 So thank you for being here. This meeting is being recorded. And we ask that if you're here in person, you sign up out back on the sign-up sheet to have a record of your participation should you ever want to appeal or take any action. And if you are joining virtually, if you would please go into the chat area and provide your contact information. So we have a record of that. And likewise, if you're on the phone, please send your contact information to M-K-E-E-N-E at southburlington-v-t-all-one-word.gov. That way we have a record of everyone. Okay, our first item on the agenda is emergency evacuation procedures. And in the event of an emergency, there are doors at the back of the auditorium on each side. You would exit those doors and either go right or left to get outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes to the order of agenda items that anyone would propose? Okay, hearing none. Are there any announcements or reminders? Okay, hearing none. Are there any comments and questions from the audience that are not specifically related to the agenda at hand? Moving along then. We will take item number five on the agenda. And my first question would be, are there any disclosures or recusals? Okay, hearing none. The item is sketch plan application SD-2405 of a listen, Allison and Vincent Baldock to subdivide an existing 16.46 acre lot development with a single family home and accessory structure into two residential lots of 2.0 acres and 14.46 acres and retain the existing single home and accessory structure on the 14.46 acre lot at 252 Autumn Hill Road. Who is here for the applicant? And if you would please identify yourself. Brian Currier, I'm a Larry Burke civil associate. And I'm Vince Baldock and my wife is behind me and my wife is behind me over here, Allison and our daughter, Michelle. Some other people that we know, some neighbors have come, which is very nice. Are they likely to testify? I don't know. We're not swearing at sketch. It's sketch, so you're good. Brian, if you could turn on your microphone, please. Thank you. Looks like maybe Andrew's joining us online. We also have our son who you can see on the screen. Andrew Baldock is on the top left up there. Okay. And some of you might recognize Andrew. He worked for the city for quite a few years. Okay, good. Thank you. I have, if you don't mind, some introductory comments that will kind of set the context and I think also anticipate some of the questions that you'll probably have. Sure, because as you know, we usually go through the staff report and discuss the highlighted areas, but we also love having a brief introduction. Okay, this is six minutes and 20 seconds. Okay. I'm timing you. Okay, go ahead. When I run the candidate debates here, I do the same thing. We have a clock and we watch it very carefully. My wife and I deeply value the special qualities of the Southeast quadrant. It's why we first bought 16 acres here in the 1970s and have actively sought to preserve its character. In the early 1980s, I served on the Blue Ribbon Study Committee appointed by the city council to create a plan that would both preserve the special character of the area as well as allow for well-planned housing developments. The spirit of our work is still reflected in the purpose section of article nine of the LDRs. In fact, our report was the original source of the recommended 1.2 units per acre, the innovative idea of transfer development rights, and the golf course integrated with housing. Just recently, I served on the open space committee and I'm now active in the affordable housing committee, trying to bring more housing to the city at this time of national housing crisis. I know I'm not alone in my concern that our Blue Ribbon Committee may have done its job too well. According to page 81 of the COMP plan, 51% of our city is no longer developable because of regulatory conservation. Our two applications tonight are respectful of the comprehensive plan in the LDRs. We now own 67 contiguous acres in the Southeast quadrant and are asking for permission to use less than three, less than three of those acres for two houses and one ADU. Given Act 47's new standards for allowing five units per acre on any area served by sewer and water, our ask tonight is very, very modest indeed. Our hope is to provide space for two houses for our family plus an affordable ADU, perhaps for my wife and I someday. The house for our daughter will be entirely hidden in a wood lot and the other will appear to the public as an extension of the 12 unit development on windswept lane. In order to protect the special qualities of the Southeast quadrant, we would like the DRB to also know that we are working with a state certified forester to enroll more than 60 of our 67 acres in the current use program to better protect agriculture and forestry practices on our property. This has become very unusual in our city today. We've also contracted with the forester to help us identify the optimal location for both the access driveway and for the building envelope on the six acre forested lot. Except for these two carve outs and our existing homestead, the remainder of all this land will be managed under the current use program which quoting page 91 of the comp plan will continue to support working lands in this area. The exact location of that smaller building envelope is a product of compromise between competing natural resources and is proposed to be, and I quote, located on the site in a manner that represents the least impact on the purposes of the district. That's a quote from the plan. That language of course is taken directly from, I'm sorry, from the LDR section of the supplemental design and conservation standards. We've been good stewards of our fields and forests for over 40 years. We've planted over a thousand trees, fought invasive species, culled diseased trees and carefully managed our woodlands following the advice of professionals. We have built hiking and ski trails used by both neighbors and wildlife alike. We hand built our super insulated solar home 40 years ago and have 43 solar panels for electric generation as well as a power wall for electric storage. Yearly we burn about six cords of dead and diseased trees from non-fossil fuel for heating as well as to make our signature South Burlington maple syrup. We make cider from our apple trees. We have a large productive garden of locally grown foods. At various times we raise chickens, turkeys, goats, pigs and sheep for local food but also to help us manage our fields in an ecologically sustainable manner. We help the public view by keeping a large field open on Dorset Street by an arrangement with a dairy farmer from Heinsberg. One could ask why our application asks for 1.7 acre lot and for one two acre lot. In the first case, we think that 0.7 acres is about the minimum size to avoid, this will be the one in the woods, to avoid falling limbs and falling trees, both of which are quite common in that wooded area suffering unfortunately from diseased ash and beech trees. That size of a building envelope is also required to control the forest canopy to allow sunlight to reach the rooftop solar collectors. A frequently sited goal of the city. The two acre lot is larger still because we believe that the inheritor of the parcel will likely wish to plant fruit trees, grapes and berries and have a big garden just as we have done for decades. The only trees on that parcel now are those which we planted. Our forest management and landscape work over the years has also helped us create a hospitable landscape for wildlife and other goal of the city. Comparing photos from our date of purchase in the 1970s to today, we see how our efforts have resulted in a verdant forested landscape where only rocky pastures existed before. Left alone, they would have been overgrown by brushing invasives from buckthorn to bittersweet vines and wild honeysuckle. In every sense, we are gardeners. Planting, weeding and harvesting. We believe that our applications are in conformity to the conservation and open space goals of the comprehensive plan, including goal number 83 to conserve ecologically important lands. Goal 84 will allow landowners to make use of their lands with conservation, agricultural, agricultural, renewed energy development and or very limited residential use. Goal 85 maintain farmland open and available for agricultural use and seek opportunities to establish small scale farms. And goal 86 to maintain generally the open character of the area. The size and location of our windswept application that is the larger lot, also fosters action 121 of the comp plan, quoting, allow small scale multifamily housing to blend in with single family homes and duplexes to support thriving neighborhoods. Here we're simply extending the neighborhood by one unit. My wife and I wanna thank you for your time tonight and for your consideration of our application. So I'll turn the floor over to Brian Currier and unless someone else has a question directly for me or unless my wife or daughter or son wish to add something. Thank you. I must say I overlooked an important introduction and that is the introduction of our board members. So if you'll bear with me, let me introduce John Muscatelli, Frank Cokman, Stephanie Wyman, Charlie Johnston, Quinn Mann, me, Don Filiver and our staff Marlekeen and Marty Gillis. I apologize for that oversight. So go ahead, Brian. Do you wanna speak now or do you want us to walk through the project? Whatever you'd like, Don, if you wanna start with the staff report, that's really fun. Let's go ahead and do that. So this is for the sketch plan application, SD 2405. So as the description states, this is an existing parcel with frontage on Dorset Street but with an autumn hill address at 16.46 acres. Typically would be subject to a conservation PUD given that it's an existing parcel that's four acres or greater. As many of you know, the LDRs have a special exemption of the conservation PUD for one time two acre car bow and the Bulldoke family is here tonight with a sketch plan for that subdivision for the two-lock car bow. Thank you. Yeah. I'm gonna read the first comment. It appears the Habitat Block is shown, pardon me, incorrectly on the applicant's plan. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to correct their plans to clearly show the limits of the adopted Habitat Block. Yes, so we sent a revised plan to Marlekeen. That's the old one. Do you have the one I sent you today? Yeah, it's just loading a little slow. Gotcha. Yeah, so the Habitat Block, the figure was correct. I believe it was just slightly shifted one direction more or less. So we know that that information's available now on the VCGI website. So we brought in the shape file. So what is shown now is exactly what's in here. Could you introduce us to all these different line types? I know that they're on the legend but they're kind of, it's hard to introduce them. Yeah, so yeah, there's a lot going on. So the dark green line type right there where that cursor's showing, a little bit of a lag. But the dark green dashed line, the heavy set line is the Habitat Block boundary. So what's south of that line is within the Habitat Block. What is north is north. And what is all the green infill? That goes with the next question, the next piece of the staff report if you, yeah. Do you wanna just, I don't know, tell me if this would be unhelpful but I think it might be helpful to sort of introduce what all the thick lines are on this plan. Sure. There's the blue and the red and the yellow. Right, I think it would be a great overview. Okay, so we went through the Habitat Block. There's two dark blue lines that are dashed. One's denoted as a 50 foot wetland buffer which is the state standard. And then there's the 100 foot class two. Excuse me again, now the mic is on. Could you specify what the limits of the property are? Yep, so the limits of the property are the black dashed lines. All right, but it looks like it's divided into three lots. I thought there was only gonna be. Yeah, so there's two applications in front of you. There's one 16 acre parcel with a two acre carve out subdivision proposal. That's a sketch plan application. The southern one that's shown is only a six acre parcel. That's our next application, the conditional use application next on your agenda. But as the driveway goes through the 16 acre parcel and the two applications really are contingent on one another, we're showing them on the same plan. So what are we involved in now? The application that involves the two top lots? Just the subdivision, correct. Just the one 16 acre parcel and then there's a proposed two acre subdivision. Okay, and that's above that heavy line that goes across the center. That's correct. All right, thank you. So it's the green piece. Yeah, so the green shaded area is part of our 30% habitat block exemption. It's the one on the left. I'm still struggling with, so we go all the way over to the left hand, what I'm calling the left hand is up north. Yes. It's top north, all right. So it extends all the way to the plot from which you're carving out the two acres that extends all the way to Dorset Street. Is that right? That's correct. And that's sort of trapezoidal overall shape, right? Yep, yeah. Okay, and then the two acres comes out of the center. That's correct. All right, thanks. That's how I'm sorry. Yep. Okay, so we taken care of that. Thank you for correcting that. And the words. Number two, staff considers these acres are not eligible for exchange. Staff recommends the board confirm their agreement with this interpretation. Marla or Marty, could you please explain what that means? Sure, Marty, do you mind going back to the map and I'm gonna read what it says. So in the environmental protection standards, if a lot has habitat block on it, you can modify the habitat block under some circumstances, which my apologies, it was something I thought was applicable to this project, but before the LDRs get into how you can modify it, it specifically says land located within the SQNRP, within hazards or level one resources, and then some other stuff, it shall not be eligible for any of the three options to modify habitat block. So it looks to us that the lands that are not within the habitat block on this map, and this is why I kind of wanted Brian to introduce all the lines. So the lands that are not within a habitat block on this map are sort of a thing in the top left corner, sort of a trapezoid shape outside of the green. And then the homestead that shaded green on the right. Everything else on this land is within habitat block. So in order to do a carve out outside of those two areas, they would have to modify the habitat block, but the lands that are eligible to be modified are either within a wetland buffer or within the SQNRP, which is the yellow line on the plan. So our interpretation is that based on those two things, they can't do a habitat block modification. And because this is the first time the boards had to apply the standard, we just wanted to make sure that you agreed with that interpretation. Yeah, it's the specific we can't do an exchange, right? So we can still modify under different provision, but this. Well, under section 1204D, modification of habitat blocks, it's not eligible yet. I agree that the language is a little... Yeah, so if you want, but... If you go back to the old plan, you can see we're exchanging land that was within a hazard but without. So like the original plan is we're gonna exchange habitat block area in that green area, the shaded green area where it says, or just east of the existing house and the green area on the other end. But we can't exchange those areas for building area elsewhere. That's within a habitat block because those two areas are the vast majority of those two areas are either within the NRP or within a hazard, right? So the one by Dorset Street is within a wetland buffer. 100 feet now includes the duplexes on Black Dog Drive. And on the eastern side, about half of that green shaded area is in the NRP. So our initial take on the habitat block modification was under the exchange provision, but staff is noting here on number two that that's not a realistic path forward for what's in front of you tonight. So there was the next note. I'm sorry, Don, I led you to that next one. I was gonna explain the shading, but it's actually number three. It talks about another way to modify a habitat block is if it's substantially covered. So substantially covered means that 70% or more of the total lot area is covered by a habitat block, which staff notes and asks us to verify that the only area that's not substantially covered or within a hazard is the, it's called out as 2.8 acres, but obviously in AutoCAD it ends up being 2.73 acres. And that's that green area that's associated with the existing house. So it's hatched there in green is outside of a habitat block and it's not within a hazard. So it's less than 30% of the area. It's 2.73, the parcel 16 and a half acres roughly. So we would qualify under modification of the habitat block under a substantially habitat block provision. And the next page kind of walks you through the steps on how you modify the block based on that standard. I'll just chime in to address the number two question that staff posed. I agree with the reading of that. It sounds like the applicant is on board with that as well as far as modifications on an option. But I appreciate walking through the qualification under substantially habitat block covered and that seems applicable in this case. So I think that's what staff outlined, but just wanted to say that's my confirmation too. Any other comments? Frank, you look like you're about to. Well, I don't want to admit what I'm thinking, which is I haven't fully digested the issue yet. Yes, it's complicated, no doubt about it. But it's now admitted. Well, it's sketched, so you get another crack at it. I suggest we proceed. I have a, I don't want to be a wet blanket on our microscopic examination of what's going on here. But if the LDRs mean that the people who have been stewards of this land can't carve out the small piece of it that they're proposing here, there's something wrong with the LDRs. So shall we do our best? Okay. Thank you. All right, let's move along. Yes, we're on four now. I'm going to read this. Staff considers the applicant should apply this approach for the property and recommends the board direct the applicant to prepare a map, showing clearly how the revised area was selected, including indication of areas selected under each of the above four criteria. Since this exercise has the potential to significantly modify the development configuration for the carve out, staff recommends the board direct the applicant to prepare this map prior to concluding the sketch plan meeting. Yeah, so the, if you bring that old plan back up. Before we switch actually, Marty, sorry. I just want to sort of say, so they get the 30% and the 30% has to be chosen in a specific order. So first, there has to be areas that are not hazard level one resources. If there's none of that, then it can be areas is not characterized by a preponderance of mature trees. If there's none of that, then it can be land within habitat blocks, but has to exclude the core habitat block areas, which as far as I know is not a defined term or areas that would separate habitat connector. And then if there's none of that, then they can pick areas within habitat blocks, avoiding core habitat block areas to the greatest extent possible. So given that framework, if you want to present what you did, that'd be great. Yeah, more colorful one. So as I was saying before, the first step is land that's not covered as a hazard or a level one resources as Marla state. So that is the hatched green area. That's, there's a table in the bottom right that says buildable area calcs down there. The green area is noted as 2.76 acres. So that does include area within the NRP. Unfortunately, that's still not developable, but based on this definition, it still counts towards a 30%. So that's 2.76. And then the area shown in peach on the Western end and staff has an explanation associated with this one that is essentially that the class two wetland buffer that's enforced by the state of Vermont is the 100 foot class two wetland buffer is specific to South Burlington. The class two wetland buffer in the state of Vermont and the vast majority of the state is a 50 foot buffer. And given that the second area that is in this analysis is stated as land that is not characterized by preponderance of mature trees to us, it seems like staff is alluding that that 50 foot difference in wetland buffer would be preferable rather than designating mature trees within our 30% buildable area. So the peach area that you see there includes the vast majority of the 50 foot difference between a 50 foot state wetland buffer and a 100 foot wetland buffer that does not include a preponderance of mature trees. Well, let me ask you a question against the questions for staff. Can we avoid, do we have the discretion to avoid the 100 foot buffer? This section of the regulations being specific to this scenario is more specific than the wetland standards. Therefore, as long as they're following the ranking, then go ahead. Okay. And there's, there's more. The other way around it. You know, you're gonna have to impact something. I think that's a very student interpretation one. Yeah, so, and, you know, so it does say a lot containing a combination of hazards and level one resources. So hazards are wetlands. So you got to impact either the hazards or not directly impact the wetlands, but you know, hazards are part of this definition of describing what the 30% buildable area is. So, you know, we, we agree. We think the reduction is... Move on, take the win and move on. Okay. Sure. So the, the western part of that peach area, you can see there's a 50 foot buffer shown. If you move just to the left, Marty, you can see we're defining our building envelope along that 50 foot western edge of the Class II buffer. But you can see that just to the, just to the northwest of where the cursor is there, to the west there, towards Dorset, by the way. There's a little dog leg that is within the 100 foot buffer, but not within the 50 foot buffer. But it's so narrow, you know, common sensically we couldn't justify determining that that would be part of your 30 foot buildable area. There's, you know, very high risk of the 50 foot wetland buffer impacts if that was part of our designated area. And then the, if you go to the west, if you just move the image to the west, you'll see there's a small area there that's outside a 50 foot state wetland buffer. But obviously it's on an island and is inaccessible other than a major wetland impact. So that area we felt wouldn't qualify as a 30% buildable area either. And then the next step, third, just as land within habitat blocks excluding core habitat block areas or areas which would sever habitat block. And as Marla said, those terms are not defined, connectors are, but core habitat block is not. And we're showing that area in yellow. You can see it's associated with, and you'll see why these applications are both in front of you at the same time. The area that's designated in yellow is where the path of least resistance is or the straightest path to get a driveway from windswept lane, a public road, to the six acre NRP lot to the south of the subdivision that's being proposed. And with that driveway connection, it significantly fragments, you can see the tree line shown in that wavy black color that's around the yellow area. The driveway significantly or substantially cuts that area in half. We have access from one point from public roads, Dorset Street access, in my opinion, is not realistic given the wetland impacts. Autumn Hill roads, a private road maintained and owned by the Homer Association. We can't add additional units off of that private road. So the only place to access either one of these new units would be from the 60 foot right away associated with windswept lane. Yeah, windswept lane. The tennis court determines that connection has to be on the western side. And by the time you install a driveway, grade, bring in water, sewer, power, possibly gas, in our opinion, that area makes a lot of sense to be designated as part of the 30% buildable area. You also see there's a storm water pond as we're gonna trigger state storm water requirements within that area as well. Excuse me, is windswept lane that appears to be existing, right? All the way down through your parcel. Will you have to extend it or is it in fact already there? It ends right at the parcel boundary. And when it was in, and I think it's still the case now, a right away has to be extended to the adjacent parcel. So the 60 foot right away, public right away. When you say public right, is windswept lane a public street now? Yes, it is. All right, has any area south of where you say it now has been dedicated or? My understanding is windswept lane has been adopted by the city council, yeah. Pardon? I believe it has been adopted, yes. It is a public road. So there's an existing legal right away, even if it's not developed, is that what you're saying? It is developed. Windswept lane is fully built. No, you're talking about different things. I'm talking about the continuation. Okay, yeah. No, so that's a proposed driveway. Windswept lane has been constructed. Our proposed driveway shown from our property line to the south is proposed. That is a private driveway. All right, and now you're not proposing that to become a public road. No. No. I'd like to add, in fact, we can have the Goldbergs join in here. The Goldbergs own the land to the north where all the houses are now that you can see. And they develop that and they put in windswept. It ends, you can see there's a hammerhead there where it absolutely dead ends. And I remember being at the Planning Commission meeting when they were talking about that. And it was said that this would, it should be designed as a hammerhead just in case the Bulldochs ever want to develop their 16 acres on the south. And so it comes right up to our border. There's a fire hydrant there. There's, we used to have pigs there. No, there's a fire hydrant. So there's water sewer underground, utilities underground. That's what we tap into. So the whole area running south from the windswept, from, excuse me, from that border with the northern property is part of your buildable area, is that right? That's correct. All the road. That's correct. And as part of that buildable area, you're allowed 30% as we, as we talked about with the 16.46 acre parcel, the total buildable area possible is 4.92 acres. If you add up the green, the peach and the yellow, we're proposing 4.46. So roughly three tenths less, three tenths of an acre less than what would be allowed. I understand. Thank you. Okay. Ready to move on. Number four, staff considers the applicant should apply this approach for this property and recommends the board direct the applicant to prepare a map, showing clearly how the revised area was selected, including indication of areas selected under each of the above four criteria. Since this exercise has the potential to significantly modify the development configuration for the carve out, staff recommends the board direct the applicant to prepare this map prior to concluding the sketch plan meeting. So that's the one we just did. Did we just do that? You made me read all that. We don't want to interrupt you. Well, it sounds like you're on a roll. Thanks guys. It sounds like Marla wants something more. Yeah, I have a question though. Can you go back to the map, the new map Marty? So it's a two acre carve out. And then, oh, this is confusing. And then the sum of the buildable area that you're requesting is not within the two acre carve out. That's correct. Okay. I think, I think that's okay. We'll think about that. That sounds okay. All right. It would be a very strange one. Yeah. Well, our 30% is based on the parent 16 acre parcels. So, you know, I think it makes sense. Okay. All right. Okay. I'm glad we're doing these applications at the same time. Number five, this is about combined review. Given the purpose statement above, staff recommends the board consider permitting the applicant to combine preliminary and final subdivision review. No master plan review is required. Oh, yeah. We would appreciate to do it combined if the board's okay. Okay. Good. Moving on to number six, we need a detailed plan for the development of land. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe in detail their plan for development of the land proposed for subdivision. I assume you mean by this, the parent parcel? What? I assume you mean by this, the parent parcel or the whole thing? The two-acre parcel. Oh, the two-acre parcel. A residence there, and of course a single residence now according to Act 47 can now be a duplex and an ADU can also be established there. We would abide by the regulations that are required for this, but we have not yet decided whether it's going to be a townhouse or a single dwelling unit. If we need to commit it this time, we can, but I don't think we have to. We would follow the appropriate setbacks and edge setbacks and so forth. That's it. Yeah, we are showing two water services and two sewer services. So if it is a duplex, we'll be able to accommodate it. Okay. Thank you. Number seven. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to propose a regularly shaped buildable area to be defined by either a natural or man-made barrier that enables compliance over time. So yeah, I believe this is applicable to the building envelope. And I think the 30% exercise we just walked through and made the building envelope substantially, I would say cleaner than what we had before. So there is some of it that, you know, the Western edge, maybe the Northwestern edge, you know, is following the 50 foot state designated wetland buffer, but it gets pretty typical and square as you go to the Northeast and South corner. So we feel that this type of orientation is clear. Generally state wetland rules require a demarcation of wetland buffers if you're impacting within 25 feet. So if the home is sited within 25 feet, we would expect that the city would require us to demarcate that wetland buffer. Usually it's with boulders or birdhouses or a splitter or a fence, something like that. Questions? Okay, number eight. Once a revised development area is determined based on the standards of 12.06, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate how a home or multifamily home, depending on the applicant's objectives, could be located with a reasonable size cleared buffer and appropriate driveway and parking area in the buildable area. Yeah, so you can see the previous building envelope. It was a little tight. We had put a duplex footprint on that lot. It did fit with room to spare, but given the expanded building envelope, we don't feel siding a house or duplex should be a problem. Marla, does that satisfy you with the response? I think so. Oh, it has numbers on it. 12.02 by 321. Yeah, it's about a hundred foot wide now. Okay. Does the board wanna see a potential configuration at the next stage of review or are they okay with leaving it empty space? I think it's okay, as it is. Given the size of it, I think it's okay. I mean, a hundred by 300 lot. Okay. In a buildable area, it shouldn't be a problem. Okay, moving on. Number nine. Staff considers the use of the carve out provision exempts this project from a provision of a master plan and any subsequent subdivision of the remaining lands will be required to pursue a master plan. Staff recommends the board to affirm their agreement with this interpretation. We agree. Okay. That's not what that says it also on. That says, staff recommends the board affirm their agreement with this interpretation. What do you think board? Okay. Yeah. Any no's? No, okay. Good. Moving on. Oh. If I understand correctly, any further subdivision would be extremely arduous if not impossible, wouldn't it? Given the nature of this property? Further subdivision of the 16 acre vault for the... I assume you're talking about the 16, right? Yes. I mean, that would be almost impossible, wouldn't it? It would be the corner. The rules are, the rules, they are a change in. Yeah. I wanna go into that. Yeah. Because it gets really confusing really fast. Yeah. And the ball ducks are very patient and have been attending those planning commission meetings and probably understand it at least as well as I do. Okay, so can we just affirm, yep, they'll need a master plan. Okay. Hold on, you say we will need a master plan? No, no. Yeah, if we come in again. Yeah, okay, gotcha. Okay, I think that's it for this sketch plan. And I'm assuming you wanna stay put for... You have everything you need for your next submission? I believe so, yeah. Okay. Any recusals or disclosures? No, didn't think so. Okay, this is a conditional use application, CU2403 of Allison M. Baldic Trust and Vincent L. Baldic Trust to develop a single family home and accessory dwelling unit on 0.70 acres of an existing six acre lot located entirely within the Southeast Quadrant and Natural Resource Protection Zoning District at 1780 Dorset Street. So do you wanna give us a little introduction? I think what I said before may be adequate. This is the six acres that was in existence before 1992, which has special significance in the regs. And it's entirely treed. And our daughter Michelle is the one who would like to build a house there. It doesn't, you can see where it's playing, so I wanna point something else out that has some relevance. After if you'd zoom out and instead, the other way instead, seemed exactly to the west of where that six acre parcel is. Yeah, that's 45 acres that I was referring to. That goes down to the Shelburne line. And you can see the city has a water treatment facility there, we've given them the easement for that. And that'll all be in the current use program as well. It's the field on the left that the farmer takes hay for his herd. And on the right side of it to the right of the stream is an area that we're working on to develop in the forestry. But this other lot is a beautiful piece of land. You can see it's primarily pine trees and hemlock trees on the eastern side of the six acre parcel. And it's deciduous hardwoods on the other side on the eastern side of it. And unfortunately, almost all of the maples that we use for sugaring are to the north of it on our 16 acre piece. But the trees in here are mostly, and I actually brought the survey from the Forester, they're mostly ash, which are diseased by something called ash yellows. And they're dying even before the emerald ash borer gets them. On the other hand, it's very good firewood. And the other is beach, there's beach scale on it. And unless we get temperatures of 40 degrees below zero for more than 30 hours, that's just gonna continue its march of killing beach trees. And the couple of foresters we've had come look at and said that's really the only way to handle them. Anything that's any bark that's smooth, we've never touched because maybe that is the tree that has the right DNA that can help us in the future. But almost all of them are dying and rotting and they're rotting from the top down and the bottom up. And it's quite dangerous to work around them. Anyway, that's what character, there's also a little bit of basswood in there. But the 0.7 acres that you see there is where her lot would go. And the ADU is the small little box next to it. And I'll recap what I said before on one point, we think it's important to have it that size, even though 0.7 is not large by some standards it is. But just to get away from the trees that are falling, they're losing their branches, but also our daughter like us wants to do solar like we've done so much of. And so she needs room to take care of the crown to minimize that. But other than that, all of that will be in the current use program too. It's really nice working with foresters who understand these things and can give us some good tips on how to manage it and help us. So that's all I have for pre-loved to that. Thank you. So let's go through the questions. Number one, I'll just read the end of this. Why was the specific size chosen and would it be less impactful to be smaller or in a different location? How are the specific characteristics of the SEQ district protected by the proposed building envelope? So why is this proposal less impactful? Sure. Did you just explain that maybe? Well, let me explain it a little bit more. If you put the map back up, please, Marty. The access to this, there's actually a right of way going directly west through the wetlands to Dorset Street. And that's just ridiculous to consider crossing that and come in. If we did that, then you might think that the building envelope should go on the west. But that just doesn't make sense by anyone's calculus. And to go further up the hill onto the right would make the driveway much more impactful. And that doesn't make any sense here. So this is really kind of the shortest distance between two points from windswept to this point. And so that's- Your trying to thread a needle to- Yeah, yeah, it's going right through the middle of them. The forester looked at it and said, yeah, it makes sense. Some of these trees just have to come down. They're dangerous. And it's a kind of median location that makes the most environmental sense, we think. And the current youth survey will actually go around this 0.7 acre lot. It'll go to the west of it, to the south of it and to the east of it. They're very flexible in doing that. Board, questions? Hearing none, let's move on. Number two, I'm gonna read this. I can expand my screen, there we go. Staff recommends the board discuss whether, based on the applicant's response to I above, the building envelope should be sized at 0.7 acres, keeping in mind that the minimum lot size in the zoning district, even before adjustments to comply with Act 47 is 9,500 square feet. Yeah, so this seems like it's just kind of the same question about minimizing the building envelope. Vince has already mentioned a whole bunch of things. I would just add on there that there's roughly eight to 10 feet across the site. So we're gonna have to do grading on either side, obviously with a minimum lot size of 9,500. You assume that that's fronting a public road. Everything's built at the same time. There's no existing trees. Don't worry about planning any orchards or any other trees have to be within this building envelope. Sheds have to be within this building envelope. We're showing an ADU. There's another comment about the type of turnaround that's shown at the end of the driveway. It's roughly 600 feet long. So there will have to be a type of turnaround at the end of the driveway for plowing, delivery vehicles or whatever that may be. So we feel that 0.7 acres in this context is reasonable. I was also impressed by the concern about fallen trees. I have a very small lot. I have 80 foot evergreen surrounding me which I like very much and they begun to scare the hell out of me. Yeah, you can do a lot of damage. They do and we barely just way outside it but it was traumatic so I'll recite it. Next door to us there was a house with two little children. We had a huge, huge willow tree in one corner and we knew it needed work and we had a plan with Barrett's to come and take it down and it got delayed and delayed and a huge split piece of half the trunk fell off diagonally across the lot next door. If the kids had been in the yard, they're dead. So I don't, in other words, that point strikes me heavily for that reason and I think it's a legitimate one. If I can add to that, we have, I agree completely. It's terrifying. I've had some stuff fall very close to me when I've been working in the woods. Might not be here if I'd been a couple feet over and in a wind, as you saw our house is very close to some other trees and in a wind I sleep with one eye open. It's really possible we could get hit with that and we just today agreed to have a forester come for over $1,000 to take down a tree that's leaning towards the house but they're exceedingly dangerous of course. I would ask you this just to be cover the base. I assume the city arborist would underwrite what you're saying about the trees on your lot. Oh yeah, anyone, it would, it's just common sense. We've had the arborist out before but yeah. The other thing is we would feel a little more worried about taking down 0.7, parts of an, you know, 0.7% of an acre. If we hadn't planted so darn many trees ourselves and not only on this property but also on other properties or we've planted tens of thousands of trees. That's not really directly relevant. You're right, you're right. But I think morally, you know, I'm a big environmentalist and morally we're on the right side of it I think. Thank you though. Alison, you have to come use a mic because we have some, sorry. Oh, we've had three, yeah, we've had three. We've had the city arborist, the county forester, Ethan Tamper and now the forester we've hired. There's agreement on what we've got to do here. No worries, 20-foot apple trees wouldn't impress me the same way. I just realized that in addition to forgetting to introduce my colleagues, I did not swear you in for this hearing. Well, you know, you didn't swear them in for sketch because there's no swearing at sketch. But then we switched to conditional use. So I think it's understandable. So would any of you who agree to testify please raise your hand? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do, I do. Thank you. And does this apply to what you've said so far? Yes, it does. Always the lawyer. Thank you, Frank. All right, number three, this is related to driveway design. Question about a straight driveway to reduce the building envelope size. Yeah, so, you know, I talked about the driveways roughly 600 feet long. There will be some type of turnaround. Right now we're showing a circular driveway. We think it fits well. There is an ADU also being asked for as part of this application. We would prefer a circular drive rather than a larger hammerhead or something like that. We feel it is more, you know, reasonable for a residential use. How do they compare in terms of coverage? They're about equal. We're subject to city stormwater standards either way. But I would say they're reasonable. I would say a hammerhead is probably less, but given the context of our conversation, either one of them is gonna fit within the seven-tenths building envelope. Let me add, if, sorry. If you look at the top right of that, and even if you zoom out, you'd see it even better, how long Autumn Hill Road, our driveway is, yeah. Truckers have a very hard time on that. And see the parking space between our two buildings, between our residents and our guest house right there. It's just not enough for the oil truck sometimes, and sometimes we've got a utility truck. And so they have to back out all through the woods along that driveway, and they don't appreciate it. Not that we want a five-acre parking lot so that a 16-wheeler can turn around, but that's just, the circular driveway doesn't seem excessive to me. And if you look in the, where windswept lane ends, you can see the size of a public turnaround for a city plow truck. If you look at our circular driveway layout, obviously we're not trying to turn around city plow trucks, but it's substantially smaller, I would say, less impervious than the public-type turnaround. So I feel it's a residentially appropriate type of turnaround for that driveway. Can a fire truck get there and go around? A fire truck would not be able to make that turn, no. So they would have to back up? A fire truck would have to back up, yeah. Is there room for a fire truck to back up? Yeah, it's a 600-foot-long driveway that will be 15, 16 feet wide. We'll have a gravel base that will support a fire truck and there is the public turnaround right at the end of windswept lane. I'm sorry, there's a public turnaround on the other side of that lot. Right there, yeah. So if a fire truck came in to service this house at the end of the driveway, they would have to travel 600 feet back up, 600 feet. Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. It's not uncommon. Yeah, gotta get in quick, but usually there's not a huge rush to leave. In situations like this, the fire department does require a peck sprinkler system. Yeah, I think they're 250 feet from public right away or something like that, so we're well past that. Yeah. I'm okay with the turnaround from it. I think there has to be some kind of turnaround capacity there. This is aesthetically better, and I'm gathering that the difference between a hammerhead, for example, and this is kind of immaterial from any kind of environmental standpoint. Does anyone not agree with that? Okay, let's move on. Number four, as laid out in concurrent sketch plan application SD 2404 for the adjacent lot, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a map showing how this approach has been applied for this property, including indication of areas selected under each of the above four selection criteria. So we did submit a plan that shows this as well. Marty, if you go to the ortho one for the conditional use, the second one, second one. So it's the same exercise that we went through on the northern lot, except for it's much simpler. So the first step is any land that's not part of a hazard or level one resources where the existing house is on the north lot. We're showing in green, obviously everything here is within habitat block. So we fall under that 70% substantially covered habitat block criteria. The next step is designating land, not characterized by a preponderance of mature trees. The entire lot is wooded, so it's in the NRP. And then the next step is lands within the habitat block excluding core habitat block or areas which would sever habitat block connection. No connectors are shown within the slot, so we feel we're showing it in the most direct access route given the driveway layout shown. So we're showing it in the middle of the lot on the northern end. So what's shown in yellow is our 30% designation for habitat block modification. And if you do the math, 30% of the six acres would allow 1.8 acres. We're designating it's 0.75, it's slightly more than the building envelope because the driveway has to cross the boundary and get into the building envelope, which is why it's slightly bigger, but significantly less than a 30%. I'm sorry, there's something I didn't follow on the second point. Would you repeat the second point? So we're allowed 1.8 acres? No, not that. You went through the four criteria. Yep. You said land not characterized by preponderance of mature trees. Yep. It's all covered with trees. That's correct. No, it's not a differentiator. Right. Oh, okay. Yep. So then we go to the third category, which in this case, there's really no differentiator from anything else in the parcel other than the NRP regulations on their own require us to make minimal impact to the lot. So we're showing about half of the habitat block modification that we could be solely based on the habitat block regulations, but the NRP ones are more restrictive. So we're only designating about half the area that we otherwise could. Satisfied? Okay. Number five, these standards apply to the area outside the building envelope. In order to facilitate compliance with A, B, and C, staff recommends the board consider requiring the applicant to modify the building envelope to have easily measurable dimensions, right angles, and to be tied to permanent reference markers established in the field. So if you wanna put that plan up, Marty, we're showing the building envelope is the major dimensions are a square. So it's 156 by 208 feet. I think what this comment's referring to is the edges are rounded off. So we could square that up and add a few, maybe a 10th or two to the total buildable area. We think that either a condition of approval that the clearing limits get surveyed, get staked out prior to clearing will establish that tree line. We feel it's enforceable. If the board would rather see those edges squared off, you know, we're happy to do that. It is less impact the way we're showing it, but it seems to be a subjective regulation. Questions? One other location question. What's the purpose of not moving the buildable area? So it's contiguous with the northern lot line, which extends the driveway out an extra 25 or 30 feet. Yep. Yeah, so there is a setback that's required. The building envelope, by definition, you can cite a structure within any part of the building envelope. So building envelopes typically include setbacks. So that's the reason why it's not tugged up tight to that northern back. Wait a minute. How would the setback, what is the setback? What's the applicable setback distance? It's probably a front yard, 20 feet. How much? A front yard setback of probably 20 feet. So would that really, that doesn't explain your choice then. I mean, you'd still have plenty of room for your 20 foot setback if you moved. You're talking about moving the northern border to be co-extensive with the lot line, right? Yeah, that's how I was just curious as to why they... Yeah, I think he's... The explanation didn't register with me. Well, I took the question as, why didn't we draw the building envelope, which is that dash red line? Why does it not turn 90 degrees and follow the northern lot line, the width of what we're showing clearing and then come back to where it is? That's how I took that question. You asked the question, but I took it to mean, why is not the whole northerly limit of your buildable area co-extensive with the lot line? Because we have to consider setbacks as far as... But you don't need a 20 foot setback. Yeah. But you don't need a setback for the lot, do you? You need a setback supply to structure. It's not a subdivision. It's not a subdivision. It's just the building envelope. So does the building envelope need a setback or is this the setback part of the building envelope? Well, I mean, I suppose you could have the building envelope coincident with the lot line, but then you wouldn't be able to use the first 20 feet of it. Right, so then, okay. But you could, you know, if that's your designated area, I do kind of agree with Frank's point that it seems kind of silly to have a 20 foot area that you can't even turn into lawn between the building envelope and the lot line. I mean, you could save 20 feet of paving just by moving the whole thing, you know, if that's 20 feet. I mean, if you moved it all, do you have any objection to making a co-extensive with the lot line? No, no, whether the whole thing ships. I don't think that's the problem. It shifted north, yeah. It would make sense, I mean, from just the description standpoint as well, right? Then you can go, you know, easterly along the northern property line to the right angle and then go southerly and then go, you know, westerly. Well, he doesn't want to right angle, but. Well, I mean, how else would you describe the? You could say around the curve described that there are surveyors have a way to describe that curve. Yeah, yeah, so, yeah, and the building envelope is a zoning thing, so whether or not it's established on a plot by meets and bounds. Well, but it needs to be enforceable, right? Like if somebody from Winswept called and says, oh my God, Michelle has cleared the whole darn thing. I need to be able to go out there and say, this is where you can clear to. You can't clear this whole thing. And so that's why we were suggesting right angles. And I would say even at the expense of having a slightly larger building envelope because then it's enforceable. Whereas I can't go out there and say, this is a 30-foot arc. Well, but if it's staked, you can. I mean, I don't think that minor convenience for the enforcement entity is. Well, would you accept something that's like a permanent stake then? Yeah. Okay, because, I mean, a stake is a stake, but then like a permanent bound, even the metal type. Yeah, put a monument in there. You're going to have it surveyed, right? It's going to be surveyed. So there'll be a way, so we can have a stipulated that must be a way to distinguish the perimeter. Okay, so when I said stake it out, what I meant by that was we would go out and survey a clearing limit. We generally do that anyway, but when we... And there'd be monuments. There could be monuments. Maybe, well, okay, well, that's a good point to raise. There shall be monuments, how about that? If the board feels that's necessary, if we clear to that limit, there will be a very obvious mature tree to lawn break. And marked by monuments, right? If the board feels monumentation is necessary, that personally feels overkill. So there's something to enforce, right? Perhaps there is a monument need if you just make it right angles, right? Yeah, if the board wants right angles, that's not somewhere against if... Yeah, there is a stone wall right along that dotted line. It's quite old, but there's a stone wall there and we've been gradually cleaning out the barbed wire in there, so there are round circles, balls of barbed wire about this big every fifth you're on. Maybe that's why you're not at the property limit. No, I mean, I'd be very happy, I'm sure my wife would to move it up to the Northern boundary. The virtue of that, of course, is you save some coverage area. Yeah, you save a couple of feet of driveway. Sure, yeah, that's fine. All right, well, I don't want to preempt it. What does the board think about the squaring wall? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and my wife reminded me we wouldn't need a monument if we had the stone wall. It's substantial stone wall, I mean, I can't move the stones in there. The stone wall describes that entire square off-stirkels, circled off-square. No, it runs on east and west along the Northern boundary. Oh, it runs there. Yeah. So we could use that as the marker up to the stone wall. It's done all over New England, I'm sure. It would define the extent to the north. So what about if we, once the houses are in, what if we were required to submit a record drawing to the city that shows dimensions to the building envelope from the existing structures? Generally, we do that. We call them tie sketches. That's how the public works folks, find water shutoffs or sewer services or what have ya. You know, a zoning administrator going out there with a metal detector trying to find monuments might be tough, you know. Why isn't it a routine part of the survey? No, so we're not, this is establishing a building envelope. It's done a subdivision. So the survey will just determine where the existing lot lines are for the six acre parcel. But there's no subdivision being done here. Okay, so you don't want a technically survey. Again, we're happy to move it right up to the border. Yeah, we can move it north 20 feet. That's no problem. If the board wants us to square off the corners, that's no problem. Okay, if there's no problem, that's fine. Okay, okay. So, board, do we think we have enough information to make a decision? Well, do we need to see the revised and with the squared off buildable area? It sounds adequately specific to me that it can just be conditioned. Yeah, I think it's, and you know, squared off doesn't really change over the overall building envelope area. I mean, it goes from- It changes the area. It moves it. Oh, you're moving it up to accommodate the- I'm squaring it off, we'll increase it. Five. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. Second. Well, no one moved yet. Moved, okay. Okay. Second, thank you, Frank. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. It's carried. Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you very much for your due deliberations on this. Thank you. Should you ask for questions from the audience or? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any public comments? I have one. On line. Okay. I'm Charles Scott. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm Charles Scott. I am, I have the property just east of this lot. And I want to say that I am in favor of this. I think the idea of getting land where your child can build a house is a wonderful idea. I know this particular daughter has just gotten engaged and she and her husband will be most likely, her future husband, most likely to be selling their houses as they have two of them. And it opens up more residents for people in South Burlington. So I'm in favor of this. Very good. Thank you very much. And congratulations. Any other comments? Yes. I think we'd like you to come up so we could hear you please. Elizabeth Goldberg. We live at the end of Winswept Lane, the south end which would, about the north end of the Bulldog property. We, I am in favor of this as well. And I, we have lived next to the Bulldogs for 30 plus years and there are no better stewards to the land than the Bulldogs have demonstrated. So we are totally in favor of it. Nice. We'd like to hear that. Thank you. Good evening. Christopher Rogirio, I live at 250 Autumn Hill Road. We moved there in 2010. My wife and I and our two kids, now have two kids. We are neighbors with Vince and we bought the property from Scotty who just testified before and we are in favor of this project too. And look forward to having some more neighbors in our quiet hill. Great. Okay, thank you. Thank you. The actual applicant, I can say something as a South Burlington resident. My name is Michelle Cannon and I'm Vincent Ellison's daughter and Andrew's sister and have been a resident of South Burlington for, I grew up here, raised my children here, work right over there. And I am certainly in favor of this and have under the tutelage of my parents certainly would like to carry forward their desire to steward the property as they taught me. My children grew up in the woods there. I remember birthday parties and lots of treasure hunts and lots of child play dates in the woods. And I look forward to providing a location for future grandchildren to do that in a place for my parents as they grow older to have a place to move to. That's not quite as cumbersome as where they currently live. So, thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much and congratulations. Any other comments? Okay, thank you. The masses ended. You may go. Thank you. Go in peace. Go in peace. I have a question. Does anyone have an iPhone or iPad charger with them? I do, I can help you. I charged it before I left. You might be able to plug it into Marla's laptop. Steal a USB charge. Oh, you high tech people. Knowledgeable people. Do you think that'll work? It should. All right. If it's a powered USB. I'll plug in mine and see if it works. Quinces, plug in either. Before you do that, let me plug in mine. Charlie, this is a plug into power. It should work. I'm trying to plug my cell phone out of my laptop all the time. Okay, so you, oh, right there. Oh, right, because it's not a laptop. It's an iPad, so it might be. You just might want to plug your laptop in Marla's. This one? This one. It's one battery. It was the other. That's my quick. So my goodness, this is gonna work. Thank you. Thank you. That was fun. Yeah. Remind me to give it back to you. Thank you. So. Pull your device. Oh, you can, you know, change your life around with this stuff. Okay, agenda items. I don't have it. Hold on. Bear with me, please. Does anyone have the agenda up in front of you? Item seven. Would you read that, please? Sure. Combined preliminary and final plat application, SD244 of Gary Bourne to create a general plan unit development by resubdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.1 acre, lot one, 0.14 acre, lot two, and 1.06 acre, lot three, and constructing a 3,350 square foot financial institution on lot one, a 6,480 square foot. Now I'll turn my mic on. Square foot, two-story mixed commercial and residential building on lot two, containing two market rate units, and one inclusionary unit, and a three-story 27-unit multifamily building on lot three, of which nine units are proposed to be inclusionary, 760 Shelburne Road. Thank you, John. So welcome. Again. Would you like to introduce yourself? Again. My name's Greg Rabbeau. I'm from Rabbeau Architects here in South Burlington, representing the project, and with me also is Jennifer Desattels, the project's civil engineer from Trudell Consulting Engineer. Sure. I know that Gary Bourne, our applicant, is listening online this evening, and I believe that Jeff Nick, who is the commercial broker handling this project on the real estate end, is also with us this evening. Now, are Jeff and Gary likely to testify? I would ask Gary to swear it if he can. Okay. All right, so Gary, if you could, can we see you? There he is. There he is. All right, if you would all raise your right hand, please. Do you soundly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay. You may also want to have Kelly swearing as well. She might provide testimony. Thanks, Lucy, and Lucy as well, just in case. Kelly, who's Kelly? Kelly is the project architect representing the financial institution. Okay, Kelly, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you soundly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on your penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Okay. We've been through this many times. I'm sure you know the drill. Do you have any very brief statements before we dive into the staff report? No, I feel like there are 13 red line comments in the staff comments. Those are the issues that we will need to address as a group this evening. And they sort of roughly fall into four categories. The first category being the appearance of the bank. The second category being the project affordability component. The remaining issues are sort of site dimensional detail-y kind of things that we will address in details. We look at each of these 13 questions. Okay, let's dive in. So... Has anyone recused or completed? No. First comment. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe why did they not make any changes? The folks for the Chase Bank can talk to this directly, but I will point out that the measurements to determine the amount of glazing on those facades and the percentage of opacity was submitted in response to the staff comment. I wanted to find out that members of the board had received that forwarded item. Sorry, are you saying you submitted something new? Lucy submitted some documentation from Chase Bank that never made it to our office prior to the last submittal. We received that and submitted. Oh, so Marty can get that pulled up now. Thanks. Okay. So that's different than what we're seeing here. The Chase Bank elevation is the same. I'll let them speak to that, but the glazing question that is in the comments, there is some additional information submitted about that. And I think the architect Kelly can speak to why the elevation remained the same between the prior submittal and the submittal. There is some, I think valid reasons to describe how we get to this point. Okay. All right. Talk to us about this, please. Kelly, are you listening? Yes. So the elevations remain the same because we had submitted these similar elevations with opaque glazing at the foe to story level. And during a previous meeting, it was discussed that the board would like to see the windows as transparent so that light joins through them. And so we made that revision and after that meeting, before we made the changes from opaque glass to transparent, we had received comments in form of a final response in August of last year that stated that the board felt that the appearance of the two-story had been met and that is why we did not make any changes to the elevation. And as far as the additional documents that were submitted, that is just calculations explaining that the transparent versus opaque glazing requirements have been met as well as the ratio of glass to solid facade along Shelburne Street and the secondary street, Swift Street that has been met as well. So that is what those elevations show and they're just line drawings, elevations without color and they have the charts showing those calculations. And then there's some reasons, Kelly, as to why the air is not windows in that one section of the building that came up with this last sketch plan hearing, correct? Having to do with bathrooms in that location. So the most important reason why we would not like to put glazing at that rear portion is because that is the back of house and that is what holds the most important components of the branch, safes, cast chest, et cetera and putting glass at those areas would impact security greatly. And in a building that is already a lot of glass, a lot of areas of transparency there, we wanted to maintain a very secure area at that back of house area, which is the stone portion of the building. That is a decent functional explanation for why it's there and we have limited, as long as they're meeting the glazing percentage, I'll look tomorrow to confirm that we all, we shouldn't, you don't have to answer now, I want to get to what I want to say. Would you folks consider, I mean, this is a fairly common urban device. It's pretty in your face, the blank wall. And would you consider a mural there? You know, I just, just throwing an idea. Is that the kind of thing you might entertain to kind of spruce it up a little bit? I'm not willing to offer that. I mean, Chase can jump in if they want to, but speaking as an architect, I don't think there's anything wrong with having solid surfaces in a building. You know, the relationship between solid and transparent is one of the things we manipulate to create an image. I think the bank has taken reasonable steps to address the technical compliance aspects of that, but in the end, they should be able to present a building they'd like to build. And that's where we're at. I, you know, I don't think there's, because it's isn't to exist in a vacuum, it's part of an overall composition, most of that blank wall is gonna be facing the building next door, it's not facing the street. Frank, I would also just note at the landscape architect for the project, there is planting in front of it, so it won't be a completely solid facade from the road. There will be some planting and some vegetation in front of it that would break up that massing as well. I'm not offended by what I see there. It's not my design, so, you know, I'm not patting myself on the back to say, I think it's entirely appropriate for its location and there's plenty of glazing on that building. It's very, as the project architect said, it's pretty transparent. As they say, outside the architectural sphere, they go to us, right? I'm sorry. 10th grade Latin. Faced as a matter of dispute. That's true, and I think in this issue, the town's not trying to regulate taste as much as they are trying to. That's why I asked it, would you consider? You're welcome to propose conditions as necessary, but it's not something I would offer. So for what it's worth, the board at Sketch said that that blank wall looked like it didn't go with the rest of the building. And so the applicant at Sketch said, okay, we'll work on that. And so this comment is, well, it doesn't look like you did any work to it. It's entirely up to the board whether to require them to change it or not, but we, you know, the board had asked for something and the applicant didn't do it, so we thought it was our obligation to highlight it for the board. Well, let me ask, I mean, do we have any power in the circumstance? It's just an ask, right? They said no. No, I mean, the building is required to have the appearance of two stories. And so if the board feels like this doesn't... Oh, no, that's from that, then... But it does. Okay, nevermind, thank you. The board has previously commented that the addition of the windows on that upper portion gave the building a two-story appearance. And I think the calculations have been done. This is their answer. I would love to just come forward and say, yes, we'll do whatever you ask, but this is one of those cases where the client has asked us to defend their idea and to stand by what we've presented. Any other discussion about this issue before we move on? Number two is the regarding the width of the walkway. Let me just finish. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to modify the design to provide a direct eight-foot-wide walkway from Swift Street to the principal entrance of the multi-family building, or indicate that it is not their intention to do so, in which case staff considers the board must find this criterion, not met. I have an easy answer to this. We found a solution. We can make the sidewalk eight feet. So previously we had been stuck on the idea that it interfered with the stormwater treatment practice in that area. We decided, even though it's not ideal, to shift the entire road down three feet in order to gain that three feet. We feel like that shift is minor enough that it's not really impacting traffic flow, but accomplishes the goal of meeting the eight-foot criteria. Do you have a plan? Yes, so I was gonna ask that question. Do you have the updated glazing plans and the plans that we submitted earlier today? Okay, I have hard copies, so I could just pass those out, if that's easiest. It'd be good to show it on the screen so that we're all looking at the same thing at the same time. What was the sheet number, you know, by the name? The sheet number. You can get that. I mean, I think you can also pass it out, but I wanna make sure we have it up on the screen too. It is on the new C-201 layout and materials. And then what did you say about a glazing plan? So there was some miscommunication. So Chase Bank back in August had revised a plan to show the glazing calculations. That plan didn't make it to our office, an artist submit to you. So even though that colored elevation plan remains the same, this additional information shows the glazing calculation. But the actual glazing isn't changed, it's just showing- Showing that the glazing requirement is met or exceeded. So you're gonna show us the width of the walkway at eight feet? Yes, so on this plan in that corner next to the stormwater pond, instead of taking away from the stormwater treatment area, the road has just shifted three feet to the west towards Shelbourne Road, which allows for additional space to meet that eight foot requirement. That's better sticking point, so. Okay, thank you. Everyone happy with that? Let's still meet to the minimum distance from the intersection. Yes, it does. Yep, we were just trying to maximize that just because there's a lot of traffic in that corner, but if it needs to be done, we found a way to do it. All right, number three. This is, we have a need to know the percentage of transparent glazing. So that was submitted as part of the plan that Marty has up now. It was the same, I'm sorry. The same calculations appear on the architectural drawings prepared for the other commercial building and the residential building as well. They show up on the elevation sheets. So there's a table within the drawings that were submitted that explains that for the other two buildings on the site. We have that, Marty. Okay, good. Questions? Number four. This is about bicycle parking location. Staff recommends the board discuss and determine whether they will require improvements to the location of long-term parking in the bank building. Sure. So the project architect can speak to this about the Chase Bank building. And I know this has come up a couple of times, but the applicant would like to keep the interior bike parking as shown on the floor plan. It's in the break room, which has been questioned whether or not that's ideal. Chase Bank feels that that's the best place for it. It is required to be put inside the building. We put it inside the building. I don't think there's anything specific in the LDRs that tells us exactly where inside the building, the bike storage needs to be located internally. That's where we're proposing it. Okay. So to speak to the board's authority on this matter, you know, as Jen says, there's nothing in the LDR that says exactly where bicycle parking has to be, but there's a lot of emphasis about bike parking being convenient and forefront and whatever. And the board has a lot of authority in the case when an applicant is asking for a lot of waivers to impose additional conditions that require the project to better meet other aspects of the LDR. So please don't be afraid of asking for improvements if you feel that they're necessary. That being said, it's up to you to decide what's necessary. Well, I have a couple of questions. I gather the long-term bicycle storage that's in a building that will be strictly for employees, right? Right. Is there a required number of racks or a required area? Are they meeting that area within this inconvenient location? Yeah. Okay. So what is the downside to letting them put them? It's long-term. It's not like the employee's gonna be, by long-term I assume you mean more than a day or do you mean for the day? For the day. Oh, all right. So convenience encourages the employee to take a bike instead of a car, for example. Well, it's not nothing. Yeah, it's a reason. Staff is sort of in the same place as you, Frank. It's not nothing. It's not the biggest thing. Not the built-in dyad. Are the employees gonna have access to the building through that back door? Where I assume that's their break room? Yeah, I hope they'll have... I mean, is that where they come and go? I don't know what the chase security procedures are. They'll be a prox card reader or a request for entry device at that back door. So they'll have to use an ID or whatever to get in. But yeah, I imagine... I think it's completely reasonable to think that somebody might commute to a job here on a bike. But they're not having to drag the bike through the lobby. No, and I will tell you that most people are paying $2,000, $3,000 for a bike now and that's just for a regular non-electric bike. Bringing that into the office space is gonna happen whether we set it up that way or not, just given the value of the equipment. So yeah, I think if I was that person, that teller or whatever, wrote my bike to work every day, hanging it up in the employee break room would be fine because it's in a little alcove. It's not like it's just sort of next to the coffee table. It's a place unto itself. Not unlike a coat closet or something. I don't know how many people will be in the branch bank at one time, but if there's 10 of them and they've got three places to park a bike or something, that's pretty good in terms of utilization. And what's the table and chairs? That's a break room, is that what that is? It's adjoining a break room? That's where you eat lunch, that's basically it. What's the dimension of that room? I'd probably say that's probably 10 by 12. Okay, well it's 16 by 10 or something. There's no number there. So they're rolling the bikes from that entrance to the left. They're coming in the back entrance past the kitchenette. And roll the bike through the break room to the end. Yeah, yeah. And it'll probably be wet some days. They'll probably have to wipe it down, but... It's a little messy, huh? Yeah, I'm an avid biker. I mean, it's just the value of the bikes commends people taking care of them, really. I mean, it's conceivable that nothing would prevent, for example, putting that alcove immediately to the right as you come in the door and relocate to the entrance to the break room, isn't it? I mean, is there any practical barrier to that? Any reason I couldn't be done? I don't know the program well enough. I mean, these architects who do these branch banks specialize in them, but I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean, I guess the question is, how does that become a zoning issue? We don't really regulate the interiors of the plans, but it's a good suggestion. We can take it to them. Well, we're regulating the convenience of the bike rack, right? Well, I think Marla made the point that this project is asking for a lot of waivers. So kind of looking and thinking about the other goals of the overall development. I would echo Frank's suggestion maybe to look into that and thinking to your point of like bikes wet some days, easy to kind of like say that, but then if you're rolling your bikes or you're late for work and then the break room is like wet and muddy all day, you know, maybe it does end up being the biggest deal, but just a little bit more convenient. Not gonna super die on that hill, but it seems like a reasonable thing that would improve into your point. Someone has an expensive bike, they're gonna do it regardless, but it could just make it a little bit better for the employees who aren't riding the bike and then they're like, oh, every day our bike room or break room's all muddy or whatever it is. So, some of my thoughts on it as well. Yeah, I'm not gonna be argumentative. I completely agree with both you and Commissioner Cochman are saying, but I would like to avoid this kind of issue being a reason for us to not move forward. So if- Well, you can avoid it very easily, just comply with the reasonable request. So- And we move forward happily. Can I just say, this is one of the reasons that we asked the Chase Bank architect to be present tonight is so that the civil engineer for the project and the architect for the other buildings was not speaking and defending why the bike. Kelly is here to speak to this building. Kelly is here, so Kelly, can you please join in on the conversation? Can you explain why that's not equally feasible, why relocating to the immediately inside the entrance is not feasible? It's definitely something we can discuss with the Chase team and Chase's designers and taken to consideration. The reason why it was placed in that area to begin with is because we know that the employee lounge is secure. Secure from the front of the space and in our minds, we imagine that someone who is leaving their bike somewhere and going off to the other end of the building would wanna know that their bike is secure. And so we put it in the employee lounge for that reason tucked away behind the wing wall. Again, away from the food storage areas, but it's definitely something we can discuss with the team. I'd appreciate that. And people with $2,000 bikes typically have locks for their bike, don't they? Oh yeah, yeah. Right, oh yeah, so the security issue is in much of one. Kelly, can you confirm what Greg said that that outside door on the left-hand side of the screen will be available to employees to come in? Yeah, we would have to, again, confirm that with the designers, but it's something that we can make sure that the employees have access in and out of that space for their bikes. Again, we didn't exactly design it that way right off the bat because employees typically get there half an hour to an hour before the branch even opens. So we know that bikes would be stored and ready to go at that time, at the time that the branch does open. So they could very well go in through the main space and it's something that we can take back to the designer and confirm. Okay, any other questions before we move on to yet another bike issue? Sorry, I have one question about that issue. Is there any scenario where that relocating to the bike storage area could be a condition of approval or that would be something that? Yeah, absolutely, but if Kelly's gonna come back and say we absolutely can't do that, then where are you? So maybe we let get through everything, see where we are and then give you guys five minutes to talk amongst yourselves and see what you wanna do. Thank you. Okay, number five, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide temporary short-term bicycle parking for phase one until such time as phase two is complete. Any board finding allowing such an alternative should provide a specific location for the temporary spaces. So we would like to request a waiver for the phase one bike racks, but if the board finds that that's not acceptable, we can provide a temporary short-term bike parking area, which is shown on a document that was submitted, response document that was submitted. What do we think board? We're asking for a lot of waivers here. What do you think? Sorry, where? What is the time gap between phase one and phase two? Who knows, Frank? Honestly, given the cost of construction and interest rates right now, it's a real challenge. So I don't think we'll lead, I think phase one will happen immediately. Phase two, I don't know, it really depends on the economy. We're talking about period of years, in other words. I don't wanna make that kind of estimate, but 18 months, two years, wouldn't be surprising. Would not be surprised, would not be surprised. Or at least I would like to pursue that right. It's certainly reasonable to provide a temporary facility in the interim. And we're willing to do that. TC is showing you on a plan where that would go. Right, it was submitted in the word document, response document that Lucy submitted to your office. It's just right to the north of, right there, where the bike, that's like an expanded area that shows some additional bike parking area, where the other bike parking area is. I'm not following where it says two bike spaces. Yep, in that kind of whole corner, temporary location for four additional bike racks if waiver is not an option. So, can make it work in that location. Are we good? When we, I'm not following. That's not shown on this drawing, correct. Okay, but it's in that same area. You'd be proposing more bike storage temporarily. Right. Got two bike spaces. Right. Yeah, an additional four. Additional four. You have a written response to this question. Okay. Okay, six. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to provide information demonstrating the areas of the proposed inclusionary units. Yeah, this was on the application. It was actually on the front page of the architectural drawing sheets or the so-called cover sheet. That's all we were looking for. Point me in the right direction. Can't find everything. And so, yeah, that is in the drawings. And we're gonna, and you're gonna testify that these numbers are met and we'll take your word for it and confirm that later. Right? No, we've... In some inhabitable area. Yeah, we've spelled out the area of the units and the relationship between them and the market rate units. That's in a tabular form in the drawings. Great. Okay. Number seven is about affordable rent. Seven. No such testament has been made here. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify. Staff notes, the computation of housing costs must include rent and utilities pursuant to 18.01 D per ends one. So I did submit separately and I think it was also included in your response package, a memo dated April 12, intended to address questions six, seven, eight and nine, which are all related to the affordable housing question. What I can say is that we did provide the calculations for each size unit based on the formula of allowable income times 30% divided by 12, which is basically a monthly income, allowable to go towards rent. And then in the second part of the chart, it spells out what that means in terms of a studio, one bedroom, a two bedroom or a three bedroom. What affordable is. Affordable is not a fixed thing though. It's gonna change over the life of the project. And I think it needs to be understood that the way your laws are set up, the city will promulgate a form that goes to landlords and they'll have to fill that out annually through the city manager's office. So I've shown the fiscal year 23 income limits because that is the most current published data by the government right now. Sometime this year there will be a fiscal year 24 income limit. These numbers may change slightly because of that, but over the life of the project, that will be the mechanism. And so for instance, an affordable studio apartment would have one occupant and the current affordable rent for a studio apartment is $1,590 a month. I realize I'm way out of date from when I was intimately involved in affordable housing when the numbers were set right here. Every median income for one person is $80,000 and roughly $80,000. The income. Yeah, I see what's on the chart. Right, right, right. But I'm asking you to confirm. For South Burlington, Burlington metropolitan area, reporting area, yeah, that's what's reported as median income. I know, yeah. I mean, the rents are shocking to me. My first apartment was $400 a month. Oh, the income is shocking to me. Yeah, the numbers change over time, yeah. And this is HUD published? Yeah, this is government information, this is in ours. Wow. So coming out of articles, out of comments seven, comment eight and nine relate to the long-term management plan and the legal documents. And this same document that I've pulled up contains the responses to those staff comments as well. The, in this case, it's a rental project which makes the whole discussion a lot, lot simpler. There won't be a lot of legal documents. In fact, I'm not aware of any document that the applicant would create apart from the permit that you give him that would create this requirement and sustain it over time. The city will promulgate the annual reporting form or at least that's how the regs are written. So the documents that sort of govern this transaction will come from your side of the table. But I assume that's it. I agree with you. I mean, the legal documents at least. The legal document is a affordability covenant that gets recorded in the land records. Oh, has legal counsel prepared that? I mean, do you have it? No, the applicant prepares it and they in fact prepared it for the other application. I was just surprised they didn't resubmit the same darn thing. I was confused by that then. All right, so this is not a standard covenant that our council's office produces. We are trying to get there. Trying to get there? Well, all right, so that would be something I guess you got to satisfy. Yeah, fine, I mean, if it's just submit the document. I mean, are you happy with what you had submitted before? Yeah, I'd have to say we are, so. Would the board accept it if staff transferred the document that they're saying they'd be okay with from the old application to this application? Yeah. Well, I mean, has our council passed on the covenant? It's no, but it's only required that they submit a draft legal document and it was looked to be generally the right thing. And so at the previous denied application, the board found this criteria met. I mean, if they submitted something that said like, we would like to order pizza for lunch, the board probably would have said this is not acceptable, but they submitted something that was generally on the right track. With a commitment to execute it and record it? Yeah. If the board would accept that, I think that would be acceptable. How do we address that in the decision? Let me say, shall executor record an affordability covenant substantially in the form submitted to the board, something like that? Tell you what? How do we address that? Why don't I pull it up on the screen and then you can say that it was shown into the record? Thank you, Marla. So, oh boy, let me move the things here. All right, I wasn't prepared to show my screen. So this was the document that was originally submitted. Got some warehousing, affordable housing covenant. They agree, it's gonna have to be changed to be the correct number of units. But again, this is draft and the warehousing is generally on the right track. Keep going. So it's really shall be rented to inhabitants and meet the affordable income limits. Shall be affordable and perpetuity. Income limits are as defined. For example, as Greg said, it changes. Okay, so what I'm asking is how does that get incorporated? Does that get incorporated into our permit? So the permit, the decision will say the applicant shall finalize the draft affordability documents to the satisfaction of the city attorney and record them prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Perfectly reasonable. Thank you for that view. That's very helpful. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right, I think we've covered eight and nine and so we move on to 10. This is about the mix of bedrooms. The applicant agreed to do this. However, with the submission, the applicant has not made any changes to the proposal and instead continues to propose 29 two-bedroom units and one one-bedroom unit. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to confirm it was their intention not to make modifications to address the sketch plan comments of the board. No, I think there might have been some discrepancy in the filings because the table that I described to you earlier that breaks down the size and location of each unit in the building includes a one-bedroom and a three-bedroom for the 27-unit building in the back. So we did address that issue. The staff comment says several units, but I think you'll recall at the hearing that Commissioner Coakman suggested as long as we provided some that that would meet the requirement. Did you submit a new floor plan? Because we looked at the floor plan for the multi-family building and it looked like there were still all new bedrooms. I know Gary Bourne testified that creating a lot of, a number of three bedrooms can be problematic. Yeah, and I'll second that. Oh, well, I'm sorry. So we'll lie. Ours are probably way at the bottom. Oh, there it is. So on the center of that plan, on the bottom of the plan, there's a, you can see where we combined a three-bedroom in it. We took two-two bedrooms and turned it into a one and a three. So you have two ones and a three for your diversity? We took two twos and made a one and a three out of it. No, but the overall count. One one, one three, and 25 twos. Good enough for me. Let me short speech. I don't think we should, as long as we can meet the letter of the regulation in this respect, I think this is really a market judgment. I mean, this really is a market judgment to the developer. And beyond that, philosophically, I don't know that we want to be compelling. Something that's been proposed here that wasn't much in favor of, 40, 30, 450 units, 450 square foot, basically an SRO. The idea of having moderate-sized family apartments able to house a couple and a couple of children is makes a lot of sense to me. That's my speech. Okay, are we ready to move on? How would you feel about this one, Don? Do you do housing? I do housing. Well, I mean, I understand the three-bedroom dilemma. I also understand that a family with two kids might need three bedrooms. But I, you know, from a builder standpoint or a renter standpoint, I know that that can be a headache. So I'm of two minds. But I also know we get, Habitat gets a lot of applications from for one-bedroom units. So I don't know what to say. I mean, it's pretty clear from my many, many years in the housing market that people would rather have a two or a three-bedroom unit. People are renting studios in one bedrooms because that's what they can afford. I think creating more product in general is helping. We're not going fast enough, but I think another 27 units into the inventory is a positive, especially since 30% of them are going to be inclusionary units. And there's always bunk beds. Yeah, right. Okay, ready? Okay, whoops, on page 29. This is about landscaping among the parking lot. Did provide some additional documentation to show that we meet this requirement. Okay, do we want to see it? I don't know if the green space behind the dumpster really counts as interior parking lot landscaping. No, nor would I count the green space along the North Driveway. Sorry, I'm trying to get to the section myself so I can read the numbers. Where's the dumpster? Bottom right. Oh, right, right. Oh yeah, they should, it says there should be islands planted with trees. Right. I don't know if any of that. Right. So I guess what I can say about that is, I think we're a little over. So I'm not sure that the dumpster space needs to be counted, but we do have a tremendous amount of landscaping and really cool walls and site features, including those seagulls to try to bring this whole site together and make it look really nice. So I know that this is a requirement that needs to be met. So we're showing how we meet that on this site, but I do really think that overall the site is tight. We're getting a lot of housing here and we worked really hard to make it look aesthetically pleasing and meet this requirement. Also, I would just say Marla, if you don't think that the, some of those pieces should be included and it's interior parking lot, then I would propose to, I mean, we've talked about this before, it's kind of a subjective calculation. So I would modify, take like, that dry vial isn't exactly all interior parking. So I think we would lose a lot of that impervious surface and we would still meet the requirements. And if that's something you'd like us to recalculate, I'm happy to do that. I would agree with you, Lucy. I would say neither does the green space above the driveway nor does the driveway need to be included. So yeah, and this is consistent with what we had done at the last, our last calculation. So I wanted to maintain a consistency with that, but I do believe that we're gonna be, we're over here and if we remove that amount of impervious, so I'm happy to redo that calculation based on those comments, if that's helpful. So are you talking about taking away a few parking spaces? No, I'm talking about Marty, maybe it's the Northern Drive Isle, if you have got the cursor, yeah, removing that, because I think the goal of the regulation is the interior parking island. And so I was really kind of counting this drive isle, which is not exactly part of the interior parking area, it's access drive. So Don, I'm proposing to recalculate this based on the removal of some of these that may not be considered part of the interior parking. But Marla- Because it's about contiguous spaces. Marla, Marty, I mean, it's kind of nice from a public standpoint, isn't it kind of nice? No, so I'm just, nothing will change except how I interpret the numbers for the regulation. We won't change any of the parking spaces. I would just make sure that what we're proposing meets the needs with a slightly different interpretation of what the interior parking island is. Basa, Marla, do you agree with what I'm saying? Yeah, so you'd be, so the calculation is 10% of the interior of the parking area. So you'd be removing both the, some area from the denominator, the parking area and some area from the numerator, the green space. Correct. I guess I would say that if the board was okay with that as being a condition, I would want there to be sort of a backup plan and I would propose that backup plan. If that number doesn't work out, you remove the drive aisle. I can also see removing the drive aisle at the bottom to the garage entrance, like that corner. So if you went from the corner of the green little thumb to the corner, yeah, it's diagonal like Marty just showed. I could see removing that whole thing too. If those numbers don't work out, the condition would be to remove a parking space from the middle, probably where the number 15 is and make that into an island. You sound confident that both by making those adjustments, it would still meet. And so the repercussion would be you lose a parking space. Yeah, I am pretty confident that it would meet the 10% based on what we're discussing here. I would also though like to maybe have, if it didn't, I'd like to have a little bit of flexibility to where that green space goes. And maybe I think there was a question about if they're planted islands and this doesn't show the landscaping, but there are, we do meet all the street, or all of our interior kind of tree requirements for shade tree to, so these green spaces do have trees. So I might propose to expand, I mean, I'd like the flexibility to expand one of those green spaces to provide a larger spot maybe than breaking it up. But if there's a little flexibility, that'd be great, if not, and you want to do it right in the middle, that's also okay. I have a question for Marlon and for Lucy. I think I heard you say, but part of what you would do is remove the tree line along the Northern driveway, is that right? They're still gonna keep it. Oh, you're still gonna keep it. I see good because I really like that public perspective, that's an amenity virtually. If you're coming down to Swift Street, you're looking at the trees instead of the parking lot. I totally agree with you, Frank. No, not proposing to add any trees. I think the end result of this discussion would just be potentially the addition of green space if needed interior to the parking areas. Would the board find that acceptable to make that a condition of approval? It sounds like Marlon and Lucy have a solution that would work, change in the calculation. And if not, we would need to make it work. It seems like there's a pretty obvious solution of removing an additional impervious, removing a parking space if necessary as a backup plan. So it sounds like on that front, Lucy said it flexibility would be preferred. So as far as a condition of approval, if we went that route, would we have to be a bit more descriptive or? Yeah, I think that the likelihood of that coming up is actually pretty low. Though it does occur to me that Northern bike parking was where you said you were gonna put the additional temp parking. So that area will be expanded and so the green space will be temporarily reduced in phase one. Lucy, where would you want to add green space if you really had to? I don't think it's going to have to happen, but backup plan, where would you want to do it? I guess I was wondering either on the North or Southern on the residential, so the East side, one of those end caps making that just a larger island. Yeah, either that Southern spot or the Northern spot. But as we continue to move through, I'm gonna crunch a couple of numbers also. I mean, but if the board feels strong, they should go in the middle. I'm not gonna. No. We can continue and loop back if you want to do your number crunching and decide. All right, that's what I'm controlled with. You could, we good board? You're missing a slither of green space along that walkway on the South side. I think you can add to your calculation. Okay, I will do that. Thank you. All right, let's see. Number 12. This is, I can't read my writing. The board, are we still on 12? Snow removal, that's right, and protecting sensitive vegetation. What is an alternative plan? I'm closing, sorry, thank you. We would like to propose that most of it, we think that most of it will be removed. I mean, there's definitely not enough space in the landscape beds to dump all of the snow every time it snows here. So I think the plan is for the majority of it to be taken off site. And I think, we had shown some areas of onsite storage, I think for small snow events. But how would we describe that in the permit? Sorry, trying to get to that. Yeah, Jen, I'm sorry, the problem was that when I did a word search for the word snow on the plans, the only instance of the word snow I found was in a note. Right, I think we were, I don't know that it specifically called out on the plans. So I think in prior hearings, we had discussed removing it from the site. Yeah, it shows up on C200. It says snow storage note, snow will be stored in onsite landscaping beds. Thanks. Right, so the comment staff, so that's excerpt, even the staff report snow will be stored, snow will be stored onsite in landscape beds in green spaces where feasible snow cannot be stored onsite will be removed. And then the comment is, if you're gonna be putting your snow in your landscape bed, are you just setting yourself up to fail with your landscape bed? I don't think so. So I think that statement still applies that in small events, maybe it would be stored in some of the landscape areas and then certainly the vast majority of it in a large snow event would have to be removed from the site. I mean, I think since parking is so tight on this site, I mean, in some of those large South Burlington parking lots that were designed with tons of parking, you can just dump it all to the middle of the parking area and it stays this giant snow pile all winter long that comes and goes. And in this site, that's just not feasible. We need all of the parking spaces that are shown here onsite. So the only reason I think that was discussed as an option to leave some of it in landscape beds was for if we get two inches of snow are really gonna be removing a bucket or to load full of snow and moving it to a different location, probably not, but in larger snow events, I would anticipate that most of it would be taken off site. I could also just add that there are, so we definitely do try to choose plants that are salt tolerant and hardy to this type of condition. So I think to emphasize what Jen's saying where there are smaller snowfall that they could be stored on some of these herbaceous planting areas. And Marla, to your point, we did add a strip along the northern piece of the access drive where it is a lawn area and that could act as snow storage year-round to have a more designated spot. So I think that's how we've tried to approach that. Thanks, Lucy. And is it getting too granular to talk about a temporary storage scenario? If we do get a really large storm event over multiple days, you're gonna have trucks out there plowing every so often. You're not gonna have a loader to haul it off site immediately. You'd assume that you'd wanna do that at the end of the storm event. Right, so I think the location that Lucy just mentioned where it's grass. Maybe we're looking at this too narrowly. I mean, you do have, isn't there a management plan that's been requested, Marla? Didn't I see something that mentioned in here of a management plan for the property? Management for the affordability. Only for that, right? So we don't have a general requirement, but they tell us how they're gonna maintain the property or anything like that. Because what I was thinking was, if they have an affirmative obligation to keep up the landscaping, then they're gonna use reasonable judgment on how much snow they allow to accumulate anyway. It's disincentive to... It's a disincentive to harm the vegetation and an incentive to remove the snow when it starts to get serious, right? Is there, don't just follow up on that. Is there any obligation for them to clear all the spots? So can we make that a condition that they need to keep the parking spots clear, reasonably clear? So if they wanna store it on site, they can. If they can't, then they gotta move it off site. My concern would be, hey, it's cheaper if we just pile it up and take up half the parking and the residents. I would advise against that. You are prohibited from requiring more than one parking space per unit and there are 27 parking spaces under the building. So if they have three that are kept clear, they are in compliance with the law. But I don't imagine that would be the case. John, you make a good point. I think parking is tight on the site outside of the underground parking. So I think the land owner, since he plans to retain this property himself, will have some incentive to take care of snow removal on the site. Are we ready to move on? Now we're on 13. The board, this is illumination. Board in its decision, SD 2305 directed the applicant to reduce illumination levels over the self-property line to a .3 foot candle maximum and at the East entrance to the bank to more than eight to 10 foot candles. While this application has lower numbers, they do not adhere to the specific conditions established in SD 2305. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to meet those requirements. This one also has an easy answer. We were able to update the landscape or the lighting plan noting those concerns that staff had and we resubmitted a new lighting plan late last night at first thing this morning. So I think that Marty has that in his package here. Submitted to staff? Yes. So I think the comment is based on the original submittal a month ago. Yes. You look puzzled, don't I? Yeah. Oh, are you okay with this? Okay, okay. Let's see if there are any public comments. Hearing none. I would entertain. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Oops. Because remember there was a discussion about the bike parking and wanted to give them, you got, see how everything else went, see if there were any other outstanding conditions. That's right, thank you. And then we were gonna give them a minute to go pow-wow in the hallway and decide if they can live with that condition. Okay. I'd also like to say that there are some comments about public works and the water, SharePoint Water District. We were able to meet all of those conditions. We resubmitted plans because we didn't want that to be something that hung up this application. So shall you go pow-wow? I wanna be sure we're powering the right issue. This is specifically related to the issue of Chase revising their floor plans for the bike storage or am I on the wrong issue? Yes, that and making it so people could use the entrance closest to the bike storage, right? Okay. I think as much as Greg and I would like to make that decision, I don't know that we're at liberty to do so. The person I think that's ultimately responsible for agreeing to that is Kelly, the Chase Bank architect. Okay, Kelly before you leap, let me ask a question. So I wanna frame the issue. The choice they're facing is, consent to this, if you can't consent to the condition today, then the alternative is a continuance, is that correct? Well, so that's your choice, a continuance or a consent to the condition. Well, I do wanna say thank you to the board for all the time they've spent on this. For those of us who have been along for the whole journey, it's been about four years. And I think what's important to remember is that the basic concept of the project hasn't really changed over that period of time. We've been sort of slugging it out over small things. But the small things are what add up to make good projects. So no complaints here, but I think the project is a good project for South Burlington. And I would really like to ask that you consider moving forward because we're trying to keep Chase engaged. We're trying to, we don't want this to come unspun. So if you're telling me but for that issue, and then I would say, well, we'll take what conditions you think are appropriate and we'll take it up with Chase. We're talking about an internal change to their floor plan. And I'd like to say, particularly to Mr. Bourne, who I think has been making an effort. We understand, I believe, that where the pressure on the changes, the resistance to change is coming from. We acknowledge that difficulty. We have a job here, we do it the best of our ability. But we think Mr. Bourne has acted in good faith and is proposing a significant improvement to that corner of South Burlington. At Burlington in a while, it may not have appeared at times. I think we appreciate it. Thank you for those words. I would like to ask the board to respectfully reconsider one aspect of this ask. And that is that the back of house area not only holds the secure lounge where the employees are going to leave their bikes and be sure that their bikes are going to be safe from weather, which is really what the code references. But it also houses the IT room. And Chase has a security team that goes beyond us the architect working with Chase's designers. They have a plethora of rules and regulations that everyone has to follow in order to ensure the safety of their IT room. And that is the reason why we can't just agree to make that door an entry exit for even if it's just where employees with a key card or whatever it may be, because there's also landscaping to take into consideration. There could be people hiding behind a bush. I'm just imagining any kind of situation that the security team usually uses as an example in these scenarios. And so I can really foresee Chase not liking that idea. It's something that we can all discuss. But like I said, it goes beyond Chase's designers. It goes up to their security team on a national level. And that is the reason why it's not an easy yes or no. Don, can I recommend Astral vote on this for us? Because I'm against doing this, forcing this issue. Because I just don't see it being as important. Okay. So you don't see having the bike stored in the break room as a big deal. I mean, I agree that they should be stored in a safe, secure place in the building. But I don't think it needs to be shifted towards the entrance to that room. Okay. The way they have it depicted is fine with me. I mean, they don't actually have to park their bike right there in that storage area either, right? They could just put it on the other side. I mean, we're trying to regulate things that are going to occur inside a building, right? Okay. I guess I am not strongly opinionated about this. Okay. Thank you for asking for a straw poll. So, shall we take a straw poll? Could I ask Kelly a question first? Cause I'm not sure I fully understood her comment. Are you saying that requiring employees to be able to entrance through that door interferes with IT security or security of the building? I mean, how does that interfere with security? I don't get it. Sure. The entrance is always used as an egress only for life safety. Employees are never allowed to go in through that door. And that is mainly because the IT room is in that back of house area. And I guess the way they do it is if you look at the plan, there's a secure door on the inside leading into that back of house space. And that egress door, that exterior door is exit only. That means that they just try to maximize protection around the areas that are leading up to their IT room. And that's why that door is never an entry exit. So where is the IT room? To the left of that door, where is the IT room? The IT room is actually next to the bike racks. Yeah. Is there all the way back there? Correct. And letting employees in that door is going to jeopardize the IT room. These are just rules that we follow that have been established on a national level on all their banks, yeah. It provides a secure back of house space and it just provides another layer of protection before reaching the IT room. So when people come with their bicycles, where are they going to enter the building? If we go, they'll enter there and they have to take their bikes all the way through the building. Wow. They can't come in through that other opening? That's what she's saying is a contrary to national standards of the bank. And that can't be changed. Basically saying it's fiery grass. Fiery grass. And I understand what she's saying, having worked for large companies before. And to Charlie's point, which I think is perfectly valid, what I don't like about this is I think putting the bicycle storage where it is is making it much more difficult for employees to want to bike in. I can see the managers having a lot of trouble with trekking a dripping wet bike through the main lobby all the way in the back and locking it up. Is this the hill I want to die on, as Quinn mentioned before? Do we torpedo the project for it? No, but I think it really does defeat the whole spirit of what we're trying to do, which is to make it more convenient. Given this information, it would have made a lot more sense to have put that right off the main entrance in some sort of locked closet. And then employees could have just locked the bikes in that closet and gone in. Yeah, I'll chime in with a similar sentiment as I spoke on this earlier. And I think before when we had the discussion, it seemed we were circling back to this for a reason to see one if there is any other issues that were maybe going to hold this open. I similarly don't think it's, I'm landing on the side, I don't think it's necessarily worth continuation, especially the additional testimony that's been provided when we talked about it early in the evening. It sounded like that was something that could be checked on and maybe the employees could use that. And it seems, you know, now it's kind of being presented differently. So given that we don't have any other, items that are really prompting a continuation, so much to John, I would like to see it more user friendly, but that's how it is at this point. And so I would feel comfortable closing and hear from the other board members. So straw poll, still want that, Charlie? It looks, it sounds like three of the members are okay with closing. Okay, all right. So to just gauge what they just said, so. Well, I'm sort of wiggling because I understand Kelly's point. I mean, I've represented large companies and you can bang your head against the wall. No issue for me, I'll close. Is there some kind of soft condition we could propose that would be strongly encouraged them to have a discussion? So I, sorry. I redesigned or something. I wonder if that's something we can sort out in deliberation, like we have enough information and then if we wanted to do a soft condition that we think when it. I'll fold them, I'll go with Charlie. Okay. Any public comment? I think we've asked for that already. Okay. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close this. Lucy, have any luck recalculating her landscaping? Yeah, your timing is just so good. I actually just sent a snip to Marty really quick to see, you know, what areas, this is an area I tried to be generous on what is considered the interior parking. I don't know, Marty, if you're able to bring that out. Hang on, we're working on this. We never shared a snip before. I know, I kind of just fast and loose. It was just put it in the chat to Marty to see if that could, there we go. So that's the revised piece. I tried to be generous with what's considered the interior parking island, as you can see, including the handicap and the required interior space would be 1,527 and the proposed is 1,700 with those green areas. I did include where those bike parking spaces would be at the northwest corner of the parking lot as well. So I did exclude those from the calculation. Thanks, Lucy. Okay, anything else? Can you send this to us as a more formal submission? Absolutely, thank you. Great. Okay, anything else before we entertain a motion to close the hearing? Has public had a shot yet? Yes. Entertain a motion. Move to close. Thank you, John. Second. Thank you, Charlie. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion is carried. Thank you for so much. Thank you for your patience. Firebrake. So there's three sets of minutes in the packet. Some of them were, well, they're consecutive, but they feel like they were a long time ago because there was no first meeting in April. February 20th, was that the meeting that was upstairs? And then March 5th was town meeting day and then March 19th was the last real meeting. And you do have enough reform if you want to proceed. Well, Stephanie is out of the room. I will move that the minutes be adopted. Oh, second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, the minutes are adopted as presented. Okay, great. Thank you. The meeting is over. Okay, great. The meeting is ended.