update all the architecturals for the for the file if the board you know thinks that's a good direction um but we didn't want to kind of do all you know 10 or 12 elevations or whatever it is without getting a little bit of feedback on it what's the material it's hard to I mean I see the color of the headers but what's it what's the material what's the uh I think that the file is a pretty high resolution if um if it's all right the file is pretty high resolution and maybe we could like zoom in on the pdf so you guys could Tim do you want to speak to that yes sir it will be a hardy board siding or trim work because we're using hardy board panels or a cementitious panel a cementitious siding and so the trim work would be of an equal material just a different color to kind of highlight the header um as we previously discussed in the last meeting I think if we can zoom in even more yeah it because a lot of the detail doesn't show up until you get pretty close you know so you can see the sort of you know the brick shelf there you can see the headers sketched in over the you know in the brick and then over the windows are those Juliet balconies yes okay and then we had submitted um an updated elevation uh or an updated digital rendering of lot 15 today as well where you can zoom in and sort of you can't see the headers but just in the context of those metal screens um I think I mentioned to the last meeting those are just kind of like Revit file placeholders um and so we did um we did land on a metal screen to use uh and we had the rendering updated with the product that we would propose um and I think it'd be helpful to just take a look at that just so you guys can see the um you know we haven't submitted that yet for in in CAD files um but we we had it and I just wanted to sort of show you that that metal square is not the proposal it's just sort of indicating something that would go there and I think there's a PDF of the digital rendering or it says like lot 15 from or even the aerial version actually shows the um screens pretty well you guys can binge watch on YouTube the video of the drive by which also has the um screens I think we've got a couple two or three views at this point so that's not the you know you can kind of only see them poking through the trees there is that is the aerial one might be the better feel for it and if you can zoom in a little bit what's the drain you know it's an enormous enormous flat roof how's the how's the drainage work that's uh we are um we're doing interior drainage and over you know overflow drainage um we've got leaders roof leaders already um coordinated throughout the building uh with the plumbing engineer uh and those will go down to the basement level and connect to a line that will take it to the storm system so so so where the outflows just the periodic spots along the uh well yeah and there won't be an open outflow it'll all be a contained system um so there won't be a visible outflow is what you're saying only for the only for the ORDs the ORDs are going to to a spot along the wall yes I think that's the overflow overflow overflow yeah sorry sorry overflow roof drains yeah they are piped to the exterior wall because you've got to have a visual indicator if there's a problem in the system okay and the the flat roofs are being used for the air conditioning condensers largely um the whole building is powered with electric so it's electric heat electric heat pump heat um you know other than the fireplaces and maybe the gas stove in the chef's kitchen uh actually might be induction so it's pretty it's in line with the sort of city's energy goals of reducing fossil fuel usage as well but no solar collectors up there anything I think that we've looked into it and we we talked about that a while back that the challenge with all the rooftop units is it really doesn't leave any remaining space for solar up there so the new version of the LDRs which they're not subject to does require um a certain amount of the roof to be solar ready but um they're not subject to that solar ready as in structurally sound wired for it better okay but these guys are not subject to so we just had a good a good view of the panels um I don't know if you guys noticed when Delilah zoomed in but essentially they know that I think it's a sort of mesh material printed with you know similar color tones to the building and then going up and down in line with the windows sort of mimicking like a mountain landscape um you know as you sort of drive past what's nice about the garage things are the Juliet balconies the garage panels so they're semi opaque screens so that goes to one of the comments later on in the staff comments regarding the landscaping deficiencies and spending some of that additional money is that in this project yes okay um so I guess that's one thing I wouldn't mind discussing now because we're sort of discussing the the elevations um because I found that to be a very interesting concept you know but I think we need to talk about it in big picture of the landscaping and rather than just throw it out now so I don't know if we want to okay so put a pin in it sure okay good all right number six uh we already we talked about that okay um number seven staff recommends the board discuss whether the requirements established by the board are met yeah so this we submitted a uh to help with this conversation today a digital rendering of the side of lot 13 which this comment is about there you go um and so uh you can also see it in the video with the car you know driving down the road um I think the context of the comment was with regard to sort of creating an interesting environment on this side of the building and I haven't memorized um we feel like it comes out really nicely um you know there's going to be a light under that awning there's some storefront under there if you zoom in you can see the storefront doors that the gentleman's about to walk into um you know I thought I had asked uh to try and brighten that a little so we could see it better but apparently that didn't happen but you know if you you know there you can see the storefront doors there will be lights underneath that you know at night that's a public entrance so it'll be lit up um and then you can see the sort of lawn area heading up to the terrace for the cafe the stair tower there on the left you can see the stair you know through the windows um you can see the landscaping that was proposed perennials and flowers along the top um so okay um what do you think board works for me thanks dan other thoughts okay good uh number eight um this is about landscaping value so there was a deficiency and the question is um should we require the applicant to update the landscaping schedule of values yeah so I went back to uh the previous staff report um because there was a chart in there that sort of talked about the values of the landscaping and what to count not to count um we have not submitted any updates to the landscaping because we didn't get to this item at the last hearing okay so we never had the benefit of you know your opinion on on what should count not count um so we haven't made any updates to that uh you know the I guess you know if that chart if you have the chart that was in the previous staff comments handy um we could look at that or I could you know sort of walk you through um what those said would it be okay with you if I just kind of paraphrased yeah let's tell you what I'll start with paraphrasing and then if you are uncomfortable that will so I'm going to open that guy um so essentially they had been asking for credit for a bunch of different types of things um for their landscaping budget um concrete pavers both terraces and sort of driveway between the buildings there was a stone dust sitting area there were site furnishings um trees shrubs perennials grasses um shrubs perennials grasses on that upper story deck um and so staff had said well trees and shrubs are obviously a given um perennials grasses are at the board's discretion and then um often the board has allowed concrete pavers but with this staff report um we kind of had the idea of you know there's was this not very interesting appearance to the blank faces of the garages um what if instead of doing concrete pavers um they installed art along the size of the buildings and you know that's not to say that concrete pavers aren't nice but staff's position was that like there it's would be better potentially to just have plain concrete and interesting artwork than to have spend a bunch of money I guess let me rephrase it it feels like concrete pavers should be sort of the last resort you can't possibly find another place to plant another plant or another way to do anything cool um and so maybe this is another way to do something cool that doesn't resort to just throwing money at concrete pavers and pavers you generally only see when you're there as opposed to when you're driving by well a general mandate for art and generalized art doesn't resonate for me to pass on something I'd rather see it come out of the from the developers proposal what's going to be there what do you mean art like sculptures, metal sculptures Michelangelo I think what resonated me was the the two elevations above staff comment number seven which shows the Two Brothers Drive elevation where if you look at the preliminary plot elevation you know especially those inset panels which are definitely more decorative, more artistic add some interest to the building and then you look at the final final um with just the grates you know that to me is the difference that I think that staff is going to and I was alluding to before is I think it's a really more interesting way to connect the give it a little bit more of a pedestrian feel because right now the building is so big that it becomes a little homogenous with the just the panels every so often you know along the base of the building and I think if you were to break it up with different patterns, different textures different materials you know just to give it a little more of an interest and that I think is where I would support the differential in the landscape you know budget to spend so many there it doesn't have to be every one of them and I'm not going to tell you how big how many but I think that was when I saw the little inset panels with the decorative sort of I can't tell if it's like a silhouette of a forest scene or something like that I can't say that's what it looks like from this I don't think anybody knew what that was when they put it on there which is part of the problem that's to me you know the shadow scape um and then seeing what's being proposed that's what I sort of saw as being lost in translation from preliminary to final so if there's some way to really get what you're going for with the panels where you have them bouncing up and down like you do with the materials on the elevations to sort of be representative of mountainscape um but I think you're doing that with the building I think you need to do something different with those panels on the garage so Mark are you suggesting kind of a textured panel or something? I don't like the design what I'm saying is that I see the preliminary plat inset panel is being really interesting and decorative and then I see what's being proposed and it's something I lost so I think whether it's a different material whether it's you know we've always heard the buzz word these days of cotton steel you know or like you know the brushed aluminum some mesh screen something where you just get some interest in whether it's a bunch of different ones or just one upgraded panel you know I don't know and Mark which concrete pavers are you referencing that you think is overdone um so just generally like that you have concrete pavers of the terraces and you have concrete pavers on the driveway between the buildings you're certainly welcome to have concrete pavers but generally that's sort of like we can't possibly put another tree on the site so we're going to do concrete pavers rather than being one of the first things that the landscape budget gets spent on so I think a little bit of you know context on why we included the pavers and specifically you know going back to that preliminary plat conversation going back to the preliminary plat conversation that we had when our original preliminary plat proposal came in we had grass we had benches and grass for people to have outdoor spaces and there was feedback from the board I think it was staff comments 17 that packet that we should look to use those grass areas to create urban plazas and we did that and the total cost of the urban plazas as estimated by PC construction is over $300,000 that's for the retaining walls for the concrete pavers going inside the retaining walls for those plazas we included in our landscape budget the cost of surfacing the areas which is roughly $100,000 and felt that that was a good compromise because they were requested and it seems like if they're being requested then they're of some importance and certainly concrete is one alternative but grass is another alternative in some of those areas so the urban plaza feel was something that we felt we could include there so that was our sort of take on and I certainly understand the feedback in the area of the driveway where we're using concrete pavers in lieu of pavement certainly the cost there would be the difference between pavement and the pavers and we would agree with that that's an oversight on our part to sort of not discount that but in the areas of the actual terraces that were created at the request of the board we felt it was a good use of those landscape dollars for a little bit of clarity so the landscape budget here is I think $485,000 the landscape budget for hillside for 30 acres with 115 homes was like 500 and here we're on about 5 acres so we sort of got a big budget to work with in a small amount of area and so I think we were still short in our even counting the pavers of the required landscaping I think we had said at our previous hearing for the summit project there was some streetscape money that was available to be applied if the landscaping standards weren't met and we were just using that pool to sort of make up the difference to the end and so I think the most important feedback for us in terms of kind of finalizing the proposal would be are the plazas that we've created worth being counted in terms of the pavers from your perspective and then are there areas of the site where the landscaping is deficient where we should add more trees because obviously that would be the first area to sort of use the money and then if we're not finding areas that are deficiently landscaped and we are counting to some degree to some extent the pavers and we still have an excess our preference would be to dip into the money allocated from the last permit rather than to spend more money on a new feature that being said the screens are included in the project we have them on the elevations and they are part of the project so to some extent I think if they can be included as landscaping is sort of they're going to be there either way because we've proposed them to you so so thoughts board Marla I don't know if you want to weigh in on that well are we arguing taste or are we arguing cost because I feel competent only to comment on cost have they met the cost requirement and is the money being spent on things that either by precedent or black letter count toward the landscaping budget are you saying you have no taste Frank I'm saying I have marvelous taste but I'm not sure I can apply it on this scale in a meaningful way it's worth commenting on Marla do you have any thoughts about what Frank just asked no I was trying to find the right page in the packet but there's a question in there are we meeting because I got a little lost in the narrative are we meeting the cost requirement with elements that are allowed to be included in cost no not right now well then we should that's what we should be focusing on but then Andrew noted correctly which I had forgotten about that in the lot 10 and 11 approval they had access that the board may not must allow them to apply towards future deficits so does that make up the gap is it sufficient yes with extra I mean because honestly to me the site feels well landscaped I don't think we're looking for areas that throw more landscaping in I mean and but if obviously if there's a deficiency that isn't met with the lots 10 and 11 then we should be looking at how it's calculated it sounds like the numbers are adding up yeah I think it you know I I don't have them all in front of me my assumption is if you take out the hundred thousand dollars worth of of pavers that it might not be sufficient and so we might need to have a sort of guide post on whether those plaza costs you know it to some extent would be able to be used so one thing I forgot to note comment in the previous report had asked to substantiate the paver cost in the landscape estimate we did go back to the construction manager and provided an annotated estimate from them in reviewing that sort of quickly and doing some math on my phone you know it appears as though that results in about a $40,000 increase in cost just on what we proposed if we go with the numbers from PC construction that they're currently budgeting for the project so that does fill the gap to some degree and we will adjust the budget just with that increase in the cost of what we previously thought it would be so that gives us about $40,000 and I believe we were still off by about you know our budget was $398 the requirement was $485 and that included the $100,000 worth of pavers so we have $140,000 that's allocable from that previous permit which would make up that difference with an excess of about $60,000 but if you were to remove the $100,000 of you know so there's a bunch of sort of pieces to figure out there you know if the metal screens are ineligible cost we could look at adding those in as well I think we can probably solve the puzzle but I think the question of including those plazas is one that we sort of need some guidance on in order to sort of come back with a proposal that could work I thought if we add the difference from concrete to because didn't we include the whole paper price we did so if we just do the difference yeah that would certainly help to just do what staff had suggested and say just the difference beyond the cost of concrete or potentially the cost of grass in areas where conceivably the patio could be grass with picnic tables you know because that was the reason we didn't include the cost of the retaining walls even though it's pretty high was you know they create the flat space for people to use you know and the flat space really wasn't there without it right so that was the sort of thinking behind that but they could be filled with grass and so you know if you sort of said in areas that could be grass use the difference between grass and pavers and in areas that could be couldn't be grass that's like a walkway then no you do between concrete or whatever the question you're asking here is does the board consider the cost of pavers to be allowed for this project and if not you have a little work to do and if so then you don't have a lot of work to do can we boil it down to that and it's a sounds like we have a potential comment over here what is your name please I think I was sworn in last time what is your role landscape architect thank you so I just wanted to clarify we only used the pavers in pedestrian areas I think there was a comment that it went across a drive or something but that's pigmented concrete so that's a different we only we actually didn't use the pavers really wildly it's kind of limited to people spaces in some of the amenity areas and terraces and I mean I thought it made sense to allow use the difference between pavers and regular concrete I thought that was a reasonable suggestion in the staff comment so I'm a little lost originally we included the whole paver cost and so and now we're talking about the differential what is the what how much does that reduce what you calculated by I don't have that number on the top my head but if concrete is $6 a square feet and we had pavers that can't remember what they had it at I think it was like 30 or 35 I have a question while he's looking for that and Marla I think this might be for you 25 obviously we normally look at the difference as far as like going towards the cost and I think one of the questions here is if an area is that are grasped to use that as the difference as like the threshold is that something we've done before or is that is there not precedent for that there's not no okay so I think to answer your question Andrew I think we would just be looking at the cement versus pavers and not the grass that you were suggesting so I think hopefully that clarifies one component of the question so at least that's my understanding I would agree with that because your point about how these areas are created because the board requested them to be added in that's just to make the project viable from a large residential development so saying that you could have grasped them instead of paved them isn't really a healthy or proper comparison because if you grasped them you wouldn't be using them year round for outdoor amenity space I think you know if we're hearing that the metals screening or decorative screening could be an eligible cost no that wasn't what my point was at all my point was that that's again another element that's required for the actual project not for landscaping but if you were deficient I was I think I was going to the fact that you could upgrade those to some actual artwork some sort not what we're currently proposing but potentially an upgraded version could be an eligible component the differential between the concrete and the colored concrete or concrete and pavers could be an eligible component the site is sufficiently landscaped in the sense that more plant material isn't needed I think that we can solve the puzzle and get to the 480 okay so are we good Dan were you going to say something yeah I'm good with that I don't like this idea conflating open space with artwork on the walls and mixing the architectural standard is vague enough as it is and I don't want to be mixing things or designing things for them I think the paper thing is a you know the differential cost is key we've done it on other projects and I also think it's also a recognition of you know we really don't we want to make the space usable you know even in quote unquote the off season like the mud season right now and if we were just to have a bunch of patches of green space it would all be wet and soggy and dogs will probably peed and poop there anyway too so you know I like the idea this is a different kind of development it's more of an urban feel and I like this it's recognizing what it is we create the dam Vermont farmhouse over and over again so let's not try to do that so I think this is great are we allowed to update our plant unit costs because they have gone up since we first submitted that they're going up like yeah so what I'm hearing is that there needs to just be a little bit of work on this so far I haven't heard I mean we're only you know on comment 8 or so of 15 but if we can kind of get some clear direction on everything I think we can continue them for a quick one more quick hearing and do a draft decision at that time yeah okay yeah I think we've got enough on the landscaping to get you what you need for the next conversation all right so we're ready to move on good news is can I just ask something about just for the record just for the record on Marla can you describe your comment on number nine because I just I don't know if the horse trading about how open space is that a moot comment now what element of that the statement the applicant is providing so little open space um yep seems a little strong to me I recognize where you're coming from but the standard was not there's no percent requirement for open space what expectation established a preliminary plot of a certain amount of open space well right but there's nothing in the standard that says but this preliminary establishes the standards for the project okay essentially writing things that the project has to comply with okay and if I could just clarify the issue of the metal screens on the walls I would say doing them as artwork in association with those open spaces that they're adjacent to would be not the entire wall of them but just so that they improve the aesthetics of the open space that they are nearby so that it's adding a decorative element to it all right I think we've covered nine so let's move on to ten and this is about the aggregation of parking and we're going to be revisiting this with your other proposal what are your thoughts about that so the preliminary plot had a finding that said to review this requirement on a parking lot by parking lot basis our opinion is we should do that we comply under that rule so you know I get there's a little bit of a complication in that it's not technically in the same master plan area but it is one parking lot it's going to be experienced as one parking lot by everybody who looks at it it's servicing the project it's connected you know and frankly it's it just makes sense to review it on a parking lot by parking lot basis which is why that finding exists in the preliminary permit so we're hopeful that the board agrees with that and I think it complies in if that's the opinion of the board and we would hope to just question for the board I agree with them I mean I mean I agree I mean it is complicated because they are separate parcels you know but we are looking at them as a whole so if the actual parking lot meets the standard I think that's how we should be reviewing it I agree any other thoughts from board members you look pensive Frank I'm pensive because I didn't prepare well enough okay okay let's move on to 11 this is regarding the interior parking lot landscaping I have to confess I I've read the rule differently than I think you are reading it or potentially the board has interpreted it the comment I think up above maybe the rules quoted it's right there so a minimum dimension of 6 feet on any one side so to me that means if the island has one side that's longer than 6 feet and a total area of 60 square feet it complies and all of our islands meet that requirement I think the interpretation here seems to say minimum dimension of 6 feet on all sides that's not what I mean and so that's not how we designed it we designed it so they were a minimum of 6 feet on any one side and they were all 60 square feet total we did provide a visual that might help you guys get oriented to what we're talking about Andrew and I were discussing this because if it were the other interpretation why wouldn't the language have just said minimum of 6 feet on all sides well so the way this has been interpreted is that the point is to provide adequate area to keep a tree alive and so when you're 6 feet long and 2 feet wide it's really hard to keep a tree alive and that's shape space so that's where we're coming from we went through after the last hearing because there were a number of there was a plan that we trying to think of what it was called I submitted it today and it should be called like parking lot area calculation or something like that or I mean that's in the packet already oh dear I put all the square footages on it though and the one that we submitted today just to help I mean no one's taking Umbridge with the fact that they're 60 square feet well just like because it shows the green right so you can see like where the islands that we're talking about I mean to that point I mean we have the bond for all this landscaping and so you know if we're comfortable with it and if our landscape architects are comfortable with it or if our landscaper is comfortable with it and it's our money at risk and we're talking about a 3 year landscaping bond I guess the question is you know if the tree makes it 3 years what's really the risk that we're talking about because it's also on our property I think it starts with a P parking lot island you know something get that I get that I get that someone may have a difference of opinion and I'm not a tree expert but that's why we hire consultants and then that's why the city also requires us to bond for it I'm glad to see the landscape architect standing up because he seems to be the one most confident to speak to the issue I think the comment might have been recommending a minimum width of 6 feet not a length of a side and so I believe our smallest island is 5 feet wide and way over 60 square feet if I remember right yep and that was a change so from the first hearing on March 15 there were a number of islands that were only 4 feet wide and this comment had appeared in the staff report then and we adjusted all of the islands to be 5 feet wide at minimum which is the same width I think as a green belt along the street the city standard green belt so you would think if a tree could grow in a 5 foot green belt it could grow in a 5 foot parking lot island so I think our smallest island is 5 by 18 which is way over 60 square feet so in your estimation or given your expertise and knowledge do you believe that the islands are sufficient to grow trees in healthy trees I would love to have huge islands but I do think they're sufficient and Andrew said the green belt along two brothers drive is I think 5 feet wide okay so it's kind of no different than that so that satisfies me what do other board members think that's the best evidence we have and we can't make it up okay let's move on um number 12 question number 12 staff recommends the board revise this criterion once planting islands are revised to meet minimum dimensions well that's the same issue isn't it yes let's go to 13 and this is about you're increasing the minimum tree size to 2.5 calipers just that thank you and that'll increase your landscape budget yeah number 14 this is like parking areas comments about that yeah we just thought that on a project basis was how the criteria was reviewed and so we're a few spaces short in one of the buildings and we'll have to we'll have to get you an updated Andrew I think it's okay on a project basis if people can access each other's buildings but what you told us before is if people can't access each other's buildings well the residents of building 13 would have access to building 15 because they're able to use the amenities in building 15 as well because it's under the same ownership okay um so if that works then we're happy to leave it as is we have enough spaces there's just some you know I think we're like 13 short in building 13 I don't think the board's been asked that question before so I'd like to get their opinion on that so there's a minimum of one space per unit of long-term bike parking if there's too many in one building and too few in another is that okay I'm okay with especially if it's for long-term bike parking you know yep I am too great anybody not okay with that we honestly took some bike parking out of the ski and bike shop in order to make room for ski lockers which I think the comment references or the staff report asks what those things in the bike room are somewhere maybe it's in the black text I don't know but there are lockers for like skis people who have skis can keep can keep them not in their apartment their boots and stuff they can rent them or whatever good but staff has something very specific at the end of 14 we want will that be achieved yes the requirement on a long-term bike parking without reducing interior common space because we're already meeting it it's just that there's a discrepancy in the two buildings so right they're meeting it overall not building by building all right they're basically doing it as a shared amenity do you have the bicycle lockers I think that there's a bicycle locker requirement because you have commercial space yeah there's a closed locker required because of the commercial space on lot 13 so is that bike room with the lockers on lot 13 it is okay do people have to rent the ski and close lockers I would think so okay yeah all right you know so maybe not the required closed locker if that's I don't know how that works but we haven't gotten into some of the logistical acts of it right now we're just trying to make sure we can fit it on at least we're beyond the pool why don't we just have a conversation because we're going to have a short little clean up conversation or clean up caring to finish up some other things so why don't you and I talk about that closed locker requirement and we'll figure it out the board doesn't need it so we're going to have public comment but it sounds like we're moving toward continuing this hearing to a date that Marla will give us and understanding that that will be a very brief clean up meeting maybe even with a draft decision do my darnedest okay I know you always do um so let's uh let's so can we just one where I wrote down we didn't I didn't get the board's feedback on and because we said put a pin in it so I just want to remind myself what that was um something about traffic light no it was glazing and garage openings but I think we did circle back to that so it's okay and then traffic signal um yeah we'll figure out what the city can do in terms of like warrants and monitoring and we'll put that into the staff okay great great so at this point are there any members of the public who would like to comment I don't see any here Delilah do you see any online okay alright so um do we need to a motion to conclude this yeah we'll continue um one two you guys like to get information two weeks before right yeah um how are you for June 7th so how many weeks from now is that uh it's a five Tuesday month so it's three weeks from now so we would have two weeks to get you'd have three weeks to get the 7th so I mean I think I'm around yeah I um hey Tim are you still on the call yes sir is three weeks enough time for you guys to update the architecturals to include all the headers across all the elevations I don't know that we need that we can just do that as a condition oh okay great so then we're good so it's really the landscaping piece it's the things that we left it's open ended tonight not the things that the board said yep we understand what you're planning we'll just write those as conditions then that should be a fine time okay that's great then I'll make a motion that we continue SD 2205 255 Kennedy Drive last 13 and 15 to June 8th I think she said 7th 7th I won't be I don't think I'll be here and I won't be here either um I'll second that any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye aye aye okay the motion is carried we will see you back here well I know you're not moving right now but we'll see you back here on this one on the 7th the next one okay um this is continued site application SP 2208 pardon me and conditional use application CU 2201 of O'Brien Farm Road to construct a 52 space commercial parking lot on an existing 4.3 acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants on the adjoining multifamily residential lots at 255 Kennedy Drive um so we have reviewed this before we have we haven't um we didn't have time so we just skipped it the last time so everybody needs to be sworn in okay so the reason it says continued is because we opened it and then continued it with that okay so um other than Evan and Andrew how many other folks are testifying okay alright raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury yes okay good thanks so um give us a very very brief introduction to this please sure so this is the um this is the parking associated with the project that was just reviewed that's located on an adjacent lot which is outside of the hillside master plan so this was a lot that is part of the east view master PUD project that the board has reviewed but it's not part of hillside um conditional use for parking is allowed in this district and on a lot and so the parking is being proposed just as a conditional use to serve the apartments because it worked out efficiently um so that's the brief history okay let's start going through the staff comments any questions at this point okay um number well there's a there's a staff recommendation um that is right below the little table with the setback data and it says staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide this information as a condition of approval I assume you have no problem with that it's about the front step coverage okay yeah I have to figure out what that is but sure okay so uh staff comment number one is well I mean but it's got to comply right right but it on a rough calculation they're well under so I don't have any concerns okay so number one um this is all about removing four spaces you have the plan that shows the it's probably the most useful yeah so if I can give a little introduction um as Delilah gets it shown on the screen here um oh I provided the wrong oh no I'm in the wrong folder sorry um so the plan they submitted does show the property boundary line and the um zoning district line and you can see that it kind of goes through that blue cyan line that's on the page right now um goes through a bunch of parking spaces and then there's like a few to the left of it and most of them to the right um so that's that cyan line is what would happen if the board were to allow the regulations of the c1 r12 to be applied 50 feet into the r the c1 lr into the r12 sorry lmenop um so basically if the board were to allow those regulations to be applied then the parking left of that line would not be allowed and the parking right of that line would not be allowed um and so that line goes through eight or so parking spaces um but staff's position that we made in the report is that it goes through those spaces by like um so they could probably squish them over a little bit to sort of check that box and meet that and I'm looking at Scott and he's sort of nodding a little um but maybe a little uncertainty there and then the spaces that are on the left of that line but not within lot 15 would have to be removed entirely so that's the four that we're referring to is the ones left of that line but on right of the thick black line. Can you zoom into that area Delilah? Sort of like a triangular section each of them gets descendingly smaller right where your cursor is yeah well can I ask a question regarding so that the cyan dotted line for the CLO or whatever district how is that line mapped? Is that GPS mapped? Is that you know meaning yeah it's a GIS line so it's not like we could say it's six inches in the wrong location and those are fine it's a good question as to what the the accuracy of the GIS lines are they are if you imported it from our GIS they are the lines there is this understanding that they were not perfect because they were not GIS when they were drawn which is why the 50 foot allowance exists got it okay we don't have like a six inch allowance for these you know well the B50 plus 6 is what you'd be asking for and the Planning Commission is already on that right it's already shifting over got it okay so can you can you show us the four spots I'm a little I can draw on it lost the lower left of the actual parking lot oh I see them okay got it between the black line and the so I guess we were wondering if in the final plat if we could adjust that lot line to include those four spots you know because we could submit a plat to you that moved to the lot 13 lot line it would be quite complicated because all the coverage tables will change and the lot areas will all change and and we're pretty much ready we just talked about that we're ready to close that with a couple of little cleanup things and if you want to amend your master plan and amend your final plat it just feels like well yeah if you needed to amend the master plan to do that as well to change the area of involved lands you have to amend the master plan so it's huge I mean maybe it's a huge project to be undertaken later what if what if sorry I'm just kind of like having a conversation here but what if you excluded those four spaces now and with the understanding that you would come back for them when you did something else you know roll it into whatever next bigger more worthwhile project you have going yeah I mean the lot line adjustment include it in a future application you know it's like when you go to the dentist you only have them do the big the little thing when you're already there right right okay I mean if there's we certainly don't want to create too big of a mess over these four parking spaces I think that's for sure I mean there's plenty of room for them you know further away so you know we definitely don't want to lose four parking spaces so we remove them we'd have to put them somewhere else but I think what we could do is move them and then amend it later to get those spaces back and have the additional spaces or where would you be moving them probably somewhere on the right there right like extending that row along the cut in like here yeah okay so then they get wider sorry I'm going to nerd out on engineering stuff for a minute but they have to be wider than the nine at the mouth of them and back to nine at the back is that how that works yeah you do it radially and then they'll probably be we don't likely end up putting an island in at the first one and then at four just like you John so that would be island one two three yeah that works for everybody works for me anyone have a problem with that okay are we ready to move on to two so when you come back for final plat will that be in the proposal well so then there's the question and I just want to make sure I work cool what's got about squishing the ones over a couple like a foot because he was kind of making a face there is unfortunately you know moving except for the foot has in terms of changes it does but it's hard for me to believe are you allowed compact spaces in that ratio there's no prohibition on the board the board has the authority to allow modifications to the dimensions of parking spaces yeah you'd have eight spaces that were labeled compact to adjust the landscape islands that's what I was just saying so it makes me a little uncomfortable to not adjust the landscape islands to match because then it's like they're not really compact spaces they're just pretending to be compact spaces if those spaces could be moved can you bring it up again I'm going to draw on it again we could just bump the landscaping up that's what I'm thinking so bump the centerline bump that whole thing then the spaces don't move though right because then if you bump yeah can you zoom back in and then I'll draw on it oh because are you in the bump that other like create a finger of that other one that goes into them or something you're saying oh click on your little scroll wheel so my thinking is move the centerline move the landscape islands so it's a little shorter and then both spaces become you know 20's instead of 22's I think that's the only way to make it real compact otherwise it's just like lip service okay well we can why don't we take a look at what I'll sketch up the gun so you can see the topo here too it looks like you would have to squish it up and that's probably uncomfortable because you're going to be more than three to one there so you're going to work on that we'll figure out something and then to the question we'll update that across the plans okay great so number two I'm going to read this staff recommends the board enter into a discussion that they will allow to be constructed wait a minute have we taken care of this one already? number two Marla sorry I was taking notes on what just happened can you read that? I think it's all set okay good so let's move on to the next one on page 5 this is about having a condition that there shall not be additional curb cut on lat 17 on a brian farm road or on old farm road within 200 feet of the proposed curb cut as measured along the edge of the right of way are you okay with this? so I mean we talked about this and I guess I was just a little bit like why create a potential problem when we would have to request the curb cut anyway so I guess I'm just you know I don't have the plans for east view memorized I don't know how that condition is going to interact when we move old farm road and extend o brian farm road I don't know where the curb cuts to those future commercial lots are going to be and it just feels a little bit like we're making a restriction that like I can't even get a curb cut without being here proposing a project anyway so you know our take on it would be let's review the curb cut when we have a project that needs one you know so are you going to remove the curb cut? there is no curb the staff comment is about forbidding or prohibiting the curb cut within that dimension but we're not proposing any so our take is why prohibit yourself and limit your options there's no need to take action right now anyway okay is the 200 foot of an OVR for distance from between curb cuts? no the LDR has access to PUDs should be separate subdivision entrances so it's earlier on that page separate subdivision entrances by a minimum of 400 feet on either side of a public street so really it's 400 feet but generally the board is pretty flexible with that so that's why staff suggested 200 feet would be a sort of fair waiver to grant them at this time but to build in a 200 foot waiver is now when it's not necessary I'm thinking about it on the flip side of the issue Frank wants to make it more onerous on us we don't know yet that's kind of our point I don't think there's a need to take action on it I think that the point here is to set the expectation of what that this is not intended to be just like a loopy loop because the point is they're asking for something that normally the board never grants the board doesn't grant approval for some roads and stuff on a lot without a development program and they're asking the board to take on faith that this proposal for this parking is not going to preclude good development of this lot and so the only thing that staff is asking here is that okay we're going to take it on faith that this is not precluding good development but we suggest that we include one condition which is don't put a curb cut within 200 feet and everything else is still on the table we could have said that there should be a building between this but it's just unusual to ask for this kind of thing without a full development program if we don't put this condition in and they come in with something at 300 feet we can say you don't meet the 400 foot curb cuts we are kind of giving them a 200 foot waiver from the get-go that's what I was that was my point Frank's not arguing for more stringent unless well no I'm arguing for the possibility of more stringent until we see the thing I guess I guess that's our point we can't put a curb cut on old farm road without your approval so to some degree what is the distance between Kimball and O'Brien farm road like how meaning it's quite a bit so like if you were to put it it's not like we have to worry about 400 feet not being able to meet that standard as a floating curb cut for lot 17 right I guess maybe I should old farm and Kimball they said a little bit differently like we have no problem with the 200 foot condition right now I don't know what the problem might be but despite my youthful conflection I've been doing this long enough to know that these things can come back and just cause a problem and I think we've been here with you guys before just with some random thing that never seemed problematic trying to get an amendment at the last minute to make something work and all I'm saying is like why put ourselves through all that when we're going to have to be here anyway to get a curb cut approved so why don't we just look at what we're proposing then and you can say no or yes to the project but you know that was our take but we certainly are not going to you know contest the board's position if that's what it is it's not that important and certainly in the future you could always amend that I mean it's not written in stone so what do you think Ford I see staff's position in terms of we don't see any development plan for it but I think staff was being pretty lenient in saying nothing within 200 feet there's no way we I think we would approve something closer than 200 feet so we're sort of giving you a gimme and if you don't want it I don't think we need to give it to them we just leave it as is and when it comes in we may hold you to 400 Old Farm Road isn't even going to be there it's going to be in a whole new orientation so how this condition interacts with a newly located Old Farm Road is also a question that I don't have an answer to so so it ain't broke so we won't fix it is that what we're that's what I thought I sort of far-stated my position yeah yeah in front Frank stated and I agreed with him okay good all right let's move on staff comment number four about the aggregation of interior parking didn't we already resolve this yep okay good number five staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise interior parking lot landscaping to meet the script we we've already resolved this to correct believe so yep so yeah it's because we've reviewed it under the last application but this is same parking lot divided by the block so are you good with this Marla if the board is okay with applying the same things that were discussed on SD 2205 I can handle that any objections from other board members okay and I think that's it so are we good to close now we need to see the revised of the parking layout okay so the same deal come back we'll continue this yep and we'll have you know a quickie will it be on the same date June 7th sure okay good so let's take a break now and I'll ask for public comment are there any members of the public who want to comment on this proposal any online Delilah no okay hearing none I would entertain a motion to continue to continue site plan application SP 22008 and conditional use application CU2201 I knew we continue those two applications did you in 7th thank you Frank second second any discussion all in favor did you have a question okay motion say aye aye okay it's carried we will see you back here well they will see you back here on June 7th great thank you so much guys appreciate it bear with me while I call up the document to get that okay the next application for us to review is continued preliminary application SD2203 of rivers edge building development LLC for the 3.6 acre park road area phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course in 354 unit residential development the plan unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in two family homes on two private roads at 1170 and 1180 dorset street who is here for the applicant hi David can you anyone else nope I don't believe so okay thank you I'm going to swear you in could you raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury thank you so this is a continued application and this one if I can just give a little background we talked about this there were a lot of things where the applicant said yep we'll do this but they were kind of big things so the board felt like they should do some of those things before concluding the preliminary plot and that's where we are today okay so do you want to make some comments David or do you want us to just start going through the staff comments I wanted to make some comments because I think you know it's been boiled down from 14 comments down to three comments from the time that we were in initially so everybody knows where the parcel is park road when you turn into park road it's on the right hand side at a buttstores at street and park road it was master planned for 15 units the proposal was for 14 units on August 3rd of 2021 we came in for sketch there was some changes based on sketch not just the full design plans but changes based on the sketch hearing and then as Marla mentioned on March 15th of this year we were back in for preliminary and got through a lot of the items and both sketch and preliminary had a reasonable amount of discussion mostly related around the roadways that were proposed the March 15th was continued we did a follow up on April 13th memo to Marla and in her May 4th report that you have in front of you she acknowledges that most of the items were taken care of essentially there's three items that I believe are left one is the discussion on ledge one is on stormwater and the final is on the rendering specific to the back of unit 3 and 4 so that's where it was on the roadways just I wanted to touch on that there was discussion at sketch and at preliminary as far as the configuration of these roads we did receive we did submit and receive approval from Justin Rabadou and we did have a traffic evaluation done which stated no concerns and staff has acknowledged that that's not a red item anymore I think if it's okay I'd like to talk about and storm because I think those might be pretty quick depending on the board's comments is that okay? so the rendering is number three so do you want to start there? I'm just thinking you've already had kind of a long night and I'm thinking we can get rid of those first two pretty quickly so yeah I think there was quite a few renderings proposed or provided that you reviewed at the initial preliminary hearing and they were well received and the one main comment that was left was can we see a rendering of the back of units 3 and 4 as you go north on Dorset street in the basically it's on the property line if the 20 foot high cedar hedge were taken down you're going to be able to see the back of those buildings we don't control the hedge so that's what that elevation intends to do is to show that the back has a kind of a front facade appearance there will be there's a porch there's steps there's a door and basically two front facades to that building so if there's is that acceptable to the board? so do you think yes? do we have discretion to accept that? I mean as long as we do it looks fine to me is what I was going to say but if there's something other than does it look okay the board was concerned about how this would integrate with the surrounding neighborhood at the last hearing and that is a criteria of review so they provided a rendering it definitely doesn't read as a back of a house right and I see Mark nodding yes so that's always a good architect any other thoughts or comments? okay I just had a question is that on the rendering I mean is that existing bike path is that what the people are running on there yes yes and if you zoom in that person in the background is rollerblading which I left I don't know is that allowed? that's good okay so let's go the second item that I think is pretty quick is units 9 through 14 which are on the lower road and they're on the lower side basically this land falls away from Dorset Street and I'm going to talk a little bit about more about that when I address the ledge question but the comment was how are the roof drains we've talked about the roof drains for 9 through 14 will connect to the storm system the storm system is northeast of unit 9 it shows on sheet 3 but but anyways it's in that appendage that's northeast of unit 9 yeah so where you see the circular areas the top of that storm pond is at elevation 401 the back of the units on units 9 through 14 or at elevation 404 to 406 so there's there's plenty of slope to have the roof drains from the back of those units connect over to the pond without any surcharge issue there's 3 to 5 feet of elevation difference what we what I think I would suggest to the board is that we would be agreeable that the back the roof drains from units 9 through 14 shall connect to the stormwater area but I wanted to go over the elevations for you to to prove that it's not an issue but currently the plan does not staff noted they couldn't find them it's because it's not shown on there so it should be a condition of preliminary that we include it with final would be my recommendation so Dave sorry I'm just zooming into this and the board doesn't have the advantage of being able to zoom into the high resolution version but the gravel wetland surface is at 399 the top of berm is at 403 am I reading that wrong and then the pre-treatment 404 you're not reading that you're done right so you'd have to look at the calculations together with it but the 401 elevation is the elevation of the water level to meet the requirements so from that elevation to the elevation behind there's spot shots behind unit 910 405 404 behind 1112 406 behind 1314 so there's 3 to 5 feet are you going to be able to get a pipe with cover to that I see that it has to cross a 400 contour well I don't yes I have no issues whether the finished grading gets tweaked a bit my recommendation is that we're fine with the condition that the footing drain shall connect we're comfortable that there's plenty of elevation difference I don't think we need to get into the minutia of it if the board is okay with that as a condition I understand what you're saying in the general sense let me just kind of back up the part of the reason this is a concern of staff is because the changes from preliminary to final are supposed to be relatively minor and if it ends up needing to be major to make this work then the risk is that the preliminary doesn't look very much like the final the other piece here is that they are grading right to the edge of the wetland so if those changes all of a sudden trip into wetland buffer impacts that's another significant change between preliminary and final so but it's their risk if the board feels comfortable or wants to include a condition that if there are significant changes that either impact the wetland or the homes have to move that they have to go back to preliminary I think that would make us feel comfortable I don't know how the applicant would feel about that what are your thoughts about that David if the condition include if the homes had to move or there was wetland buffer impact as part of it that's not an issue this is an extremely minor thing it will not be it's very simple okay alright let's go back to the first staff comment which is correct so Ledge I think Ledge is the biggest item that was hanging and please accept I hope you'll accept that we had a continued hearing we provided the information that we could provide ahead of time you know not today or anything like that so we did provide information from test pits that were performed most of those test pits were performed by a previous the previous engineer on this parcel for a different proposal and then I went out to the site myself and I tried to confirm down on the low side by auger but if you're not going to hit Ledge you're going to hit boulders on some of this site so I wasn't that successful before this hearing but what I want to start with is the lay of the land so very quickly from Dorset street the first 300 and 300 feet plus from Dorset street from the multi-use path as you head east is at a general 3% slope so it goes from an elevation 420 at Dorset street path down to 410 in that 410 elevation the plan up there and again I'll have to apologize because there's not elevation numbers on those contours so even myself I was looking between that sheet and sheet 3 of the plans but that first 300 feet which takes you to about the the back of unit 7 8 that's at 3% slope sorry to interrupt I think that the board if Marla and I are reading this correctly are okay with the ledge issues number one mostly speaks about the site view line of sight for the roadways I think the ledge is not an issue item one was the street trees yes unless other people have questions about the ledge removal no I think that item one we have no issue with in terms of conditions generally we'll be looking for both a drawing plan and a written plan of how that ledge removal will be managed at final plot and the board has experienced writing conditions and they'll write a very specific condition about what they're looking for but I don't think there's anything that they're looking for right now at the preliminary plot about the ledge so it's mostly the roadway and the trees and the line of sight well I should have started with item one then because no issue there will be any change for final and if the board did have any questions on ledge I thought we had pretty much gone over that at sketch and at the first preliminary and we understand that what we've provided to date is not enough for final and are fine with similar conditions okay thank you board do you feel that we have enough information on this proposal to close preliminary well I think I want to bring up an issue sorry go ahead Dan yeah the Marla or Delilah can you show the general plan and zoom in on the crosswalk when we talked about this before I can't remember when it was and again just because I raised the issue doesn't make it important but I don't want to get into the crosswalk there it's all about you Dan yeah I know I thought I had made a comment that the crosswalk should be a little more to the west a little closer to the intersection only because sort of like there's a mental thing of like when you're at an intersection also this way I can align with the sidewalk that is across the street that's coming out of the other development okay so they just fix it I just want to be sure it is captured and the consultant remembers that to move that crosswalk yeah I wasn't on the hearing the first time but I did see that in the minute Stan when I reviewed for tonight and we don't have any issue with that awesome that'd be great thanks so much thank you any other information we need before we close so I'm wondering if there are any members of the public who would like to make comments and other any online no hearing none I would recommend a motion to close this hearing I'll make a motion that we close 1170 and 1180 dorset street preliminary application any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye aye okay thank you very much David thank you we'll see you back here for final okay thank you okay we are now going to do the minutes of the March 25th April 5th April 19th and April 25th so I only included April 5th and April 19th in the packet April 25th I didn't have and March 25th was an oversight okay all right good forthcoming can we can we prove them together sure does anyone have any comments about the minutes of April 5th or April 19th questions okay I'll move that we adopt the minutes of April 5th and April 19th second thank you any discussion all in favor of approving those minutes say aye aye aye okay the motion is carried are you getting ready to go somewhere it looked like we were done no we have one more project okay we're going to be right back sure okay thank you David take a three minute break take a three minute break yep we still have the medical center project okay nice try though yeah I appreciate it they're about three or four years I was just trapped so that's why they started the camera and basically just calling so I think this is a remote option no it is nice I think there's some good things that have carried over as far as flexibility okay okay moving along the next and final proposal for tonight is continued sketch plan application SD 2204 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story 1,000 square foot medical office with associated parking equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot at 119 Tilley Drive applicants if you would like to come up front you are welcome to do that Don this is Jim I'm recusing from this okay Jim thank you are there any other recusals or disclosures hi Jim thank you is it just you on your mic perfect it might be that it's hard to hear you with your mask on are you comfortable taking it off yes okay thanks so I know we spent a fair amount of time on this application last time you were here and in the interest of time I would like to recommend that we jump right into the staff report unless you have any brief comments to start with can I just make a note they did submit some new materials which we have available I think that they are generally I don't think there's no there's no changes to the plan in the materials you submitted it's more attempting to clarify questions and things well actually that's not true we did submit some sketches some of the issues that we talked about last time okay so you did make changes to what the board has already seen we provided a couple of sketches yes that we were hoping to be able to explain tonight so we have those the question I'm asking is are they different or just clarifying from what the board saw at the last meeting they're different because they're addressing the issues that we talked about and were asked to look at we did bring them back hoping okay so Marla has provided a list of issues that the board provided feedback on and I guess we need to go through those first Marla or should we jump to the question yeah it sounds like from what Gail is saying is that they, so staff comments 1 through 8 that are summarized she may have some updates on those okay so let's so let's walk through those staff comment number one regarding to the need I guess it's regarding the need for a master plan the applicant proposes to permanently conserve the undeveloped portion of the site therefore sun setting its development potential and obviating the need for a master plan could I just make a quick comment because I think most of what was written as staff comments on the follow up we don't have any real issues with okay we're hoping to go and talk with a couple of issues as you know we came in with this you know as a voluntary for a sketch plan because we're looking for feedback and we really need that feedback tonight so that we can be able to determine whether this plan is a go no go in terms of whether there's issues with it from your perspective so the real critical things we have two critical issues that we're hoping that we can talk about we know that there's three issues on the staff report that we didn't get to last time but we'd really like to focus on these two issues first if that is okay so let me just make sure I'm clear all of the feedback the list of board feedback on the first page of the memo you're okay with well under staff comments for two and three regarding the questions and staff comment for those are the two issues that we want to talk about that we've provided additional information okay so you want to go to staff comment number two regarding the site layout resulting it okay right okay go ahead all right perfect we did provide in our additional follow-up information information on the class 3 wetland delineation that was in our packet for both the two wetlands that are on the site wetland a we're not impacting wetland b which is approximately 10,249 square feet on lot 6 and we also provided the information from the wetlands expert that we had review that information to show that these wetlands are of very minimal value regarding that we did relook at the front entry to the site we've provided two sketches in their attachment 5 and attachment 6 that we provided I don't know if you can pull those up if you can pull up number 5 first so this is the existing layout entry on the site and what we've done is we've shaded the class 3 wetland area that we've impacted and you'll note on the plan the amount of wetlands that we're impacting is 5,640 square feet so that was what our proposed layout on the plan that you've already seen if you can pull up the attachment 6 we looked at shifting that road as much as we can out of the wetlands to still have the entry of the building as well as to the remainder of the site work with that we would be putting in a retaining wall around the driveway where it's bordering the class 3 wetlands and the impact is considerably less as you'll see it's 1,590 square feet so we're hoping that we can have a discussion about that reasonable is that acceptable obviously the first layout works much better for us but understanding that you have concerns about the class 3 wetlands impacts is this an acceptable layout for the impacts to the class 3 wetlands? Thank you board thoughts and Marla any thoughts or questions? I have a quick question Go ahead Dan Does the the main entrance that Tilly drive there is off of Tilly right? Yes Does it have to line up with the parking lot on the south side of the road? It's already there Oh it's already there That's why the curb gets me That's the entrance to the red barn deli Does the entrance to the red barn deli does the entrance to the red barn deli impact the wetlands? No I don't believe so Did you have a question Mark? No So board what do you think about this reduction of wetland impact by about 80% It's a 4,000 square foot reduction And Marla do you have any questions? The board really dug into this at the last meeting this was the board's idea so I don't want to take anything away from that I think it was I kind of was pushing for this and I guess I don't want to defer to staff or ask staff but I mean is it really the board's discretion at what we need to accomplish as minimal invasive to allow Yeah so the standard is the minimum impacts necessary to achieve the development And so the board said well we don't think this is the minimum necessary we think you can do better And they did I would tend to agree with that I mean obviously I think we're looking at it like this you know not like this and you pretty much did what we asked looking at it like this you know Well we explained the bigger Yes but I'm meaning you didn't take a pen broad stroke revisited you sort of said how can we fix this one issue that we identified as a board and I agree I think that this is sort of like the minimum impact that can be done that still achieves what you're trying to do with the project and you know short of other issues I would support this solution for this amount of impact Any other comments from the board? Yeah I would just echo that and say that I think you know where these are new LDRs so it seems like you guys took that and minimized that and so now we can you know this it shows us more that this is the minimal and taking into account all the other challenges you guys had with the site as well so I also just want to say I appreciate that this probably took a lot of more tooling on your guys's end and it looks good Thank you Any other comments? Okay Gail what was the other staff comment you wanted to talk about? So still on this front entry piece one of the issues and it's actually your staff comment on the proposed entry facing the front of the street and so we went and looked at that and we have a sketch which is in oops hold on that is attachment attachment 7 if you can pull that up and I am going to have Thomas Morris of e4h architects come and explain that entry piece we also provided So just for clarity we're talking about staff comment number 11 Yes Oh not 9, okay 9, yeah I think it's 9 Yeah because 9 and 10 looked pretty pretty basic 11 was the big one I saw Okay I think I wouldn't diminish either of those two Okay so let's move to 11 we'll come back to those and I'm sorry I'm going to have to swear you in No sketch plan You're absolutely right I'm Thomas Morris with e4h architects Okay, thanks Tom or Thomas? Okay tell us about tell us your comments So our feeling on the entrance facing the west part of the building is that it's a fundamental element that wayfinding is pretty critical to any healthcare facility there are studies that indicate wayfinding can reduce stress for patients who are arriving at these buildings and especially surgery centers Did you say wayfinding? Yeah finding your way to the building Right now our canopy has to be positioned on the west side of the building due to the way our drive has to come to the building and the sloping grade on the south part of the building lot So aside from all the health care related points fundamentally just even getting the cars to queue up underneath the drop off canopy and having the entrance on the west side of the building is far greater it allows the patient to pull the cars up a little bit further get out progress into the building allows three or four cars to queue up in the morning hours when we're seeing a heavy patient load move that to the south side of the building one you don't if you see the door as you approach then you're going to know where it is if you drive up to the building and get out you're not going to know where it is and you're going to be lost it's kind of like getting dropped off at the airport and having to walk to the side of the airport to enter it you wouldn't know where the doors are unless you saw them when you approached we can extend the canopy out a little bit but then it pushes all of our handicap parking a little bit further away from the building and we wouldn't want that parking close to the building dividing where you get dropped off and where you enter the building between parking so we really feel like the entrance needs to remain on the west side of the building we have a lot of glazing on the south side that kind of replicates building frontage which would kind of accomplish your street escape philosophy so that's what we believe is best for the building based on the site restraints if you could pull up our attachment 9 we have a perspective sketch of what that looks like with the entrance on the west side this is what we've in our plan that's proposed right now and those are handicap spots right there correct and this is the view from the this is kind of looking north so from the south from the driveway entrance yeah so once you make that curb cut at the red deli you would kind of swoop around and this is how you would approach the building okay that's pretty nice so it is a requirement for a healthcare facility to be dropped off underneath the canopy so if we did put the entrance on the south side if you were approaching it and you saw the door you might stop because you see the door and you would let your family member or whoever you're driving to the facility out and then they would walk to the door then the next car would be even further away if they cued up behind them so Delilah's done a little triangle that's sort of like where the there's like a word for one say that again in that perspective yes that's the view you're looking at right there apex of the pink triangle the other thing is that the patients enter in this doorway but when they leave the facility they're going out a door on the other side of the canopy so that also becomes an issue when the entrance is on the south facing facade because then when visitors go or not visitors patients who are being dropped off when somebody goes and parks and then comes from the parking lot back to the building the first door they're going to see is the exit door not the entry door you're right in fact we purposely push the exit door back from the front of the building on the north side easily as this door and not be confused because Gail's right you're going to drop off your family member at the door you're going to see it then you're going to go park and then you're going to have to walk back sure okay questions from port comments can I ask the staff is this a site layout standard or is this a sort of like pedestrian orientation building orientation to the front you're going to make me pull up the last packet because I don't remember I only ask because I think the rendering is very nice and it definitely presents to the street with that sort of pedestrian plaza and the way the building is designed and I get why the circulation and canopy entrance are you saying that you don't want to do the canopy extension and push the ADA parking or is the sketch that we just saw something you're willing to do more meet this standard we just think that if the entrance was flipped to the south if it had to be there we would want to try to bring the canopy with it so we have a greater chance of more people being dropped off under cover as much as possible I think we would prefer to have the plan as this rendering shows and as it's been presented absolutely that overall works the best both interior and exterior for the project so that's what we're we'd like to do I don't believe there's a condition there's I don't believe there's anything specifically in the regulations that require the building to be facing the entrance to be facing to front of this road but I believe that's something that's in draft regulations now so I don't again this is how it works on the site with all the constraints we have okay so are we good with this board? can I just take a I'm not going to object to anything anybody's saying but I just want to take a moment to remind both the board and the applicant that sketch is non binding both parts right? so the board can provide guidance and it's helpful and it's useful and they generally stick to it and the applicant can say we're going to make a building look like this but neither is required to 100% tow the line to those things unlike preliminary plat to final plat well this would be a site plan only that's what I'm going to do okay mark go ahead I think it works fine the building architecture even though it's functionally west drop off and all that it presents to the street as well even if it's not functionally it's not functional to the street it's design oriented to the street as well can I have a question about not directly relevant to this issue about the use of the building as an outpatient surgery center what does that mean are there actually surgery suites inside the building there are 8 operating rooms in the building correct they presented on that at the last hearing but outpatient means you don't stay overnight okay we ready to move on or move back I'd like to go back to 9 and 10 number of staff if we can just go sorry I'm not trying to overstep your authority here so that was one kind of one of our issues was the whole front entry and the other one had to do with staff comment number 4 regarding the proposed future roadway on lot 2 and we did provide the final plat for the Tilly drive subdivision that shows the proposed 100 foot right of way easement for the entire road from Tilly drive to the east view to the O'Brien development as well as the conditions for the approval for that project so that said again we're not lot 2 doesn't have anything to do with our project we understand that the roadway is something you're working on we did look at the sketch that you provided on page 5 in the staff report that shows the class 2 wetlands roughly on lot 2 and where the proposed road coming from the O'Brien development and how it would potentially connect on to that lot and the that little sketch on page 5 appears to represent what's there roughly from what we know of it again we're more than willing to work with the board with the city and with pizzagalli properties if that roadway needs to adjust and swing towards the northeastern property line for lot 6 in order to make that work from where the proposed road on the east view development to the corner of the property line on lot 6 is roughly 120 feet so there is room for that to adjust there if that needs to be for that roadway B but from what we can tell it looks like it won't be impacting the class 2 wetlands it may impact the class 2 wetland buffers but again that's not something that we're working on so we just want to make that clear that we're willing to work with the city and with pizzagalli properties on that in terms of any adjustment that may need to happen on the northeastern part of lot 6 on that property line do we have latitude for allowing encouragement in the buffer this is a class 2 here is that right right a little more stringent on invading the buffer it is there is restricted infrastructure encroachment as gail said this roadway is not being proposed by them this is an official map so the LDRs require that roads on the official map are constructed when development on the parcels involving those roads occurs you can kind of see the cyan line on that on the plan that is the property boundary so the question here and I'm rehashing a little bit because Frank wasn't at the last meeting the question here is whether the roadway shown by the long and too short dashed lines can actually go where it is on the official map because of the wetlands and if it's going to need to be squished over I to be honest I was kind of trying to find where this was in the plans while gail was talking so I'm going to listen to the tape and hear what she just said again but it sounded like she was saying that this property this project since they don't intend to use the back of the site has some flexibility to allow some of that right away if it's found to be necessary at a later time some that squidging as you say that's one of my favorite words can't this be between now very flat this be the subject of back and forth between staff and the developer again we're not proposing anything on lot two lot two is not our lot we're proposing on lot six right but lot two and lot six are under common ownership which is why this is even coming up yeah it's a really thorny issue because it's an official map issue not of this development issue but it becomes this development issue because it's on the official map but so our official map shows an incursion into the wetland buffer on our official road so that's the problem we created right right and that's why we're having this conversation because we don't want to preclude construction of connections right now it's also showing it aligning with the road on the development to the north but what if that road gets built before this road ever gets planned and then we go to look at building this road and find that the wetlands do impact it there's no way to make that connection with the alignment mm-hmm it seems a little short-sighted in the long run when it's an official city road city right so we have a final plot application for that road that's sorry guys this is make sure we get to your stuff north of the red line that is going to be in front of the board pretty soon is that part of the abryan development that's the abryan east view development that final plot has been submitted it's not yet scheduled and we'll be talking about that issue at that time so what do we need to do to move this forward if the board feels satisfied again I admit I wasn't 100% listening but if the board feels satisfied with the testimony Gail just provided then you can move forward understanding that it might have to have some flex as we go forward yeah I don't think they need to prove it I think we need to work with it what's the technical term squid well it looks like the city created the problem right and we don't want the development view board working at odds with the official map we want to try and make those two processes as compatible as is available to us okay are there any other comments in this staff report that you want to comment on I think we just would like to you know the few items that we didn't get to address at the last hearing those 9 10 and 11 didn't we well we just did 11 9 and 10 and so I guess under 9 the recreation path we did provide information on this that we did look at how to try to have some type of a rec path come on to the property and try to access over to either out to Tilly driver over to old farm road and we had grading and stormwater drainage issues but also more importantly we had concerns from the neighbors and at this point we proposed on our plan to just have a path coming on the northern part of the site and kind of ending in a proposed little over look and we're willing to work with the city and the neighbors on this to try to come up with however something could work for a future rec path but because this project is so important in terms of our schedule and moving forward we would like it to not hold up this project but we'll commit to working with the city and the neighbors on that okay does that work for folks okay number 10 this is about accessory structures and the placement and screening yes so on our site plan that's under attachment eight if you wouldn't mind pulling that up what we've done is we're willing to you know proposed screening and use a lot of evergreens for along the eastern property line and we did add some additional land proposed plantings along that eastern property line where the NEP equipment is located can you kind of I know we've gone through this already but we've got a couple minutes can Delilah can you zoom into that whole area where on the sort of middle right bottom of bottom right of the parking lot almost in between the two gravel wetlands most of it's concentrated right there so there's a whole bunch of stuff yes so we included in our packet originally we have a generator that's kind of in that island between the drive and the parking area and we have the two chillers that are in the green space between the driveway and the property line we have the oxygen farm and a potential fuel cell equipment all there and those as we have explained in our comments in our project narrative these are all critical and all need to be in relative proximity to the building and the examples that we provided pictures of are either from the Fannie Allen hospital which is the outpatient surgery center right now for the medical center and or they're from the medical center campus in Burlington to give you an idea of what they look like the only other piece is we do have a transformer that's out along the southern property line more adjacent to Tilly Drive right should be a small box just in the right we just kind of out down in the off to the little white box to the right what's the height of that just regular three feet kind of guy I think we showed a typical transformer as three by three by three I think but you see them everywhere they're that green color usually there's some plantings around them so some of this equipment that was on farther up on the screen that stuff's on the order of like 20 feet tall the oxygen farm that tends to have taller I think they're 15 to 20 feet tall and then the chillers are like 50 feet long by 10 feet high so we're talking big stuff here they're big and we thought your intent was more to screen them not so much from our parking lot but from maybe a public way that's to the I just want to make sure the board is clear on like the magnitude of these things right but what's the alternative to put them inside some sort of full height you know and I don't know that that we have looked at a variety of different places on the site while the whole project was being designed and it's pretty tricky just due to the grades and due to being in close proximity to the building to get everything to work so that's the real issue what is the question about the wind I have a quick question about the windmill go ahead how tall is that windmill and are there any concerns about ice throw about what ice throw it's not a modern windmill it's like you'll be tiny yeah it's an existing windmill on site and the neighbors one of the neighbors actually several of the neighbors asked that it be kept so it's being relocated from where it exists today to the island and the parking lot it's roughly 24 feet tall we had our structural engineer go out and look at it so we're going to relocate it more as a focal point I think it should count towards the landscaping budget say that again Dan I think it needs to count towards the landscaping budget as an architectural or historic amenity any other questions, concerns, comments I have what are the construction lines the dash lines inside the building outline showing the lower level so it's a partial lower level and then a full first floor so the dash line is showing you the basement footprint okay the building is kind of built into the hillside that it's a sloping site it's about I think it's 25, 30 feet drop between the west and the east so you walk in on the upper level at grade on the entry and then the lower level then you drop down and that's accessed for in the back of the building on the north side and it's a mostly support and mechanical space that's why we have that equipment located just to the north of that space because it can directly feed into all those utility rooms in the basement and it's also your loading dock area loading dock so the question here in staff comment 10 is you know what does the board given the magnitude of this equipment what is the board going to be looking for at site plan in terms of screening it looks like they've shown a line of deciduous trees is the board going to be looking for you know a fence is deciduous trees caniferous trees we proposed evergreens there oh okay because if they're deciduous they're not going to screen in the winter so I mean obviously they're part of it goes to functionality you know in terms of the need for them and proximity for the infrastructure and part of it is going to go towards aesthetics which is by secondary but still important and I guess one question I have would be you know if there is a way to I know they're sort of in the general area on the site but if there's a way I understand the generator it seems like it's in a pretty good location it can be chain link fence got some shrubs around it you can probably put some more on the parking lot side and things like that I'm wondering if like the O2 farm the future fuel cell area and the chillers could be even more consolidated so that you can do some landscaping on all four sides to break it up and to probably you need to put it into a more secure area so you don't have like four different areas that have chain link fence around them well the the reason the oxygen farm is close to the driveway is that has to be accessed with trucks sure but I'm saying if you slid it down and then move the trees that are between the O2 farm and the future fuel cell area and either side of it so that you know you're putting all of them in one area and you don't you know are each of them also going to have to be chain link fenced for security purposes I don't believe so I think it's just the oxygen farm may but I'm not even sure if that's proposed to have a fence around it but the generator is the main thing that has the fence around there are some separation issues that are required we probably wouldn't want to put the fuel cell next to the oxygen farm for logical reasons or the overhead power lines the oxygen farm has to be a certain distance from those right we've really you've thought all this through obviously I think you know site plan review after sketch looking at some additional screening to them just to sort of soften them up because obviously your sample images are pretty stark so anything you can do to soften the image from the parking lot and from adjacent developments we can definitely look into that and do more of that recognizing they are functional and it is a hospital setting the other thing is they are on the lower part of the site so they will have less impacts on the neighbors which is something that we did consider as well so we are approaching the witching hour and my question to the board is do you think we've covered everything for sketch and my question to you is do you need any more feedback from us thank you so much we appreciate your taking the time to go over all these issues with us that we really needed answers and I believe we are all set with addressing the major critical ones we wanted but everything else I think we've discussed and okay good board we set okay do we need public comment probably are there any members of the public who would like to comment do we have any online okay we should give it a second we all need a staff I know and we don't need to we don't need a motion to close the sketch okay hearing none I guess that's it thank you for coming back we'll see you back here at a later date thank you so much we really appreciate your taking the time for helping to get some clarity on these issues for us take care is there any other business motion to adjourn hearing none I think we can adjourn thank you thank you recording stopped