 Good evening all. Welcome to the Williston Development Review Board. Today is October 12th, 2021. I'm Pete Kelly, Chair of the DRB. Welcome to the applicants and the public participants. Please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar or commenting in the chat. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at the town hall or police station. In this case, it's the police station. The police station meeting room and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call and accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to October 26, 2021. Let's start by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Premier. Scott Riley. Here. David Saladino. David Saladino is expected to be arriving shortly. So we'll watch out for him and announce when he joins the meeting. David Turner. Present. And myself, Pete Kelly. So with Mr. Saladino, we are expecting six participants. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Emily, for our little Zoom tutorial. Yeah, so welcome everybody to the DRB meeting in person and in Zoom. For the participants who are here in the meeting room, please keep your microphone off, your camera off, and your speaker off to avoid feedback. If you're joining remotely, there's a bunch of stuff happening on your toolbar, keeping your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. Your video can also be off. Video on is optional. If you're having any technical difficulties, you can use the chat to let us know that you'd like to speak. You can also press the raise hand button on your toolbar if you'd like to speak. For telephone participants, press star nine to raise hand and star six to mute or unmute. We will be using screen share tonight. You can optimize your view at the green toolbar. Click view options inside by side mode. You can use the slider bar to prioritize the videos or the PowerPoint presentation. If you're having a bad internet connection, you can try turning off your video, closing other tabs or programs. You can also use your telephone as your speaker and microphone by clicking the up arrow on your toolbar next to the microphone. If you have any questions during the meeting, you can chat to me or Simon and we'll be able to help you out. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. We've got three items on the agenda tonight, DP 21-20, TAF Corners Associates, DP 21-17, Champlain Housing Trust, and DP 21-19 GP, GPALLC, Kara Patrick O'Brien. First up is a public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to address the board on topics not covered in tonight's agenda. If you would please raise your hand on Zoom, if you would like to make a public comment, please. No chats and no raise hands. Okay. First up is DP 21-20, TAF Corners Associates. This, we're going to officially open at 706-707. However, this is going to be immediately continued until the DRV meeting scheduled for November 23rd, 2021. So with that, we'll transition to the second application for tonight, DP 21-17, Champlain Housing Trust. Who is in attendance from the applicant? I am Dan Goldsmith. Dan, if you would give your address for the record, please. 119 Caroline Street in Burlington, Vermont. Thank you, Dan. And Andy, you're here as well. Okay. If you could say your name and address for the record, please. Andy Rowler of Dickinson, working for Strigasics. Thank you. Is Miranda present tonight? My understanding was that Miranda was supposed to be in attendance in person. I'm not sure if she's late or what. I haven't heard anything. Okay. Okay. Well, she is currently not here. Let me check my email. We're going to take pause for a moment. Well, he checks her email. She did email earlier asking about it, and I said to plan on seven because this would be pretty first up. But I haven't heard that. Okay. We're going to hit the pause button for a moment. Andy, would you please go out and just see if there's some confusion about the location, if she's outside, please? She can blame Southwest Airlines for missing the meeting. Please tell Miranda. We'll give Andy a moment to come back and report in. That's okay. Send out a search party for you. All right. Welcome. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. All right. Okay. Staff is first. All right. So this is a request for discretionary permit to convert an existing hotel to residential dwelling units. The units will be studios or one bedrooms. The site is currently developed with two buildings, parking, and related apartments. No major site layout or building modifications are proposed. The current site is 2.45 acres. The use is commercial. They're proposing residential and has access on towers located in the Taft Corner Zoning District. Tonight, staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing and approve this application. There are some findings, conclusions, and conditions related to parking, landscaping, outdoor lighting, as well as the growth management exemption for the DRB's consideration. Project History. This lot was created in 1997, and that's when the hotel was developed as well. This went through pre-application review in August. The Conservation Commission and Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee did not review this application, given the nature of the development. Public Works, Fire, and Police commented on this application. We included the Public Works and Fire comments and the conditions of approval. However, we excluded the Police Department because their comment letter primarily deals with the management and enforcement of the town's parking policy and winter parking ban, which is outside the DRB's and the zoning administrator's scope of review. There was one comment letter received at the time of mail-out, and there were two comment letters received after the mail-out, one from Phillip Provincher, who's here tonight, and one from Brett Krabowski. Here is a summary of the pre-application recommendations. The applicant has responded to the majority of them. In particular, there was a recommendation about additional parking expansion for bicycles, as well as outdoor trash receptacles in the patio areas, and they provided that information. This is the Tap Corner zoning district where residential uses are allowed and encouraged. There also is an accessory use of property management and residence services. Both are allowed in that zoning district, and they are allowed as accessory uses. There'll be an on-site property manager and a residence service coordinator, as well as an on-site overnight presence accessory to the residential apartment building. No site layout changes are proposed. The existing building and parking areas will remain. This proposal does comply with the development pattern standards of the Tap Corner zoning district. At pre-application, we noted a requirement for direct pedestrian connection to the principal building entrances, so they've shown on their site plan additional sidewalks from the parking lot to day lane, and the 509 criteria do not apply to redevelopment only new development. Here, we quote the DRV's ability to correct non-conformity section 2.8 of the zoning bylaws. The applicant is correcting the access non-conformity by constructing sidewalks along Zebra Road. There is some information about outdoor lighting and then steeping that will go over later. Some minor non-conformities where staff is recommending the non-conformities remain as is because this site was developed prior to the existing bylaw. For growth management, 71 units are proposed to be affordable at or below 80% area median income, and that 72nd unit will be an element of that property management social assistance accessory use. We have drafted findings and conclusions for this exemption because units below 80% AMI are exempt from growth management allocation, so this project is proceeding from pre-application to discretionary permit without going to growth management in March. They've provided their housing subsidy covenant by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board that will restrict the prices of those units, and they also go above and beyond real estate zoning and limit the income, whereas our zoning is only based on that sale price or rental price of the units. All in all, they comply with growth management. Access, bicycle and pedestrian access complies as proposed. Public Works did comment about the right-of-way with the sidewalk along Zebra Road, and we have been, it looks like Dave Saladino is turning in from the waiting room. He was Public Works and the applicant are working together on that sidewalk along Zebra Road. The vehicular access complies as proposed. It does have two curb cuts, one on Zebra, one on Daylane. At pre-application, it was requested that they provide a study about the vision triangles with Daylane, and they've identified that four parking spaces should be eliminated in order to improve the site distances. At traffic studies, at pre-application, Public Works did not request a traffic study, nor did the DRV require one. Overall, the purpose of the traffic study is to look at if vehicle trips would warrant intersection improvements to manage traffic delays. The applicant did provide a memo about vehicle trip generation. Overall, multi-family housing generates fewer PMP power trips than a hotel. Off-street parking and loading. We're making a specific recommendation about this, and there is a variation from the standard parking table. So we are recommending that the DRV approve 106 on-site parking spaces, and we've identified plus or minus for ADA with an additional 26 on-street parking spaces as an offset. After comparing the proposed use to a similar use, senior housing and the ITE parking generation manual, as permitted by 1423, staff determines that the existing 106 parking spaces are sufficient. Even if one or two spaces were lost to accommodate a 5th ADA space, 95 to 106 parking spaces are sufficient. 95 spaces would be required at the ITE rate of 1.31 spaces per unit, and Champlain Housing Trust formula estimates a demand for 90 parking spaces, both of which are below the existing 106. So what 1423 in the bylaw says is the required number of off-street parking spaces shall be determined by the administrator for DRV, based on the similarity of the proposed use to one or more uses listed in table 14.a and the ITE parking generation. We're recommending compliance as proposed. They include 26 on-street parking spaces, which is above and beyond as an additional offset. Our bylaw requires 1.75 spaces per unit and a multi-family dwelling, which would be 126 spaces. Champlain Housing Trust portfolio of 2,500 multi-family units in the Chittenden County area, a varied bedroom count, based on their portfolio, they require one space per unit plus one visitor space for every 40 units. That's how they get to 90 spaces. What was noted in their parking memo, what we summarize here, is table 14.a doesn't differentiate on the number of bedrooms, nor does it account for affordable multi-family housing. So that rate of 1.75 spaces per unit in table 14.a is the same whether it's applied to a three-bedroom unit or one bedroom or studio unit. And the ITE parking manual estimates 1.31 spaces per unit or 0.75 spaces per bedroom. Therefore, we're finding that the existing parking will comply with 14.23 in the bylaw. Accessible parking. Final plans must specify accessible parking in compliance with the Federal ADA recommendations. The site has four spaces. Table 14.b would require five. If the applicant would like 40 or ADA spaces, then they must demonstrate that that complies the Federal requirements. And shared parking also that complies as proposed so that accessory use of an on-site property manager and on-site residential services would be considered office. And it can share with the residential parking and no additional parking is needed because offices their peak demand is weekday's daytime whereas the residential peak demand is in the nights and weekends. Bicycle parking in and of trip facilities. There's condition number nine to require final plans, have specifications for the long-term bicycle storage and the placement of short-term bicycle racks on the patio. In short, we need to know where that that indoor room will be for bicycle storage. At pre-application, the DRV requested plans for bicycle parking expansion. The applicant proposed the new racks near one of the buildings and the expansion area near the other building. What we're recommending is that the proposed racks and the future expansion racks be equally distributed between both buildings and that they should be located to the side of the patio areas not centers so the patios can be usable outdoor space for residents. Fairly minor but we've included a condition of approval. And final plans for end-of-trip facilities they are not required for residential uses. Here's the parking table that summarizes their parking. Our bylaw would require 1.75 spaces per unit. We're finding that 106 complies with 26 on-street as an additional offset. On-site infrastructure, this property served by municipal water and sewer and no changes to the utility connections are proposed. They have adequate sewer allocation. Maintenance, there's a specific condition of approval. For litter it complies as proposed. As requested at pre-app, they've shown trust receptacles outdoors on the patio areas. Snow storage and condition is included. They've provided snow storage on their site plan. However, DPW commented that it's too small and in the past maintenance has plowed sidewalk snow onto the sidewalk on day lane. So final plans must show adequate snow storage area and or plan for off-site removal of snow to the satisfaction of public works. Solid waste also complies as proposed. They have a screened dumpster enclosure on the northwest for off-site. The applicant should be aware that if more trash or recycling dumpsters are needed in the future they must also be screened. Density transfer of development rights. So this complies with density as proposed. I will note that there is an error here instead of 24 studios and 48 one-bedrooms. There's 29 studios and 43 one-bedrooms. 71 units will be perpetually affordable at or below 80 percent area median income and that 72nd unit is reserved for the on-site manager stack housing. Final plans must include a report comparing the rented prices to the median household income for Chittin County as defined by the Department of Housing and Development. Now what follows is the density calculation 15 dwelling units per acre where a studio or one bedroom is a half dwelling unit of footway. Landscaping, we're recommending a specific condition here. We're recommending that the landscaper main as is and not require the applicant to correct the non-conformities. They provided a site plan that documents existing vegetation. There's some portions where there's a partial buffer or no buffer. This is primarily along the abutting where they abut a commercial property and a neighboring residential apartment building and we're recommending that it remain as is. Street trees complies as proposed. So their north and east property lines are along public ways and they have street trees in compliance with chapter 26. There will be four trees that are removed and replanted when the new sidewalk goes in along Zephyr Road. Signs and no master sign plan is proposed nor required. There's a statement about impact fees and their assessment and administrative permit and outdoor lighting. We're also recommending that this remain as is and not require the applicant to correct the non-conformities. The level of non-conformity is minor. Some fixtures and the uniformity ratio do not comply with the lighting standards. For example, the four existing building facade fixtures are mounted at 18 and a half feet where today they would be limited limited to 15 feet. I think I believe they're on the sides of the building that are away from the public street and they might even be interior to the two buildings and there are seven existing pool mounted fixtures that utilize non-cutoff luminaries where fully shielded would be required today. The fire lane is not illuminated which plays into that uniformity ratio but there's no points that are overly bright. There are no upward-facing fixtures so overall those non-conformities are very minor. Here's the summary of the parking table by the lighting table and what follows is findings of facts, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval. Thank you. Okay thank you Emily. First Miranda, do you have any concerns about the proposed conditions of approval? No, I don't. Okay. At this point I'd like to open it up to DRB members for questions. Miranda, I just have, this is Dave Turner, I just have a question for you around guidelines for your tenants. Some of the letters we got from local people and stuff were concerned about some of the tenants in their possible criminal records. I seem to remember from past that CHT would not elect tenants or keep tenants that had criminal records. Is that the case still? So I'd like to stop and get guidance from that on the appropriateness of this question and is that in our purview and is there any type of law against discrimination, etc. that we might be pushing the boundaries on with that question? I want to cut that off if so. Yeah, I think I can give you two answers. The first two questions, is there anything in the bylaw about the record criminal or otherwise of a person who would live in a proposed residence? No, there's not. There's no bylaw criteria based on that. And generally, pretty against somebody based on any number of avenues can run municipalities about the Federal Fair Housing Act or state rules as well. So the short answer though is there's nothing in the zoning bylaw about the record or past of the residence of a home or facility. In fact, Vermont law requires zoning to provide some equal treatment to some other types of housing. We believe it's like residential group homes, which under Vermont law must be treated just like a single family home in certain contexts. Okay, so Dave Turner, I'm going to I'm going to rule if you object please state so, but I'm going to rule that we're going to I'm not going to ask the applicant to answer that based on what Matt just provided as a as a safeguard for kind of understandable. Okay, thank you. Other questions from the DRB to the parking again, parking calculations and the rationale behind it. Thanks Scott, that was my question as well. So, so let's do a little bit of a deeper dive into that. Let's look at the calculation and I want to focus on I want to focus on what the regulations say and allow the DRB to do and and how that relates to to this application. So walk us through that Emily please. Okay. Right, so what 1423 says is the required number of off street parking spaces shall be determined by the administrator and administrator means not the zoning administrator or the DRB based on a similarity of the proposed use to one or more uses listed in table 14.a and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation. So we compared this in the parking table they're single family multi family and senior housing and we compared it to senior housing because senior housing is typically studios or one bedroom units and that parking rate is one space per unit multi family is 1.75 spaces per unit but our bylaw doesn't differentiate between three bedrooms or one bedroom so you could have an apartment building of all three or four bedroom units and that would generate more parking demand than a building like this where it's all studios for one bedrooms and that it rate is 1.31 spaces per unit when it's looked at a unit as a whole in their parking table they also provided the I'm sorry can you back up and just go through that one more time. I got to senior housing at one to one apartment building to one to 1.75 then you said 1.31 for studios per unit in a studio or one bedroom that parking table spaces right so it's a multi-family dwelling unit building housing mid-rise and this is the it parking generation manual for general urban suburban so it's an area where it's a vehicle centered access where nearly all trips are personal or commercial vehicles very little transit or multimodal use so that's where it got that 1.31 spaces per unit for a studio and or one bedroom I just straight multi-family I think that table gets 0.75 where it's for bedroom okay I'm sorry to be dense 0.75 for bedroom so I apartment buildings are one to one to 1.75 right senior housing is one to one one multi-family and our bylaw is one to one point seven five yeah and then in it it's the it is one to one point three one per unit for studios or for all for all bedrooms and then one to point seven five per bedroom one two point seven five for bed for bedroom that would be before parking spaces and then one to one point three one is 95 parking spaces and shambling housing trust portfolio estimates the demand for 90 spaces so the way I look at this because I'm a simpleton is that worst case we got a one to one point seven five ratio the applicant has proposed a way to meet that that is compliant with our regulations but when you cross-reference other standards and parking parking conditions at other similar locations within a large portfolio of shambling housing trust that that data suggests that the 1.75 is far in excess of what will be realized and so I'm I'm a bit at a loss for for this being a complicated topic I think it's complicated for a couple of reasons it's complicated it gets complicated or a little muddy because of the off-street parking request so that I think it's one because I think that off-street parking is already being used by other people and it goes away in the winter time right and it goes away for a winter time but the hamlet's already using it so you're giving away parking that's already that somebody else is already being used being you know user I mean that's treated that's treated busy already with a lot of parking already on it so explain to me how you can give away parking that has already been given away or already been allocated to an existing developer so that's I guess that's one and then you can I can I address that okay thank you so so our ability to rule is based on the regulations and the regulations do not make any distinction about about what I would consider to be off-street allocation so has that off-street allocation been previously allocated or not there's nothing in our bylaw that gives us the right to assess that so that's the first thing the second thing is that the bylaw also does not provide us with any seasonal adjustment for a winter parking ban but we got it in that I I'm just I I'm a rule follower I'm not buying I I don't I don't know how that argument could be could be countered so anyway so I said I guess my question my question on the off-street is that I guess my comment on the off-street is that it's already out whether whether that's in a rule or not other people are already using it we're going to give it to somebody else the and then and then my only other question is I just wanted to understand how the calculation was going on for the on premises parking and then Matt the you so 14.2.3 gives you the ability the administrator the ability to make a determination that is different from what our bylaws say and as I read it it's subject to appeal that's what I'm reading yes so the first part point that Emily made was that and where it says administrator remember the administrator is always working as the agent of the DRB they're making their use decisions so you can make a decision about parking generation on the site based on the evidence the applicant's giving you and the facts that Emily's covered in the staff report so when you're looking at that parking table what we know in the bylaw is that not every use of land is captured by that table we have these sort of general categories single family residential local family residential retail office restaurant etc and we have uses that come before us either at the administrative level when somebody's just changing the use of an existing building or or a DRB when it's a big enough change to come to the DRB or it's a new building where it's not quite the same and you know I have to dig a little bit far back in my history of the time we look at this but for example an echo car wash constructed the applicant said you know the ITE number we didn't have something within the table about parking generation of a car wash the ITE number was based on two studies in northern New Jersey in 1985 and didn't seem relative to the list of the lot in 2009 and the applicant had data from all of their other operations in the lot in more than a way more than was able to say well here's here's my traffic here's my parking and the bylaw allows the DRB to consider that so in that 14.2 etc language the administrator or in this case the DRB can look at the fit of the use that's proposed to the categories in the table and can decide to assign a parking generation rate that's different in that table if the board feels that that uses a little bit different than what's in the table so your parking table talks about how's a parking for multi-family residential it makes no distinction about bed layout which would naturally have some bearing on it so it doesn't matter if it's a bunch of studios or a bunch of three or four bedroom apartments it's 1.75 per unit in that table no matter what but I think more importantly the the table doesn't capture that this is an apartment building that is managed by a housing agency that is operated for a particular purpose and that tends to serve a demographic that does not as a whole own or operate ours as much as the general public and that I think is what's borne out in the information they provide to you about parking generation at their existing sites so we we offer a couple of numbers in the staff report well let's look at what what happens with senior housing let's look at what the IGD says we can look at what Willis can says we can look at what Champlain Housing Trust says and the DRB you know based on all of that information and make a finding do you think the right or the adequate number here is whatever number that is and it might not be the number for multi-family apartment building that's in in table 14 that right and so where I was coming from just in the spirit of transparency is that you know based on adjustments that are allowed within our the DRB purview the the on-site parking one could could make a case and and I believe that it's a good case that the parking on site is adequate for this use in the population that's going to occupy the the facility um but if if you didn't buy that argument then still the most stringent is 1.75 and there's a path to uh to satisfy the 1.75 um that is in our bylaw and so that's that's that's that's the way I'm looking at it I'm welcome to listen to the counterarguments on this and the general public will have an opportunity to weigh in on this yeah and if and if you feel that we can talk about this in executive session then that's an option as well yeah so I guess I would I the way the way I guess I'm or I'm concerned is a problem I'm concerned about the off-site parking properties because I think you whether it's in the rules or not or whether whether that's your interpretation I think that you're you're passing judgment on allowing more cars in an area that probably already has a lot of cars um I am not disagreeing at this point I'm not disagreeing about the on-site parking I think that um it's probably sufficient my concern is um allowing those extra 20 parking spaces back onto the road and then you know there's sight lines that are there that are come up in your tube we're taking away four more parking spaces right on the road from again from people who are already moving so there are two issues there um not just not just funny this was not an issue when there was a building being built that happened to have the jazzer size and we were common sharing the parking lot and I remember people on this board eloquently speaking about how oh yeah parking sharing is okay plus there was on-street parking available to them so I think that we need to just move on with this because it's not our job to regulate on-street parking as to who is in those spaces we can let the willis and police know instead of wasting their time trying to find the owners they just show up with the tow truck after the first vehicle's towed I guarantee you that all the people that have cars parked there will have moved them in a winner event so Paul I would I would heartily disagree with you I think those are apples and oranges um I think the jazzer size the jazzer size discussion was a business and it is it would certainly was a shared parking arrangement where parking the parking was used during the day and the residential was used in the afternoon and evening and it ebbed and flowed so I think there is an argument there for that this is different we're in a residential we're a totally residential section that residential building was utilizing on-street parking I remember that part okay other members of the drv uh with general questions or parking specific questions please weigh in now please yeah yeah so um I'll weigh in in that I share some of scott's concerns on this and um while I don't understand how it is that the you know I agree that the hamlet should be able to use those on-street parking spots my understanding of on-street parking and I have no idea if this is supported in the bylaw or not is that the it's a first come first serve that's why it's there it's available for people who want to use it um and so I'm uncomfortable at first here of a kind of giving priority to people at the that would be living in this project giving them priority to those spaces I mean I don't even know how that would ever begin to work on the other hand I do appreciate the analysis that's been done here on how we might more realistically project the number of parking spaces that are required I looked at what Emily was describing there with the 1.31 that seems to be very similar to the type of use that we have proposed here multifamily an urban suburban setting with limited multimodal access um it seems like that that would be a much more appropriate than the 1.75 that I see in the in the wdb um the one question I would have is for Champlain Housing Trust and their their formula of one point whatever that was um one space per unit plus one visitor space for every four units that comes out to 90 and that was based on 2500 units but my question is is whether those units are truly applicable or or similar to what is being proposed here and I think a better number would be to take the the units that they have that are similar to this and try to distill a number down from that because I suspect there are locations that they have that are much closer to the public transit and whatnot that might skew that number down but I personally at this point I'm very comfortable with the 1.31 it does come out well below the number of spaces on site and I'm sure we'll talk about this in deliberations but I'm inclined to to not allocate those 26 spaces off the street to this project that makes me uncomfortable but I don't think they're needed so I agree so um so Matt and Emily I just heard the term allocate and uh can can you can you I didn't I didn't understand it to be an allocation can you speak to that please sure it's not an allocation so much as it is an offsite of what's required to be provided on site so where the bylaw does here is and acknowledges that we have streets that make street parking available and that some amount of what we can otherwise require it on site could be not required on site because there are publicly available spaces adjacent so it doesn't speak to preserving those spaces for any particular use they are John Hellerborn said first come first serve um in some parts of town street parking is more heavily used than others I think the experience has been that in this part of town um those spaces have been fairly heavily used when Emily and I visited the site to look at sidewalk we found a number of long long term hotel resident vehicles parking the street parking because they were pulling u-haul tracks and people in transition they have all their stuff in a trailer they'd rather not navigate the parking lot a couple of tell of that um and and that was some of the use that we observed but it's it's an offset saying our bylaw gives you this number but you could reduce this number if you've got some street parking nearby it does not assume in the bylaw that those spaces will always be available to that particular user but that's the only use that's generating demand on it so so residents on this associated with this application would not be given priority on the street parking it would be a first come first serve and there would be no formal allocation process of those spaces it's a it's a public street and if a space is available you have the right to it right I'd like to note that so the parking table on page seven it does say 26th on street parking but the findings of facts conclusions of law and conditions of approval are all based on comparing it to senior living and looking at the ite parking generation so finding a fact for the applicant proposes to retain 106 existing on-site parking spaces which may be adjusted for the provision of additional ADA parking spaces the proposed use studio and one-bedroom multifamily units managed by an affordable housing nonprofit is comparable to a senior living facility the applicant has provided ite parking generation that supports 54 to 95 vehicular parking spaces conclusion of law for wdb 1423 there isn't use there where the use is not listed in table 14.a the required number of off-street parking spaces shall be determined by the drb administrator based on the similarity of the proposed use to one or more uses listed in the table and the ite generation manual and then condition of approval nine for wdb 1423 106 parking spaces may vary for ADA parking is approval and then there's some other ones about the bicycle parking so that the the table um does talk about the offset for on-street parking because that was discussed at pre-application but our findings of fact conclusion of law and conditions of approval aren't predicated on the on-street parking it's all based on the ite manual thank you for that clarification would it be helpful to respond to john's question yes back to another interest portfolio um so the the data that we provide is for all properties are different there is some similarities between some properties but it included data from all bedroom mixes so from studios up to four bedroom apartments um but comparable locations throughout chiming county it does not include our downtown berlington locations where often no on-site parking is provided so if at this location because they are studio in one bedroom apartments if all households had a car which is unlikely um it would require 72 on-site spaces and the existing on-site spaces are 106 spaces so that would be 34 spaces available to visitors um so uh i hope that helps in in talking a little bit about the data that we provided of our portfolio they are comparable locations but really widely varied bedroom mixes and the 106 spaces that are on-site would be in my calculation about 1.55 since we're talking about those those different ratios without needing the off the the daily off-site parking spaces are those just a quick follow-up question are those numbers based on the number of physical spaces like the number of painted spaces at those sites or the number of cars parked in the spaces is it is a demand based on demand or supply supply it's the number of physical spaces on site at the at our properties yeah and they're at all properties they're more than more than sufficient except downtown berlington locations where sometimes no parking is provided um well i have the mic just a follow-up question maybe and just curious if you've ever encountered this type of um uh parking issue before and and whether something like a and i don't know if this is even legal but like you know a some kind of lease requirement that you know owner shall not own more than one car you know that limits any tenants to you know within their their rental agreement or whatever kind of agreement there is that they're um not they're prohibited from owning more than one car um we don't have such restrictions in our rental agreements we we our rental agreements do provide for a parking space for certain apartments but don't and i don't think can dictate the number of cargo thank you okay other drv members questions please i i i i had a very nitpicky very small comment that's not even it's more public work per view but the um the crosswalk the for the new sidewalk is shown as striped crosswalk and um i think the standard is to carry the concrete through the the the driveway and not stripe it as a crosswalk so definitely something to talk through with public works but i think that might want to take another look at that thank you god are you satisfied with this discussion or we don't find pete i had no further questions thank you john um i'm going to give uh any questions an opportunity for any remaining questions from drv members before i open it up to public comment but david needed sorry um i just have one quick question about the sidewalk on the plan it looks like it stops shy of the property line is that on purpose or for some particular reason it's on uh sheet two and when you look at the um western side of the property down zephyr road uh and there's a property corner there and it looks like the property corner there yeah right so we're stopping short of the property corner in order to avoid having all the work stay within either the zephyr road public right away or the property that will become chgs and not extend onto the adjacent property there's not enough right away with the continuing that sidewalk all the way to route to a to maintain the green strip that public works is asked for in terms of snow storage and shut the sidewalk and get the back slope um upgrading on the back side of the cycle so so what is it short like uh four eight feet from the property boundary because of the right away that was four feet probably not more than four feet just based upon the width being five feet in the distance that it set back from the property corner any other questions from the drv members okay hearing done uh so we're going to open it up to public comments at this point if you are present in this room and you have a comment I would ask you to raise your hand and if called upon state your name and address for the record please if you are participating by zoom virtually then use the raise hand function on zoom and in amily will will call you once you're called please identify same rules of engagement your name and address please for the record and uh if you would if people would address questions uh to me please I will I will then relay them to likely to be to the applicant it looks like m is probably trying to press the raise hand button if you want to go you can speak uh thank you very much could you guys hear me yes uh this is a brek robowski I'm with my lot real estate village associates um I was actually a developer of the uh of the hamlet project and so I'm I I know we've uh kind of beaten this issue a little bit but I'm going to go back to the parking issue which is obviously the biggest concern that I have uh not only for the existing residents of the hamlet who have purchased uh homes there but also for my continued interest due to the fact that I own uh property and businesses are located uh on zephyr road so I I just would like to get a better understanding because I think a couple concerns that I have uh one uh Mr. Chair the you've you've talked about um or I guess let me back up a little bit basically staff's recommendation of approval really all hinges on calculations that they feel are justified based upon the section 14.2.3 is that is that correct uh let me read the condition of approval uh yes it did propose condition of approval nine sites uh wdb 14.2.3 that's correct and so but but but so is this but table 14a does list multifamily correct so are you basically just staff basically saying that it doesn't quite fit the perfect mold of 14a therefore 14 2.3 allows us to kind of uh kind of kind of mold this a little bit better so that it fits within that with the it fits within the box uh I don't I don't know if I categorize it as fitting within that it allows for some discretion uh when you when you look at the 1.75 factor that does not consider the number of bedrooms and so there were some cross references to other standards and uh and an adjustment based on uh judgment uh at that point um and that is allowed that is an allowable uh thing to do right no thank you and then so but now with that being said you you you made some comments in regards to if these uh adjustments or or adjustments that have been made based upon assumptions here with with numbers of it as well as with Champlain housing you made a comment about the fallback being is that those on-street spaces would be potentially available to support the project yeah and that was probably a misstatement on my part that is what I said that's fine I'm not I'm not I'm not I'm just I just brought that up but it kind of segs it kind of segswayed me into my my additional comments that's all so I just it's uh certainly not to I'm not really uh holding to that comment but I just wanted to bring that up because the obviously the biggest concern is and I submitted an email to the board I don't know if they've been had a chance to receive it from Emily or have been able to read it but it very much falls in line with some of the comments that Scott was making just previously and I don't know if that uh it has the board Emily has the board uh received that email I have not seen it okay um it brings up very much I'm I'm sure Emily can distribute it or send it to you guys at some point hopefully maybe during a deliberative session but it's along the exact same lines of the same argument that that Scott brought up in regards to you know part of the requirements for for the Hamlet project is that you know I create you know a day lane was actually was actually designed and built wider than the standard the standard street at the time or standard street specifications at the time because of the need to provide on-street parking so I believe day lane is actually built at 32 feet versus the standard 30 feet of at the time and that was to accommodate the additional requirement that day lane actually needed in regards to visitor parking overflow parking for the project and as well as accommodating the businesses there's 6000 square feet of businesses in the two buildings along Zephyr Road and we actually went back to the ERB at a later date to create additional parking along Zephyr Road to to to service those those businesses and their parking requirements so I have issue with and this is along the same lines of thinking that Scott have is I have issues with being able to hand out on-street parking to multiple different projects at Infinitum right so you have very dense projects being built here and a lot of different projects depending on the uses could need that overflow parking and if you give it out again and again and again it's not really there and thus that's that's that's a concern of mine because the day that the parking along day lane and Zephyr Road is being significantly utilized by the residents and the businesses and for them to suddenly not be able to have that because it was allowed to be utilized again by multiple other projects during the permitting process which significantly impact those residents and businesses in regards to accessibility so you know I think I think you're the district bylaws make a comment about if it's within 600 feet that's you know I understand about you know trying to allow these businesses to or allow to utilize on-street parking but there it's still a finite amount and and when it's been actually allocated out to help other businesses meet their requirements it cannot be done again and again and again because then you're just you're you're you're really doubled triple quadruple dipping into into what I just referenced as a finite resource so I don't know if you guys if you can comment on that further but obviously that's one of the biggest concerns because if the if the assumptions 14 14.2.3 don't work out there isn't a fall back there really isn't that that parking is already utilized and it and it there will be a definite immediate impact to to the businesses and residents that are already have already located to that area. Uh well stated I understand your position um I perhaps overcomplicated things by uh I can't recognize the condition of approval number nine was was written such that the on-street parking would not be necessary um but from a strict adherence to the uh bylaws in which this board this board is um has to base our base our decisions on we we don't to the best of my knowledge have the ability to be able to make the assessment that you are representing that is the the streets are already full that's that's that's not a uh in our in our purview as I understand it from the development bylaw uh however staff has made a recommendation to the DRV and we're going to have to deliberate on it as to a case that the parking is not needed so so that would be so so in essence what you're saying that that that an approval by this board of this project uh would would the DRV would essentially fall be falling back on the recommendations of staff and and their their ability to utilize 14.2.3 to modify the table requirements and thus that on-street parking would become a mute point and would not be really would would not be would would not need to be part of your your your your deliberative discussions here later on this evening uh I think I think I understand what you just said I uh it's it's a recommendation we're we're ultimately going to have to decide whether to accept that recommendation or amend it it and if we accept it then what you just stated is correct yeah so so so it's it's not really a maybe this is also a question for staff this really wouldn't be a since it falls under 14.2.3 it really wouldn't be considered a waiver a straight waiver of sorts that's that's correct so if if the board chooses to follow an alternate calculation of parking demand and is able to find that that demand is met on site the board does not need to make a finding about any demand being met by hopefully available off-site parking so if the board says this is the calculation we're using based on um you know either the IT numbers and like housing trust number or parallel to senior housing in table 14a the board would say we're using this number this is why we're using this number we're going to uh we then arrive at a number of spaces required that can be surrogate on site and that's the end of the discussion about parking yeah and and but if it if it's falling under as 14.2.3 lists here if it falls under that under that if it falls under that section in regards to granting the rights to do it then then obviously as it's listed here um it's it's obviously in that it's it's an appealable decision essentially any any decision made by the DRB is noble um and and you know based on any finding the factor of inclusion of water the board has been supported in this decision yeah okay all right yeah thank you Matt that's that's great I appreciate it thanks for the time like I've said I've certainly expressed my opinion and you guys have answered and my question's the best of your knowledge and ability and I I'm pretty good a good idea where we're the the information that's been given to the board and um you guys will proceed according to so thank you very much okay thank you uh Mr. Riley you have a question or yeah and I had a just a quick point of clarification about question um if the board finds that the part there is an apartment on site and that the off-street parking is not required does the do the site triangles need to still be done is that a public works requirement or is that if it is not if there were so the parking is not required off um on-street you still need to do the parking the site time I think so because that's more about vehicles moving in and out at the end of the day modifying the parking would be a decision of public work so um the applicant provided that vision triangle study showing that spaces would need to be removed but at the end of the day it's a public road and that would be a decision of public works I'm not not to interject again I apologize I'm not aware of any maybe public works would answer this or police or I'm not worried I'm not I was never made aware of by any of the residents or anyone else in regards to concerns over those four parking spaces uh with the access through that through at that location in that driveway so I'm not I mean I understand I understand the analysis that was done as far as the traffic study and the board requesting on that the study the triangle analysis study but but I'm not I was not aware of any uh any issues or any conflicts that existed in the past in that location but but I do believe yeah it probably as you stated Emily it is ultimately a public works decision since a the town now owns the road and they kind of make those decisions that same argument be made about the sidewalk I know I know we've asked the applicant to do the sidewalk that could that same argument be made about the sidewalk I think when we first started the discussion the sidewalk was actually not on the table and some push from the the board got it you know got it on right so the DRB is requiring the sidewalk that needs to be built in performance with the public works specifications Scott is your question is the the requirement to provide a sidewalk up to the pvw my initial point okay and the point and the point is is that the DRB is requiring a sidewalk to be built which I think is the right decision but is it the DRB that's requiring that the site triangles be built or is it the public works and you know there's no there's no modification of the entry points being proposed it's simply an adjustment to it's simply an adjustment to comply with what might now be new public work standards correct so you know in a number of cases on the site you're dealing with varying degrees of non-conformity um I got in the public works specs and you have some decisions over where to ask for conformity based on the advice of your comedy departments and ultimately I'm kind of preserve parking for the people that are already there I got it okay uh other public public comments please uh raise your hand or if you by zoom or if you want to raise your hand in your camera that we can we can probably go that route as well I'm seeing no raised hands and no comments in the chat okay is there one last one last call for the public for for comments anyone present in the room like to speak or okay anyone on zoom okay I'll turn it back over to the DRB you've digested some information uh do you have any additional comments to offer okay uh hearing none I've got 815 uh I'm going to close DP 21-17 uh thank you all for your participation okay next up is DP 21-19 GPA LLC care of Patrick O'Brien Andy are you participating in this one as well okay now looks like there's three members of your team if you will please introduce yourself and your address for the record please my name is Patrick O'Brien I'm here representing GPA see I addressed the 193 industry out of the world your brother's architect representing GPA same address any role I don't get into 14 more strive essence okay welcome all uh staff goes next so DP 2019 GPA LLC care of Patrick O'Brien requests a free application review you know free commercial industrial buildings uh approximately 103 703 750 square feet total the parking loading areas and related affordances on lot four of the roger subdivision vacant 8.748 the parcel of the inner Wilson Road opposite Munson Drive and the industrial zoning district less the current use it's vacant and industrialists of the first use and staff is advising the DRB to approve this application recommendations is drafted so in the project history of included the date of the subdivision VP 18.1 which created the roger subdivision it's the approval November 13th 2019 and then the development of each of the lot in that subdivision just to just for reference the conservation commission did not review this project because they reviewed the original roger subdivision and the recommendations are applicable to all lots created by the subdivision and are included in the draft recommendations to have for you to take on a proposed project and their comments and recommendations of discussed and done with design review section and also including the recommendations um public works and prior reviewed the project and their comment and modes are attached and included as recommendations no comment no public comment letters were received at the time of mail out so the applicants for closing construction of three separate buildings for the variety of commercial and industrial uses but they uh no uses or attendance have been identified at this time um at discretionary permit and administrative permit proposed uses must be complied with the allowed uses of chapter 36 and the applicant should be aware that some heavy commercial industrial uses may have specific needs for parking outdoor storage and or wastewater that should be anticipated or during discretionary permit um the dimensional standards the applicant is proposing three two-story buildings that can comply with the building height requirement as proposed overhead doors and loading docks are proposed compliance with the setback and height requirements must be demonstrated at discretionary permit outdoor storage is not proposed at this time if proposed at discretionary permit outdoor storage is permitted only with inside and exterior yards designated for that purpose on an approved site plan and screening clients with 3672 who design review the hack review of this project and their comments included um as recommendation number four um staff recommends including hacks comments particularly about landscaping to continue the pattern and pre-spacing and planting along the Wilson Road frontage um although the architectural design for the buildings on lot four is unknown at this time um can anticipate long commercial buildings for the parking in the front um and just to remind my DRB that uh I think we're nearly DP 20-3 facility at the adjacent parcel um the DRB adopted conditions of approval similar to the HACS regulation related to landscaping um as in burying the um tree and landscaping was placing having 20-foot tree uh street tree spacing plus additional screen and installing low line bushes at 10-15 foot intervals between the sidewalk and the Wilson Road right away um for other things related to landscaping the discretionary permit must provide a landscaping plan that demonstrates compliance with chapter 23 the properties currently undeveloped and wooded um and staff is recommending the applicant identify and retain existing vegetation and buffers were feasible um specifically all existing vegetation must be retained within the watershed protective bumper west and south of the development site um and staff is recommending that um so the the parcel of box lot nine at the western and southern sides and it doesn't look like there's a lot of room for it or there's enough room within the parcel um with the way that they have the parking of the building's position that they would be able to fit the 50-foot buffer of existing vegetation on their parcel but since the budding parcel is a conservation lot and won't have any development staff is recommending that um they be allowed to extend that landscaping buffer onto lot nine as long as the 50-foot wetland buffer is uh is retained um and and or restored where necessary um the DRB may also wish to discuss the landscaping details for the eastern boundary where a retaining wall is proposed um uh for street trees um discretionary permit must demonstrate compliance with chapter 26 street tree standards and staff is recommending adopting hats recommendations discussing where the cyber view section involved um having tree street trees at 20-foot spacing plus additional screening um varying the spacing slightly between 15 and 25 feet or on the east west plain and staggering the trees on and south plain for a more natural note um with watershed help the class two wetlands located to the west and south of the property on law time um and a portion of the 50-foot watershed protection buffer extends onto lot four existing vegetation must be retained to a degree possible during construction and where it's not possible to retain it must be restored um the conservation commission didn't comment on this application because their comments were addressed during the roadway subdivision um and and relate to each individual alive created by that subdivision mainly their the comments are that the class two wetland buffer must remain a natural vegetation and must be marketed on the site plan and on the ground fencing member or voltage to prevent future disturbance um and then uh development on each individual lots require troops obtain uh an erosion or submit an erosion prevention and sediment control plan um specifically also uh related to this lot it's going to require a significant amount of grading um to because the the site is very slow and so the applicant is proposing to lower the elevation of the site by 14 feet and to construct a retaining wall on the eastern boundary to make that kind of transition between uh the elevation a lot before um so the erosion prevention and sediment control um details are particularly important with all of the earth moving that school can be happening on this lot um and the applicant's proposing to manage stormwater runoff uh on site and the state stormwater product will be required for access a curb cut onto wilson road proposed aligning on some way um the proposed access has been approved by malan agency of transportation um the access is on to the state highway um the sidewalk is proposed along wilson road fringe uh the section of path will connect to the existing sidewalk on the new hall parcel to the east and sidewalk connections are proposed between each um building and the sidewalk along wilson road um so staff is is recommending the sidewalk along wilson road extend to the western property boundary um and there is an opportunity to uh connect the proposed sidewalk to the sidewalk facilities being built um or proposed to be nullified from on aot as part of their uh route to industrial intersection improvements um and there is i think one additional landowner between um the from on aot sidewalk and this proposed sidewalk so um you know it'd be nice to avoid a gap in the sidewalk and to be able to connect those two sections the sidewalk if possible um for traffic uh the discretionary permit application must provide traffic generation data um this is the time when the DRD can request a traffic study however um planning staff and DPW staff don't recommend the traffic study because industrial uses um proposed typically generate a small number of vehicle trips and the proposed curb curb cut is onto the state highway um for off-screen parking and loading the applicants proposing an initial 81 parking spaces and to reserve capacity to construct an additional 114 spaces if needed in the future the parking requirements analysis is shown in a table below and is based on the total number of spaces both uh spaces proposed immediately and potential future spaces um the table WDB 14A provides the DRD some flexibility in determining required number of spaces for industrial uses because those uses are very diverse um and the number of proposed ADA spaces outdoor and long-term by-school parking spaces and end-of-trick facilities complies with the parking requirements of Chapter 14 as proposed um the applicants proposing municipal water and sewer connections need to till the connections must be underground um and discretionary permit application must demonstrate compliance for Chapter 15 snow storage areas and solid waste and closures um are not shown on the site plan discretionary permit application must demonstrate compliance for Chapter 16 for landscaping maintenance snow storage and solid waste outdoor lighting is proposed the discretionary permit must demonstrate compliance parking lot and outdoor lighting standards including plants for dimming and ocean sensing sensing security writing proposed a master sign plan is required for multi tenant properties and must be included in master sign plan must be included in the discretionary permit application um and transportation impact fees would be assessed at the time of the administrative school and recreation impact fees aren't applicable because the project is non-residential and I have graphics and recommendations um for you to consider thank you okay thank you um um Patrick are you the lead on this sure all right um this is the first time we're seeing this project walk us walk us through what I just asked Emily to project whatever you would like and walk us through what you're doing well let's now bother with the existing conditions plan because it's all treated now let's let's go to the site plan please what you'll see as described in the staff notes are our three rectangular um commercial warehouse style um pre-engineered metal buildings and um they're laid out um basically in a way that we could take um take advantage of the site as best possible i.e. putting as many square footage on master um including that is a shared um loading dock area between the building that is perpendicular to in the building behind so that was a design element that we hear planners talk about when it comes to industrial um this isn't the PVD but industrial projects so it's a shared area other than that it's your pretty standard layout where we would have uh storefronts uh in the front of the buildings where the parking is and all your loading docks uh in the rear of the building your only exception being is as mentioned we have a shared loading dock uh in the in the rear there so that's the only building where the loading docks are not in the rear of the building but thankfully um it's shielded from to by the building in front of it um you know this is um what I still refer to as sketch so we're not showing things like the snow storage area etc but we we're very well aware of all the future requirements as we move forward with the project in regards to the parking what we did was we basically have what we're showing the front row of the parking parallel and yep so you can see the difference in shading there so what we're saying is we're going to build that necessary but we want approval now we may not need it and that's why I think it's referenced in the parking table uh that uh the shaded area is close to the buildings uh we're going to build uh that meets the requirements but if we get a user that needs more parking you want to come back to um and ask for more uh we would just like the option to do it and it still needs all the setback to be fine um one thing about this site um that may or may not have been taken into consideration when the subdivision was approved and uh VTRA and approved this curb cut is there's quite a rise in elevation for to up into the site so we have to um in order to have a relatively safe access we have to lower the site um and uh with that uh comes the need for a retaining wall uh along the property line of the adjacent new hall problem thank you um uh we we we might be able uh obviously we'll we'll figure it out before the next step we may be able to incorporate that retaining wall into the rear wall of this building we just have to you know we have to do some geotechnical work and hydrology work to make sure that we can do it um so that would that might be one thing that we that would be different uh from that that may have been I wasn't that the uh the advisory meeting uh with hack but that may have been part of the discussion so we are going to take a swing at that um and certainly adhere to the landscaping requirements um in regards to the landscaping comments certainly we will uh agree to the recommendation that landscaping along into a beefed up like like u-hauls um we will want to reserve um to determine what type of landscape buffer the team building b and u-haul want to figure out that retaining wall and we are not proposing to impact any of the um the class two wetlands or their associated documents um we did uh recently uh because the wetland donation was running out of its five-year term we just recently hired a consultant to uh re-verify that that line is where it is and it uh it is so that that was taken care of um so we are safe there um we do have to think about outside stores so you might see someone back here but we'll if we do propose any it'll be in performance um with the ordinance uh same goes for lighting let me see in regards to some of the other comments and i'm sorry for skipping around here some of the other comments in regards to the architecture um we do understand the dead wall comment we'll try to address that with some buckouts um we also thank you um we also understand that we might want to beef up the entrance give give the entrance a simple presence in other words we understand that you guys don't want just to hold on like well um but but we didn't want to get too far in the design until um we got some feedback from the ordinance but what you see here um is is a concept of it is unfortunately it's the image doesn't show it but you know like most people nowadays when we try to find out something you you go to your phone with a computer that's that's kind of captures it a little bit i saw this picture and we are we are sourcing trying to source this type of panel so it's a sandwich panel um and the intent of this this build this is an actual building that was built is that it starts darker um where the by the by the by the ground and it lightens up as you get taller it is a really really cool effective look because it basically draws down the height of the building i'm not sure if we're going to be able to achieve it or not but then i know it's just conceptual but that was one way to achieve it and meet your price points achieve it to get actual source the panel actually but um you know um um we do know um that we don't want to actual follow the requirement in the ordinance which says that this building shall look like the one that was kind of but um it's going to be our goal is obviously it's it's the entrance to williston kind of we want it to be um a really nice looking building uh one that is attractive to people that live in warston all people that visit warston as well as uh the tenants that will be uh doing business there um maybe is anything i'm listening you want to talk about the sidewalk you don't talk about the sidewalk sidewalk in in the trip facilities just confirming that the board is okay we've got in the trip facilities serving up three buildings do you have any issue with that matt or emily no i think that works as long as it's within x number of speed um within 600 feet and i believe all those buildings are so public facilities five okay and then the um the issue with the sidewalk is it is purely environmental right so between williston road along all of williston road along all of this section with the exception of the old field yard going up into this property which is right about where the cursor happens to be now um there's a fairly deep ditch jail stream on williston road and the sidewalk is being proposed on the back side of that um again keep in mind that this property is going to be cut down to roughly you know 320 to 324 elevation um so the path excuse me the sidewalk ends now roughly where that woods road is in extending it beyond that will either require placing fill in the wetland or moving the sidewalk over tight to williston road within the detrans right away and adding fill pushing the embankment out along the road um either of which is going to or both of those are going to be while working the wetland and the wetland block um not to mention that there's a line along the shoulder of williston road on that on the project side as well um as Melinda mentioned there's also 140 feet of frontage um that's on lot nine between the westerly boundary of this parcel and the far westerly boundary of lot uh lot nine so you've got this property 140 feet and then you get to the area where the bus pull out to be constructed as part of the industrial lab intersection improvements and you have a between the u-hole property and this property we're talking about the sidewalk that sidewalk for you all i think is in at this point yep there's going to be a there's going to be it's probably down the slope it's partly down the slope but you're talking about going 14 feet from the top down in that do are you going to do a switch back down nope the sidewalk i don't know is it's 14 feet down but it's we look at those grades and it's doable um it's not that far off we'll lower the grade we'll be lower to one on a lot forwards it's fairly well down that's you'll kind of slam in down that slope um on the u-hole property as we start from the u-hole entrance and continue west the sidewalk kind of holds its grade in in relation to uh williston roads and compared to the elevation of the site which is relatively level the sidewalk dropped we'll as it goes west okay we we may have to um we'll we'll once Andy puts puts it to paper have to use that retaining wall as well to hold up some of that to make that transition but um it looks worse when you're driving by than than it is a retaining wall on the corner you see we may have to we may have to radius that retaining wall a little bit more um to help that transition but it will be fine retaining wall i'm sorry what's the height of that retaining wall um what's the amount that will be exposed oh approximately 14 feet on the inside yeah right in the highest point it'll be about 14 feet it does drop as you get to it because the grade's dropping out there and we've got a transition down to the sidewalk sure can i can i ask andy of a follow question on yep so so the this that sidewalk um it does terminate at that at the existing or the the old farmer or the access road is your thought to not build that sidewalk ever or or is it um i understood so you you're trying to avoid the wetland impacts and it's it's a difficult place to cross but event the idea is to eventually connect this all the way to industrial app right so what what's your thinking in terms of timing or phasing of that if i may um i'm going to go by memory and i can't i think i have it on my phone if you look at it did we discovered that there is not a sidewalk in those improvements on the south side of that intersection isn't the only sidewalk in those improvements on the opposite side of the street i think there's a short segment of sidewalk directly adjacent to the bus flow off and it continues it connects with the sidewalk to whatever however far up industrial lab they're building it this is all very localized because there's nothing i don't believe it's connecting anything further up industrial lab there is some sidewalk much much further down and there's nothing further back on local syndrome so while those the industrial lab the intersection project they've been doing some sidewalk it's a bit of an island once it's constructed is this is the bus pull off or ccta for local local bus local transit yes so it's conceivable that people coming in on the bus could be getting off of that lookout and walking up to these buildings no for point of clarification unfortunately i don't have so v-trans plans in front of me but i think the point is that what i don't think we want to do is build a sidewalk to nowhere um i would be of what i'd rather do is i would rather you know have somebody not me tell us how much a sidewalk is going to cost and if necessary pay that to the town because like what i've seen happen and it's very dangerous because if we put that sidewalk in someone's going to walk down and then they're going to cross that road an unsignalized area and they're it's dangerous i'm not trying to skirt the responsibility of building it it's just a it's a safety factor and if there's another way that we could mitigate that circumstance so when it's built there's money in the kitty so when the neighbor to the west comes in for a proposal and that gets built there's money in the kitty to make the connection yes i would go back to my point in saying that the bus if the bus drop off you know the bus the bus terminal all of what we want is dropping people off that you're just making it harder for them to get to your property and and you know you then warehouses don't have a huge amount of people working in them but you're proposing a hundred thousand square feet you're going to have there's going to be a bunch of people and it's conceivable that a bus of people that need some of them will be taking the bus in and then of course there's also the possibility that we cannot attain the correct environmental permit to make that connection well as you said we're we're at sketch yeah right right i'm not you might not be allowed to do it there's a wetland there okay so we're not going to solve that tonight at this stage okay anything else patrick no i don't think so um the staff notes are refreshingly well put together um i do there was one question i did have um and it's one of those great areas that i've um run into before um in regards to um um the um architecture advisory committee memo um 22.3.1 respect the context consider neutral furth bones vibrant colors are discouraged i i think what i would just like is a clarification of what is referred to as vibrant because if if we can pull off what i saw on google some people might say well it's vibrant but that would be probably the funny warehouse you've ever seen i would think it was vibrant i just think it was really nice i would i would encourage staff to provide some language on what you think of as vibrant before i can before you do that can i count um so um page seven page seven section four which you're referring to pat gives the um gives the list of items that the board is going to want to see the talk to you to follow that sure um the um you all built the boards the board spent a lot of time on very group lines very colors what's vibrant what's not vibrant um uh you you know so um i think that it's all kind of right here in front of you and you have you got a good guideline to go forward with but i think and with that said i mean would a better word be we don't want bold colors i'm just looking for some feedback before we really take away from orange yeah let's let's uh all right so we'll all move on we'll field that out with staff well so so within if you look at 22.3.1 respect the context yeah okay there's there's a variety of industrial type buildings and and and uh there's all kinds of different shapes and forms and colors and um and and and i think i think that the spirit is to just make make it is is to make it look like it's um within within the family of the buildings now if you're going to upgrade and uh and introduce something that's really special i think i think this board would be excited about seeing that. Next line down um goes on to consider a brick or stone base and i haven't gone up and touched it but i think the the material i'm doing to supply is both big yes the culture stone it's culture stone and it's and that's the spirit of what that was referring to okay you know these are just now i would i would argue that you're this you know you're so high on the elevation in the road so down down fall you may not ever see that in this location i don't disagree with that but i was just talking to the spirit of where this is all for it's not i would i would argue that this these buildings you know the the town i don't think the town wants nor does the board want aircraft hangers but you know so you're going to want the um you're you know your renderings your renderings hey this is this is sketch but that's right they're sketched they're really just they want to show the mass of course but you're you know i think you're gonna want to really really show a facade you know lots of with some with some interest you you said in your opening statement you know this is the entrance to the williston and we just we just put in a 50 000 square foot building at will you haul times two four so 100 000 square feet you're proposing 100 000 square feet on the ground it's this is changing the character of willis of what's coming into williston dramatically and it would be the first thing this will become the first thing that anybody sees so we accept the challenge and we're excited about it i hope my my my next question i can't find is not meant to be smart but it's been taught in this before um the there is a requirement to go to the street trees and if there's the the if the street street street the street tree requirement in the regs say the street trees shall be let's just say 50 feet apart and if i have a condition that says they shall be 20 i'm conflicted this happened to be another time so it will happen in that town is the the the tree warden stuck his heels in because he did not want the trees that close to that because they were just from dot so i'm just looking for feedback i have and if the ordinance says shall be 40 does that mean that they shall be 40 or they can be 20 because i don't want to be caught in the grayer and we don't have the answers tonight so you all refresh my memory and we'll get at you all i i know it's written it's 20 they said 20 feet but doesn't it isn't it varied did we go to 15 to 25 or something like that so it didn't look like it was you know 15 to 20 friday east west plain stagger stagger on the north south plain purple so i think that's your answer exactly or very the distance you got a huge frontage you just you know summer 15 summer 25 summer but but it's okay if they're not in conformance with what the ordinance tells me right here the recommendation is requiring more than with the bylaw okay okay thank you very much a good bill to go over to to drb members for uh for for comments this is this is an important project you you've recognized that um and uh and and please take to care with with what you propose here because um because it because of its importance and and i know you you folks are up to the challenge you're already leaning forward with some alternative materials and uh and and thank you for that and i encourage more creativity so so with that i'll turn it over to the drb for questions christen senir if you were to look at the building in milton that has a mural that would help you uh potentially break up this huge space and the second thing is when with your retaining wall where you're talking about attaching it to the building you might be wanting to look very closely at the water area that the uh u-haul is going to be thinking their water's going to vacate either you're going to probably want a good french drain system along your retaining wall so it doesn't get eaten out you know underneath other than that we'll move on uh other questions how about comments from absolutely so um a couple comments you know i'll start again with the sidewalk from my perspective i think since this is um sketch plan i'd like to see on the sketch that we're we're going to extend that sidewalk to the property line until you show that it can't make it um i think that's the i think that has to be the starting spot um the i i like the idea of the retaining wall being engaged with the building i think you're likely to create a uh a pretty ugly space between the retaining wall and your building if you don't do that um and i think that's going to create security problems and all kinds of other issues um that that nobody's going to like so um i guess i'll move into some questions the i'm not really understanding the parking piece um you said that you're proposing i think 81 spaces and and and suggesting or showing a future of another hundred and how many was it was that on there it was a lot right yeah when i look at the site plan i'm not coming up with anywhere close to that so i'm not sure how your where where you would ever put those other hundred and fourteen spaces um or why you would need them or how they how they relate at all to the to the regulations so if you could explain maybe maybe kind of clarify that you're what you're thinking is there a little bit would be helpful while he's gonna um he's counting the parking right now um and um one uh clarification total clarifications um um how if so i get the message on the sidewalk which means that we're going to have to apply forward to for to fill the weapons with the state and the court versions of how does that happen this application as it relates to the conservation commission request that we stay out of the weapons we just we just i'm assuming that is the time is okay with that uh they are advisory to the drb and so the drb is okay so the drb will talk about it okay right i mean what the comments that i made are my comments not necessarily i'm not speaking for the whole board here so i think we'll deliberate on these but i'm making them public at this point like at this point um in um in regards to the retaining wall um comment i and i agree with your assessment that um it would get a little murky but between the wall and the building um and that was one of the reasons why we're thinking we're trying to make this happen but but what that would mean is that um when we meet with the fire department we will not be able to have access around four sides of that building um and i also i guess seek clarifications again the fire um staff has offered recommendation we do plan a meeting with them to talk about it but i just wanted to point that out to you that if we can pull that off then we can have access so so there are things that are not advisory to this board right the fire department but but here you're going to have you know if you were to incorporate that retaining wall into the exterior first floor wall of building b um you you would have a non-combustible wall it would essentially be a basement wall on the first floor on that side and they could access a new wall and they could access it via new wall so um because you know fortunately you're blessed with all sand there on that site and so um fall's concern which is valid is mitigated more easily in that sandy site but uh but it's you know you absolutely have to engineer that that's very doable um but the you know you would have access to the uh the eastern side of building b from the u-haul property it's just it's just something it's not for you to think about and that would be kind of a weird little alley there and and pete i've never met a fire person who would would have dared to drive their their um 100 or 150 or 200 000 truck in that alleyway while the building's on fire yeah i don't i wouldn't see a vehicle going in that alley but okay um other comments i was hoping to get some clarity on the parking i didn't understand that andy are you ready to talk about that there's 81 spaces that are shown as being proposed in the mic right yes in the dark yeah those spaces plus the future spaces there'd be a total of 114 not an additional hundred so if everything was built out on the site there'd be 114 spaces 102 roughly 100 000 square feet is a little bit more than one space per thousand so it's not that far off from the thousand one space per thousand and uh they were working in well all right well okay so i mean i counted you're showing another 58 spaces here two two sections up along the road and another section um out by building c and so that's a total of 139 so but your intent is that that the only the spaces that you're showing on the plan would be the future spaces then there aren't additional spaces to that correct okay um i when this comes in for a dp will will there be specific uses and the then an ability to try to judge how many parking spaces are appropriate no we will not have identified the tenants yet only the only uses will be able to use to calculate are the ones that are allowable uses in this zone all right well i'm not sure how we can decide how many parking spots you should be putting in then but um you know i mean this is a huge range that you're you're asking for here um not only that but the number of end-of-trip facilities is dependent on how many parking spaces you put in which was another question that came up earlier but the end-of-trip facilities could be based upon the maximum number of spaces that you know because the end-of-trip facilities are a percentage of the overall parking right that would one or two additional ended you know long-term bike storage spaces or even short term storage spaces when you compare that 81 parking spaces versus 114 all right i would i again i can't speak for the entire board but uh i i've never heard us complain about having too many of those um the uh yep i'm sorry i'm only what was that we tend an industrial and basically the drb's conditions are approved because we don't know any tenants in that building but it was just you better be comfortable with whatever number of spaces you provide i know that your tenants will have to um comply with the required parking yeah i mean if this is causing angst we can just build them all no it's not it's not causing angst i'm just trying to have some clarity on what you're asking for and and and thinking ahead to when we're asked to approve this and whether you're going to be asking for some huge number of parking spots or or some very small number of parking spots compared to what the bylaws might might say so i'm just asking you to be be clear when you come in with an uh dp um of why you're asking for this many parking spaces and how you came up with that so so um so go ahead let's point to clarification the town of wilson would rather see you um provide for future parking expansion get the total approved exactly what you're doing and and build it later if you need it because we don't want to see seas of of impervious material and and again this site is unique and it has great drainage and all that but just as a philosophy we don't want a whole bunch of empty parking lots and i and i and i think that's pretty much what i'm being told is why we came up with yeah yeah okay john continue you have other comments please i do um so i i do appreciate you uh your your stated purpose of creating a an awesome fantastic beautiful gateway building on this site i think that's an appropriate goal i think with the size of these buildings you've got a huge challenge in front of you so um i i look forward to to your to your solution to that um i'm not sure uh multicolored panels up into the sky are are going to get there but um you know that's uh that's not really reducing the scale of that building very much um and those are those i think the rendering show that those are really big buildings so i think you really need to pay attention to that moving forwards um we've talked a lot here in the past about where the parking goes on the site and trying to put buildings along the street fronts um i know this isn't down in the in the finny finny crossing area or task owners but um generally it's it's a nice thing to do is to not have asphalt the seas of asphalt with with either empty parking spaces or cars parked in front of the building yet i think the alternative here of switching it the uses actually makes the parking look pretty good compared to the loading docks um so but i don't know if there's any way of reducing the amount of parking in front of the buildings um on the site i don't know if you've looked at that um it's just a random thought that uh generally i'd like to see less parking between the road and the buildings uh i'm again i'm not i'm not convinced there's a good solution for that here but um the the other comment i had was when i first saw this site plan before i realized that retaining wall was there is you know i i kind of like the idea that the that this site was up high compared to the road because i've been past where u-haul is and the fact that there's a decent size berm there actually helps i mean it doesn't totally screen the building and it's not like you don't know there's a building there but i think it does help to soften that edge between this giant building and and the road but now i hear that you're actually cutting the site down by about 12 or 14 feet that i think that increases your challenge on the aesthetic issues that we brought up before um and i don't know if there's any way of trying to to raise that up a little bit further or not um i'm sure that there's a lot of dominoes involved with that um i would like to see a rendering at dp of kind of from from the sidewalk because i think scott brought this up before that with the the landscaping and the berm there and the difference in elevation i think that's really how we want to see what this building looks like the the drones i view doesn't really represent anything that people are going to see your experience from the from the road so those are those are my comments as we move forwards thank you john so so patrick and team i would encourage you to work with staff and take a look at at some of the um well and and he's gonna be very familiar with this in terms of what was submitted for the u-haul project and uh which which was very helpful like a uh a driver's perspective as you navigate on wilson road and uh and if you could do something similar to what was done there which is i believe what john you were referencing that would be that would be helpful uh other comments from drb members dave dave turner you're on mute i think i just wanted to make facial expressions i agree but instead of doing it from the sidewalk i think it should be done from the road because i think the sidewalk's up about uh 10 to 12 feet higher than the road level is already so i think it should be a road view instead of a sidewalk view i would view that as a friendly amendment to what i suggested yep that's a good catch dave thank you and the only thing i'd like the second um you know john's uh on the sidewalk extending all the way to the property line too um and i don't think that the wetland should be any concern as we had in cotton would um when we had the wetland that was in the corner there that we weren't going to work around and they worked with the army corps of engineering and came up with a solution to make that one work so i'm sure there's a solution here to bridge or something that you work do you know the section on cottonwood we're talking about and it's it's the uh it's the maple tree place cottonwood interface along rollston road there's some cattails there's some wetlands there the section isn't long but uh but that was able to be navigated and it has some similar characteristics to this i don't know uh clarification in regards to uh john's comment about the parking i know that in other buildings i've done in williston years ago we were able to incorporate some employee parking in and around the lobing docks in the mirror of the buildings for that very reason is that is there a any sort of standard anything that we have to be aware of if you want to do that i mean once we drill down and we know we're the loading docks we're not going to this isn't a psp so it's not going to be lying the loading docks so there could be room for several employee spaces between the loading docks is that prohibited so you're aware of or anything okay good now and that could that could enable you to reduce the parking in the front yes maybe introduce some interesting landscaping with the building close to the road yeah i mean it kind of cascaded sure some positive things yeah again some of it might depend on whether these are uh are these employees whose parking in these spots is it employees is it visitors is it customers again you're going to want to think about that as as you locate the parking spots you don't want the customers probably coming around the back and parking between the loading docks it would be what we've done in the past and we put the employees right exactly and the renderings and the landscaping are all going to as Pete said are going to are going to play into that and so would you show us what give us the view from the road of what that's going to look like and that's how much you can see the parking spaces you know if you if you can't see them anyway then maybe it doesn't matter that they're in front of the building so are there questions or comments i don't have any p okay thank you dave um okay so going to open it up for public comments um i see a jason star listed is is that do you have any comments or any questions that you would like i'm sorry okay i didn't place jason you're a reporter so uh you probably don't anyone else in the public domain further comments or questions by the dv their comments by the african well thank you very much for your comment all right thank you very much we're going to close uh this hearing at 914 thank you thank you pete i'm going to step away for just 30 seconds and i'll be right back okay thank you all right we're going to go into deliberative session okay over 12 2021 it is 10 02 the board is out of deliberative session is there a motion for dp 21 dash 17 yes i am as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i john hemmelgarn moved that the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of october 12 2021 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 21 dash 17 and approved this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above this approval authorizes the african to file final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based we're going to adjust a couple of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as conditions of approval starting with the finding findings of fact number four we're going to change the second sentence to say the proposed use studio in one bedroom multifamily units managed by an affordable housing nonprofit is similar to a senior living facility for the purposes of the parking calculation we're then going to adjust change the condition of approval number nine a to read per wdb 14.2.3 106 plus or minus depending or which this is hard to read Emily 106 plus or minus which parentheses may vary for ada parking and parentheses on parking parking space on site parking spaces is approvable the on site parking is sufficient to satisfy the parking needs the parking table provided at final plans shall not include on street parking in the calculation and i think that is those are all the adjustments we were going to make thank you john is there a second i'll second scott riley seconds it uh any further discussion yay or nay please paul christensen yay john hemmelgarn yay scott riley okay Dave saladino yay okay turner yay and the chair is a yay motion carries six in favor none opposed is there a motion for dp 21 dash 19 gp gpa llc uh as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i scott riley moved at the wilson development review board had viewed the application submitted in all the company materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw and having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of october 12 2021 accept the recommendations for dp 21 dash 19 and authorize the applicant application to move forward to discretion discretionary permit review we are adding condition recommendation number seven that states the applicant shall provide photo simulations from the driver's perspective of the building buildings along group two my paraphera is just a little bit there why don't you uh why don't you why don't you might read that yeah okay so uh the applicant shall provide photo simulations from the driver's perspective along group two okay thank you is there a second i'll second any further discussion okay uh paul christensen yay or nay yay okay john hemmelgarten yay scott riley yay dav saladino yay dav turner yay the chair is a yay uh six in favor none opposed motion carries is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of september 14 2021 like a motion but riley makes a motion to approve the minutes is there a second second on hemmelgarten seconds it any further discussion no all those in favor indicate by aye aye opposed hearing done motion carries uh unanimously uh six in favor not opposed uh before closing the meeting is there anything else yes john um i would like to welcome simon to our meetings i have not met simon yet and he didn't even once turn on his camera i don't even know what he looks like i saw him one time did you anyway welcome simon hello you're turning red you're not in shock about that any other comments question do we hold on to our dp 21-20 or is there going to be a new one yeah i would hold on to that because they'll probably just slip to something and so i can go ahead second note is uh i will be available for the 26th remotely so there's at least one in my thing all right so i can put this uh this application that we we uh continue tonight up there with the ups envelope i have up on the shelf i can see right now is that right ups envelope's gone isn't it yeah we not officially dead that's officially dead you recycle that one all right excellent for our starter all right that's a good idea i have a fire pit out pack okay anything else all right thank you everyone i'm gonna thank you good night see you in two weeks