 Is it within a day? Allegedly. Or risk the wrath of, you know, everybody here? Good. We're all set. Ready to go? Welcome, everybody, to the town of Williston Development Review Board for August 13th, 2019. We are going to be in the meeting order at 7.02. Three items on the agenda for tonight. We will always start out with an open forum so as anybody in the audience who would like to address the board for any reason that is not otherwise listed on the agenda. No takers? OK. Scott, you are up and running, I assume, right? Good. So first up on the agenda for tonight is DP20-01, Global Montello Group, operating in Camargo, I-C. Is your name and your address correct? Yeah, my name is Jeff Olesky with Catamount Consulting Engineers. Our address is P.O. Box 65067, Burlington, Vermont, 05406. Oh, secretary. Welcome. Just your name and address. Matt Wanskans, 88 Leeroy Road, Williston, Vermont, 05495. That goes first. All right. This is a request for a discretionary permit for a new master sign plan at the Jiffy-Mart and Shell Station located at 500 Essex Road in the Gateway Zoning District North. Master sign plan is required in this location for new or existing commercial buildings that will or could have multiple tenants for a type of sign that can only be permitted under a master sign plan or for a greater number of signs or size of sign that is allowed at the baseline in the Williston Unified Development By-law. Those types of signs may gain approval from the DRB through the master sign plan review process. In the case of the master sign plan for this site, there are wall signs larger than the 24-square-foot maximum allowed by Table 25 of the Williston Development By-law and freestanding signs larger than the 2032-square-foot maximum. And those excess sizes can be approved as part of a master sign plan under some of the other requirements of Chapter 25. A note on this one, we're dealing with a gas station. And the gas station has a canopy. The canopy is proposed currently with a three-color band color treatment. There has been some review by the DRB in the past of how much of a gas station canopy to count as sign area and how much to understand as structure. And the precedent has been that we have had canopies approved where the entirety of the canopy was a solid color and the sign area on the canopy was measured as a box going around essentially the letters or indoor symbol on the canopy. And we had a determination that a more graphical treatment of a canopy, actually in the same spot at Clark's Sonoco by Exit 12, where there was blue, yellow, green, or blue, yellow, red, and a checkerboard pattern that was sort of indicative of a Sonoco branding, would treat the entire canopy as a sign. So what you have in front of you is proposed a little bit in between those two. And to some degree, it's for the DRB to discuss and discuss with the applicant how it wishes to interpret the sign plus its background, which is the basis for measuring the size of the sign. Staff calculation in your report assumes the entire canopy is the sign. So there's copy, there's multicolor, and the box is drawn around the entire facade of that canopy. That's one way of calculating it, but it's really for the DRB to decide and apply that test of what constitutes the sign and its background, because that's the measurement criteria. So you'll see that in your table, how we're doing it, 77 square feet each on the, sorry, 77 square feet each on the table, but the canopy is larger. So you could have something that is considered somewhere between 116 square feet of signage and 530 square feet of signage. So the DRB will need to make some fine use around that. And on the 116 is above the 106 is the maximum, is that right? So the total potential sign area allowed under the 8% calculation. So again, under master sign plan, you get flexibility of how much of what kind of sign you want, and it can go over those individual limits, but there's a limited 8% of the facade area of the building here in the street facing facade. And this site that generates 1,326 square feet of facade, 8% of that is 106. The proposed sign area comes out right now at 529. So we have an excess over that, and we can go over those signs, and you may want to ask the applicants a little bit about where they're at, but really, sorry to interrupt, but they're really... Right, so if you look at, I'm jumping ahead a little bit, but if you were to look at those canopies, you see that if you just measure around the logos, you've got 116 square feet, I believe, if you measure all of that red and yellow all the way around, you've got 413 square feet. So for a little bit of context here, we're looking at a maximum of 8% is 106 square feet. You can pretty much spend that just with the wall signs on the building and the existing freestanding sign without accounting for anything on the canopy at all. The canopy gets through before with the yellow and red and the word shell. So the sign area calculation method and the master sign payment requirement are both elements of the Williston Unified Development Bylaw as it was brought in June of 2009. So this was before. This came before. So what the bylaw says is when you want to do something to change your signage, and in this case, there's a couple changes proposed. One of them is the example of a change of word shell on the canopy into that shell logo. You need to do whatever you can to come into compliance, including getting a master sign plan if you need one. The other element of non-compliance on this site is that there are currently a number of these signs that are internally illuminated and that illumination method needs to go away as part of this review as well. So these opportunities for the town to review changes to signage where there's a significant amount of non-conformity, they don't come around very frequently, which is why we're here. But there is some recognition in the bylaw that non-conformity as it relates to signs may be fairly extensive. And there's some leeway I'll say in the bylaw to look at, are we reducing the non-conformity by some significant amount? Reducing the non-conformity either by size, getting rid of internal illumination, et cetera. So I'll let the board sort of have that discussion with the applicant, how they see the world in terms of what's happening under this proposal that brings it to you. Yeah, right. Good. You know, the question for the board is, at what point are you carrying a commercial message or really any message? In the case of the awnings at Panera Bread at the lot 30 project, colors that matched the signage color scheme of Panera Bread on the awnings in a pattern of stripes was seen by the board as not being assigned. That same awning with those stripes but with the shaft of wheat on it that sort of reflected Panera's logo was seen as the DRBS stepping over that boundary. So it would certainly in my opinion be within the board's flexibility to look at those two colors up there and not count that as part of the signage, if you so desire. If they were to be, if they were just coming in looking to update the canopy itself and not for a master sign plan, would they be allowed to do that since it's just, it's not additional square footage? So if they were just painting the canopy? We're just taking off the word shell and sticking on a shell. All right, I guess end painting, right? Yeah. It would probably trigger some level of review. It could be seen as triggering a master sign plan. Really, if things aren't getting a lot smaller or if internal illumination was proposed to be, pretty much have to get rid of internal illumination whether I'm doing it administratively or not. So generally, we would see a master sign plan as the right way to review this. And also to grant the maximum flexibility if the, you know, when the applicant's proposing here is also to retain some signs that are just individually considered oversize per chapter 25 and beyond what we could do administratively. So if you came in administratively and said, I wanna change that freestanding sign. I would say administratively, I can allow you to reduce the size of that sign such that it's non-conforming area is reduced by 25% and you gotta get rid of the lights inside of it. And if you're just touching that, you could ratchet that down. But once you're looking at a whole signage program for the site, it made sense to us to suggest that this should go to the DRB. And for me as zoning administrator, to defer to the DRB for a master sign plan. So other than the question of how to calculate this and the finding of what's approved, there is one recommended finding of fact that's currently written. Conclusion of law. Sorry, conclusion of law. That's currently written. It's on the last page. Oh, so then it's a condition, right? Or is it in the motion? No. Sorry, it's condition eight. And that relates to how the DRB wishes to calculate that canopy fascia. And I'm gonna stop there and let the board. Great, thanks, ma'am. Okay, gentlemen, wanna walk us through what you're planning? Yeah, so I appreciate Matt's summary there. I guess my thought would be to potentially just, I guess I'd like to break the conversation up into two components. One kind of taking this canopy fascia concept and maybe just setting it aside or discussing it at the tail end of this conversation and then focusing at the beginning of just what the existing signs are, what the proposed changes are, and how they've been presented in the application, if I could. So with that being said, I'd like to direct the board to two components of the application. One is the proposed site plan, the master sign site plan C1.0. Just so that we can orient ourselves as we talk through the different signs. And then the second is the pictures that were provided of the existing signage on the tail end of the submittal. Just a few photos. So the first sign that is for discussion here is the existing Jiffy-Mart oval building mounted sign that if you look on the site plan on Essex Road, it'd be on the right side of the building facade. It's an existing oval sign, relatively small in size, a little over six and a half square feet. And we're not proposing any changes to that whatsoever. The second is existing ground mounted sign, which on the site plan is located at the southeast corner of the property. And structurally that sign and the foundation is in good shape, but it is currently internally illuminated. So what we're proposing is replacement of all the components of that sign within the same stanchions and footprints. So the square footage of that sign would stay the same. However, the internal illumination would go away, I'll be fully replaced and then illuminated with downcasting LED, shielded light fixtures from the top of that existing structure. Again, the exact size of that would stay the same at the 78.63 square feet. And then lastly are the signs related to the canopy on both the north and south faces of the canopy that overhearing the gas pumps. If you turn to the second page of pictures, you'll see just a view of that, which is the yellow and red branding across, the actually wraps all the way around the canopy. And then currently there's a large shell spelled out on either side. And this property is currently under new ownership recently and they're just going through a rebranding exercise. And so what they like to do is eliminate that large shell lettering either side and put in the small shell logo. Again, I believe that existing shell canopy is internally illuminated. We would remove that in the proposed symbol, pectin symbol as they call it, would be again illuminated with a downcasting fixture from the top of the structure. Getting back to the total square footage of the allowable signage, we agree the application concurs with Matt's assessment of the building facade and the total allow at 106 square feet of signage. On that C1.0 site plan at the very bottom of that, we've put together a brief sign summary that we've pulled outlines of what we think is an interpretation of both the existing signage that's on site, the proposed signage, and this summary of how it complies with the regulations. And right now, again, ignoring the facade, the canopy facade, if you will, right now there's 120.3 square feet of existing signage out there, obviously above the 106 that's allowed. What we're proposing is a slight reduction in that and the reduction comes from the canopy, the shell lettering going down from the shell down to that logo reduces us about a four square feet or so. So the proposed total signage is 116.3 square feet. Again, we understand it's slightly over what would be considered allowed based on the facade square footage, but we do feel that because we're reducing the total square footage from existing proposed, based on the calculations of nonconformance reduction, we're getting about a 28% reduction in the square footage of total signage out there. So we feel the proposed sign, master sign plan, complies with, although not meeting the total square footage, does comply with the requirement to reduce the amount of nonconformance, if you will. So we kind of see this rebranding, providing three benefits to the town. One is certainly a reduction in the square footage of signage. Two is the complete elimination of any internal illuminated signs on the property. And then the third benefit I forgot to mention on that ground mounted sign was only complied with a planting bed and flowers that would go around that as shown on the site plan. So we'd have that additional aesthetic to the signage, the ground mounted sign. Then I guess that's a summary of the signs. If we wanna then shift the conversation back over to the facade, we certainly understand there's been previous cases and some deliberation on this concept of the facade. Right now that is all bright yellow and red. All that we're really looking to do is essentially add a white band around the perimeter of that to soften the amount of yellow on there. I think we feel that it's not necessarily, certainly the colors are shell brand. There's some branding that goes along with that, but there's really no logo or design or intent or maybe it's Matt alluded to with the other gas station, the checkered or in Panera's case, the wheat symbol. There's nothing really associated with that other than the color scheme tying in with the logo itself. So I guess our. There was nothing associated with it painted black and blue. Well, yeah, and I understand that concept. Yeah, it certainly is a branding from that perspective. It's branding, let's make sure we all understand that. Whether it has a logo on it or not, it's still branding. So I guess from that perspective, we would say that we don't consider to be part of the sign. I guess if the board's thought process or determination to say that it is contingent or contiguous with the sign, I guess our fallback position will be, well, it's an existing sign there now then because it's also multicolored that ties in with it. And so it's, we're really being a similar situation where we've gotten existing. We're not expanding the size of that facade or increasing the height any, it's just a repainting so that the non-conformity of the site as a whole would still be reduced. It just wouldn't be reduced on the same, quite the same scale because obviously the amount of area that that facade around the canopy takes up is pretty significant. So I think that's the position on what we're proposing here and I'll open up to the board for any questions. All right, why don't you just flush C4 completely? That gives you, that'll eliminate 70, what is it? 77.5 square feet and all it is is facing the building. So just eliminate that completely, just make it painted white. Oh, I missed, Paul, I missed that. What was your suggestion? It's high-facing the building. Oh, he's got the signs all the way around the canopy. C4 faces the building, you can't even see it yet it's calculated as a volume. You know, they just go eliminate it, paint it all white and that takes care of that whole 77 square feet right there. I don't think they'd have a problem with, no, that's great. Okay, all right. Matt, if somebody comes in, you alluded to this in your opening statement, if somebody comes in with a non-conforming sign and wishes to make changes, you want to see, you would, right off the bat, want to see a reduction in size of the sign by X amount percentage. Correct, so let's just, hypothetically, there's a sign that's 100 square feet bigger than it's allowed to be. You have to reduce the non-conformity by 25%. So you reduce the size of that sign by 25 square feet. By the size of the 100, or by the size of the size? So there's a sign, there's how much bigger it is than it's supposed to be and it's the how much bigger that gets reduced. Reduced by 25%. And, you know, the language in the bylaw talks about that in terms of treating a sign, not in terms necessarily of a site-wide total, but, you know, the board could look at that guidance and say, well, it's supposed to be 8%, it's a little over that now, it's gonna be a lot less over that. And I'm talking about if you don't count the canopy, you know, we're relatively close. The board could also take a hard line and say, no, it's, you know, it's 106 square feet and that's all you get and we've got to get there somehow. It's really up to the board how it wants to apply those rules. You know, gas stations are probably our biggest challenge in their master sign planes because they are small buildings with small facades that tend to have a lot of signage. A lot going on. And that's why you see, you know, plain and solid color canopies and a lot of them because it's just, it's really challenging to have a lot of big sign area related there. I know this was part, again, Matt's opening statement, but confirming that all internal illumination is going to go away. Okay, great, good. All right, so that's a great step in the right direction. Questions from the board? So the white band that's gonna go around that will be new, but will the orange or yellow and red, is that also new? Or is it just the white band that's going, are the yellow and red bands gonna stay as is? It's essentially the same. It's not, I don't know if it's quite exactly the same size, but it's certainly new materials because the old stuff is in rough shape. Is it paint or vinyl? It's a metal piece that goes on, a fascia piece that goes on. One single piece for all the colors. Exactly, exactly, yes. It's one piece that's the entire width of the canopy by the height. Yes, it's in eight, it's in eight or 10 foot sections, but yes, it looks like one continuous piece. 10 foot sections. And it's just kind of bracket mounted onto the structure there. Is there a finished material behind it? I mean, do you have a metal fascia that comes over that's attached to the roof and it's part of the roofing system and then these things just kind of go on the face of that or is this the fascia itself? Just like angle brackets up on top. I don't know if you've ever seen a canopy without the fascia on it, but it's just structural steel back and forth and there's angle brackets that stand upright. They go in. Yeah, and then the fascia attaches to that. The canopy is not really three feet tall. The fascias are, but the steel is much shorter actually inside them. I don't know what else to ask. Okay, any other questions? Yes, in other words, you're telling me we could take those bands and suddenly say, ah, you get three 10 foot sections per side. Right? Yes? Because you're saying that there've been 10 foot segments so we could say the rest of it's gotta be white, correct? Yes, no? Yeah, I'm not sure how that would fly with shell. That's the driving factor. I think what's critical is it's how the board chooses to measure what they're calling the sign. The intent of the bylaw in my opinion was it says, you measure the copy plus the background. So if somebody says, well, you're only gonna give me 24 square feet, here's my logo. I'm gonna center it on a 300 square foot white panel that's all lit up. Well, really what you're doing at that point is making a 300 square foot sign. And so gas station canopies are a challenge because they're almost always colored this way in the brand colors. And if you were measuring either that shell logo or the shell word and someone said, draw the rectangle around the sign, where would you draw the rectangle? And would it matter to you where you drew the rectangle based on how many colors and what those colors were applied to the canopy structure? So as you are aware, we are tasked with holding the bylaw and bringing non-conforming sections, areas into conformance or getting them closer. So Paul's comment earlier about doing away with the coloration facing the building, that's something that flies with you guys? Of course. Okay, all right. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? All set? You all set? Thank you for coming. We'll deliberate on it a little later on tonight. You can check with staff in the morning. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're gonna close DP 20-01 at 29. Next up is DP-20-02, pre-application for Nick and Erwin Stegers. Did I murder that? Erwin. Erwin. Okay, if you would state your names and your addresses, please, and we are going to open up this hearing at 730. Lucy Thayer, Trudell Consulting Engineers. We're at 478 Blair Park Road, Willison, Vermont, 05495. Andrea Dottolo, Trudell Consulting Engineers. Same address. All right, welcome. Sir, are you gonna be part of this? I'll just state your name for the record. Nick Stegers, 13 Ivy Street, South Burlington, Vermont. Great, thanks a bunch. Okay, Matt, you again? Again, this is a request for pre-application review. It's for a proposed mixed use redevelopment of an existing residential parcel in the Gateway Zoning District West. The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing single family home on the 0.8 acre parcel. All right, hold on one second. You don't want to tear that thing down. Find somebody to move it. No, but I'm sure somebody does. It's a beautiful, it's a beautiful little house. I'm okay with that. Put an ad in the paper, see if you can get somebody to move it for free and move it someplace or down the road. That's a suggestion, it's not a requirement. Okay, keep going. It's a cute little house. The applicant proposes to construct a paved drive in parking area, a structure with a commercial use in the ground floor, and a single dwelling residential use on the second floor, and an accessory structure in the rear of the parcel to be used as a garage and for storage. Those use- Is that a commercial garage? No, a garage, garage. It's just a storage garage. Storage garage. Okay. Storage of cars associated with the residential use and storage of stuff in the upstairs. Nothing to do with motor vehicle repair. The applicant for use is proposing a dental office, North America Industry Classification System 62210. Our bylaw for the Gateway West allows all uses beginning with the number 6-2 in this category, which is healthcare and social assistance. There is a new structure proposed actually to the garage and the larger commercial and residential mixed use building. Those buildings are proposed to be underneath the town's 36-foot limit on building height and conforming to front, rear, and side yards. That would be the sense of site work on the site related to the, we'll say on the floor of the building, the construction of the drive parking area and the two new proposed structures. There is no subdivision or boundary line adjustment proposed. The access is not proposed to change in location on the site, although the use will and staff is advising the applicant communicate with the Vermont Agency of Transportation who manage access to this section of State Highway as it relates to their 1111 permit, which is the permit issued by that agency for changes in use to existing accesses. We do have some standards in the bylaw related to safe pedestrian and cyclist access. We have a bike lane on the street in front of the site and a signalized crosswalk at North Brown L Road and a little stub of crosswalk at O'Brien's Store, no pedestrian facility on the other side. The DRB may want to discuss with the applicant whether extending sidewalk across the frontage of this makes sense. There is a sidewalk proposed from the road to the main entrance of the commercial use along the access driveway. In terms of setbacks and landscaping requirements, the applicant is showing some setbacks on the site and staff has prepared a table showing the required setbacks in the district. In terms of adjoining uses, we have what we would call other residential uses to the rear of the site and on the western side. To the south, we have a public way, US2, and to the east, we have retail service commercial O'Brien's gas station. There's a parking lot landscaping requirement that can be applied to this related to the landscape islands that is shown in the applicant's preliminary plan. And it appears to staff, there's room for one or more shade trees and more. In terms of parking requirements at this stage, based on the proposed use as medical office and a single unit dwelling with one of those, we see a proposed minimum and maximum under our bylaw of 17 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing at this time 20 and has provided some narrative stating, given the turnover in the office, that a little bit higher demand than the bylaw allows for when you have somebody waiting for an appointment, somebody in an appointment, somebody just leaving an appointment who might all be there at the same time. The bylaw does provide a mechanism by which somebody can build more than the number of parking spaces required and that's been quoted at the bottom of the parking table in your staff report. You can designate some carpool or alternative fuel vehicle spaces. You can construct structured parking or you can construct the majority of the spaces required over porous pavement and those are ways in which you can exceed the maximum in the bylaw. This is also the time of the review process where the ERB could request a shared parking study. Staff's not recommending a shared parking study for this site at this time. We've been pretty cautious about shared parking between residential and commercial uses. There could be a potential for some space reduction based on different peak hours of use between residential and commercial. Staff's not recommending a traffic impact study be prepared for this. The DRB could request one at this time. However, we would like to know something about trip generation that's predicted on the site to form a basis for the assessment of a traffic impact fee at the time of permitting. There will be some outdoor lighting as part of this application. Full detail in outdoor lighting is not required as part of pre-application, but the staff does recommend the object will need to present a photometric plan showing compliance with the town's lighting standards as part of a discretionary permit. In terms of signage, with a single commercial tenant, master sign plan is not required if the signage proposed is gonna meet the baseline limits of chapter 25. So that's a freestanding sign no more than 32 square feet. In size or a wall sign, no more than 24 square feet. There's no requirement for a master sign plan since it is a single commercial tenant. The applicant is proposing to connect to municipal water and wastewater service. Discretionary permit will be the stage where we'll need to see all the utility locations. There's, as an element of site maintenance, there's already a location in dumpster enclosure identified on the site as the bylaw would require. We may wanna know a little more at discretionary permit about things like snow storage and other site maintenance elements like that. Other than discussing that dumpster, there's no outdoor storage proposed or allowed on the site. It's all interior work. We don't see any wetlands or waterways present on the site. And as a property fronting Williston Road, this property is in the town's design review district and subject to the standards of Chapter 22. It did receive a preliminary review from the Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee prior to this meeting. They had no specific recommendations. At this time, I did provide the hack minutes. We talked a little bit about some things like window placement and good access to indoor bike parking and things like that, they weren't really pointed things that come out of the design review chapter. So based on all of that, staff is recommending this pre-application request be allowed by the DRB to proceed to the discretionary permit stage with recommendations that the users allowed that the discretionary permit application should be in conformance with all the requirements to be developed by law and that comments provided by Fire and Public Works at this stage of review be addressed as part of the discretionary permit. Public comment, I will note, we did receive one letter of public comment included in your packet. Folks at 524 North Brownell Road, generally commenting that they felt the 23 foot landscape buffer was inadequate to insulate them and other residential users in the neighborhood from the added traffic, noise, et cetera, that would come with a commercial use in the site and some concerns about the continuing movement of commercial sprawl into the long-established abutting residential area located on North Brownell Road. And they closed their letter by suggesting that the redevelopment of the parcels not in the best interest of surrounding residents and strongly urge the board to deny the application. So you should have a copy of that letter in your packet as well. That was the only comment we received. I'll stop there. Great, thank you very much. Okay, how about walking us through the project? All right, thank you very much, Matt. So I'll kind of go in a similar order as you laid out. In terms of access, we're proposing the same access point. It is wider to accommodate two-way traffic by keeping it in the existing position. Location will be able to utilize the left turn lane to avoid potential backed up traffic on Williston Road. Kind of moving into the setbacks and landscape, you can see that this is one area where I think that we have a different understanding of what the adjoining use is to the East. During a phone conversation that we had with the planning department, our understanding is that it's actually a mixed use, including residential at the O'Brien store, not a retail service commercial. So that would change the setback from 23, the type three setback to nine feet, which would put us in greater compliance for this southern section of the access entry drive. So Matt, please correct me if I'm wrong. If there's a residential use in that structure, you could treat the whole parcel as mixed use, including residential and go to nine feet on that buffer. On the applicant side or the O'Brien side? O'Brien's would be, is also a mixed use. Is there a residential component in the O'Brien side? Yes. Upstairs? That's our understanding based on a conversation with the planning department. So that's one, aside from that, the proposed access really given our frontage and building footprint and setbacks, we feel that this is really the most appropriate location to place it, to utilize the existing access. So we have provided for approximately a four and a half foot buffer space that would have an opaque fence meeting the requirements. And potentially there is an existing fence there. So we could work with the adjoining landowners, the O'Brien Town and Country Store and extend it as necessary or potentially replacing kind. But our proposal is to have a fence run the duration of the access road that does encroach into that nine foot buffer or the buffer area. And then as soon as we have enough width within the lot, the access drive does come out of the buffer so that that can be maintained. Do you remember often how wide that access drive is? 22 feet. 22. Yeah, so we went as narrow as we could and took it away from the building to as far, we kind of, and that's why the building is set back where it is. Cause that was the closest we could get it to the setback to get the width we needed for the sidewalk and access drive and have a little room for screening. So the parking. Yes, we do show additional parking than what the min-max requirement is. I think Matt did a pretty good job explaining some of our thought there. The reason that we did include three additional spots is because of the number of employees that are expected to be on site at any given time, which could be eight or nine, the anticipated number of patients at any given time. And then having that overflow of new patients arriving before patients leave for their appointment. Additionally, the single residence above the apartment unit is a large apartment. So accommodating guests. So that that was the thinking for having the additional three spaces. Those are our main points. I think Matt iterated that the garage in the rear of the lot is for storage and garage use. No exterior storage, no public use for the garage. That will all be privately used, so. Okay. Questions from the board? Why don't you bother with pictures of the backyard since it looks like you're gonna pave everything on this lot. Just out of curiosity. The other question I have is, will your snow storage that you're gonna plow to, if you plow towards the back of this facility, will it drain into the person who lives on South Brown El? I mean at North Brown El Road, or are you gonna have to put a berm in there to keep the snow when it does melt from continuing further north, or are you gonna have drains that tie it into the sewer system where all your excess water goes there? The property to the north is a little bit higher than this existing property. They're at 348 with parents and this property is down at 345, 346 in the back. I think there's plenty of room to push snow off to the side there. The other thing is, what are the hours of operation gonna be for this facility? Generally shows up by 7.30 and they're generally gone by 5.30. Okay, the reason I ask the question is because if you've ever been at that intersection, trying to turn right out of this facility on the Williston Road heading towards the east, you're gonna be very excited to find out it's almost impossible to do that some nights. So I think there will be a traffic study requested. Okay, that's all I need. Other questions from the board? Did you look at consider turning the garage so that it butts up to like the dumpster entrance and then you could eliminate some of the extra pavement and you'll have to help the neighbors behind too. Is the garage for the residents or for the office? Will it be cars parked in that garage? Inside the garage? Primarily it's for my boat and landscaping, but it's not. Can we count garages as parking spaces? When we look at a purely residential use, we do, but we have not traditionally counted parking provided in garages, except for like structured parking in a multifamily. We've not counted that against what's allowed site-wide as essentially surface parking. So if we were to look at John like a row of townhomes, typically we're seeing parking spaces on the exterior that meet the min-max and we're not necessarily assuming all the garages will be left clear to store vehicles at all times. But I would say that it's been somewhat flexible. The boards looked at that. I mean, you know, because I heard that they are, they're saying they need the 20 spaces because there's a residential component to the site and those folks need to park. That's not, you said that's the reason why you need more than the 17 parking spots. I see what you're saying. How often do you see people going back and forth to the garage and accessing the storage there? Certainly not every day. A few days a week, primarily, my guess being more of an office is not operated. So if weekends, Friday. Notice it made a comment about you said you're going to have landscaping tools in there. You're not going to have a commercial service. No, it's just environmental properties. Did the 12 foot wide paved access drive, I'm wondering if you were to shift the parking over to the east, it seems like you could get by with just a single drive lane all the way back and you could get rid of that access drive. You know, if you move that bank of parking all the way over to the right, you may be able to save on the pavement. Does that make sense? I don't know that you need that extra access drive if you do that. Not quite following what you're saying. You drove down the center of a parking lot and even you turned the garage 90 degrees and drove straight into it, you wouldn't need that whole access road. That actually wasn't what I was saying, but that would be the, that would be the other. That's what I thought you were saying. That's what I thought you were saying. I thought it made sense. I thought these, jeez, that's a good idea. The reduction of impervious surface. That would be exactly what he says and also then shifting the whole bank of parking to the east so that it's more of a straight shot back. Why? I was always saying. Something to look at as. So it's closer to the commercial side generally, yeah. Okay. Have you considered where the stormwater facility is it going to be on this side? We have not looked at stormwater so far. I do know that the soils are mapped as very well drained loamy sand. So we'll likely do some sort of infiltration practice. The entire parcel is only 0.8 acres. So it's not kicking into a state storm on a permit at this time. Did you note there was a, there was a DPW comment about tying into or septic. There is sewer along with two here, right? It was a interesting question. Yeah, I can shed some light on that, David. Yeah, where will onsite sewer be? So there is sewer service in this area, but much of it is pressurized and the town's standards don't allow generally connections to force mains. So even, you know, there are situations in parts of town where there might be a pipe right there in the street, but it might not be allowed under the sewer use ordinance to connect to it. So I think that's where Public Works' question is coming from. Some of the board members might recall the Chad Shepherd property just on South Brown Hall on the other side. We ran into a similar challenge related to private septic versus sewer there due to a force main in the street. So what is being proposed? I mean, either summary says that it proposes to connect to municipal wastewater service. So which are we doing, onsite or connecting? So I guess I, so then you're after that. Does that contradict what you just said? No, what it means is that if it's not as easy as gravity feed into a pipe in the street, the applicants may need to work with Public Works on how that connection can be achieved. An odd way for them to raise the question. We have, for example, on the other side of the road bare property from this on Shun Pike Road, we have a low pressure line. And as I understand, there's been a little more ability to connect to that. In other words, there are engineering solutions to how to tie into wastewater. It's also a matter of meeting the regulations the town has. And also, sometimes we have people, I can think of a few residential projects where there's a force main in the street. So you've got to go up along the property in some other route to find a place where you can get to a gravity feed. It's just a matter of utilities. I would view it as, you know, we in zoning merely require that wastewater be adequately treated. So you either develop a septic system or you connect to Town Sewer in a way that's acceptable to Town Public Works under the sewer use ordinance. Is there sewer along North Brunel? Do you know? Do you believe there is to open that up? Yeah, I'm seeing a gravity line along Williston Road. And then where Chad Shepard had to connect that purple is the force main. So there's gravity in North Brunel further up toward lamp light, basically. But there's, I believe that's force. Yeah, it's force main at the intersection. On North Brunel. The gas station to the east in North Brunel where it switches from gap gravity back to the right. Right back by the back of the gas station parcel. There's gravity back there. Can it ease when it drops their property to town? Not ours to solve, is it? But honestly, we look for all the utilities to be shown at discretionary. And at final, I look for either a head nod from upstairs or a WW from the state wastewater permit. It's something that needs a little attention. Yes, we look forward to it. Is there septic out here now, presumably? They're not tied in to sewer? To the best of my knowledge, that house is tied into the municipal sewer system. It is not currently occupied or under use. So I do think it's disconnected currently. Other questions to the board? No? Questions from the audience. Anybody here? We did get a letter from a neighbor. That neighbor is not here. Anything else you would like to add? That's it, we look forward to coming back. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Gonna close, we're gonna close DP 20-02 Nick and Arman's figures at 755. Next up is DP 16-05.1 and is a pre-app for Allenbrook Development. I'm going to recuse myself as I have an interest in the property across the street. John Hemmelgard is going to run the, here. And Emily, I'd like to just note the record that in the past I have recused myself on this project as I had a financial interest in it, but at this point I do not have that interest. So I am participating. So, let's, we'll start with you guys, give us your names and addresses. Brian Birch, Allenbrook Development. Addresses 31 Commerce Ave in South Burlington. Dan Isle, Leirde-Burkson, Leirde-Burkson, Kalecoyne, Iconx 147 Allenbrook Lane, Lawson. Dave Epstein, Shreks Collins, 209 Battery Street, Burlington. Thank you. So, Emily, are you doing this or is Matt? I see, I'm sorry. I pointed out the fact that he's not here. Doing this in minutes probably would make the range. Yes, I. You again, Matt. All your names and addresses? I got all four of them, yes. This is for pre-application review of a proposed amendment to the Cottonwood Crossing Mixed Use Project. This is in the Mixed Use Residential Zoning District and the request involves a number of changes to some of what has already had discretionary review and approval in the project as well as a flushing out of the second phase of the project. So I'll just sort of very briefly list the major changes and leave most of that discussion to the applicant and the board. So we have a preliminary review under this pre-application in phase two of buildings A2 and B2 and their appartent parking areas, access drives, drive-throughs, landscaping, et cetera. And in A1 and B1, those two buildings, we have some design changes to those buildings, notably the quote-unquote tower feature at the corner of A1, you can reduce the height a little bit and altered from occupiable space to a non-occupied piece of the structure. We also have some changes to the parking area behind A1 and B1, the location of the park green feature, rain garden feature back there and some proposed changes to the street as it comes in Cottonwood Way between Williston Road and the square about as we call it, the roundabout that also has a square. That curb pattern on that main street was originally designed with this sort of sawtooth pattern that it's proposed now as a straight curb with retention of the wide sidewalk and street trees along it. So that's a very, very, very brief overview. We also have a proposed use for building A2. It's a commercial bank headquarters and retail banking with drive-through service so that necessitates some detail added to the site plan on that side in phase two, showing how the drive-through would be accommodated and also eliminating the subsurface parking in that building. So we still have parking provided but we don't have parking under that building as we do under A1 on the other side of Cottonwood Way. Provided a brief history of the approvals so far for Cottonwood Crossing, including original pre-application review and approval, growth management approval, discretionary permit and final plan approval and administrative permitting of the first phase of the project which is what you would see under way. I have attempted in a very small way to provide some comparisons of the building elevations and of the designs of the proposed phase two building. So as you get into the staff report, you see reductions of the A2 and B2 renderings and then as best a side-by-side as I could come up with in the proposed changes to A1, showing the difference in the tower feature and the way the facade window and door pattern is changing and then the changes to the site plan layout for phase one which are oriented the same way and show the slight differences in the B1 footprint and then the layout of the parking area. So this is a pre-application review of a number of different elements of the site and generally to the staff, all of these proposed changes appear approvable under the bylaw, but that said, there's a lot of moving parts to this. So Cotton Crossing is arguably going to be the second biggest mixed-use multi-building project in town and land area in the last 20 years. It had a pretty extensive preliminary growth management and discretionary permit review. It was the highest scoring project in the town's history of growth management related to it ticking a lot of the boxes when it came to the provision of affordable housing, energy efficiency, neighborhood design, neighborhood compatibility, et cetera. And we are as it often happens in large, multi-tenant, multi-use projects seeing some changes as the project progresses and this is the first time there's a proposal for the project to deviate from the concepts the DOB saw in the last couple of years. So it's worth working through those somewhat carefully, making sure the board understands and gives the applicant good feedback on anything they see that they think might need further information or to potentially be altered when the discretionary permit proposal comes through. This also did receive review by the Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee because it is in the design review district and also is subject to some design criteria specific to the mixed-use residential schooling district. So the HAC would like to see material and sample boards provided as part of discretionary permit. That makes sense to the staff. They are recommending some windows be added to the bank building wall. This is B1 above the drive-through facade. So if you look at that building, you see there's a drive-through feature and some windows right in there. A2, sorry, I get which it's the phases one and two buildings A and B, it's the pattern. Thank you. The HAC recommended some emphasized lighting fixtures or other features for the main entrance of B2 facing cottonwood drive. And in B2 and A2, the HAC recommends interconnecting walkways between the building through parking areas and parking area medians. So similar to the board's recent experience looking at the healthy living proposal, wanting to make sure there's good pedestrian access where a good volume of pedestrians might be likely to come through the parking areas. The HAC's recommending conditions on A2 and B2 related to the provision of air rocks on major entrances to ensure compliance with the requirements of 22 there and that the applicant provide detail related to hours of operation in B2. So remember, it's a mixed use project and in fact also has some mixed use buildings. When you get into chapter 22, the designer view standards, some of it is about how buildings look and how they feel from the street, but there's a significant part of 22 that's designed to anticipate and manage for the potential user conflicts between a residential user of a building and a commercial user of a building. Things like if you live in an apartment in a mixed use building, you shouldn't have the stereotypical neon sign glaring it at you through the window, experience underutilized from the commercial uses set. So hours of operation is one way of understanding that impact, not having to walk past trash receptacles if you're a residential user, so placement of dumpsters and things like that. So the hack called that out as well. So I'm gonna stop there following that very brief overview so the board can hear the applicant's full presentation and then we can go into detail on any of these elements and I'll provide answers to any questions the board has that you think I can answer best. Right. Thank you, Greg. So how do you wanna do this? You wanna give us a summary of what you're doing on the changes or the new building or? Sure. Yeah, there's, as Matt said, there's a lot of moving parts with this project. Excuse me? Can you get an introduction on these? Okay, Brian Birch from Allen Brook Development. And... I'm gonna hold, were you not here when they introduced themselves before? Okay. So there are a lot of moving parts. It's a large project in several phases. So we had met with Matt and Emily earlier in the summer to ask how to best approach this phase two, which is the A2 and B2 building. They were shown on the master plan, which was approved by the DRB. And essentially, if you take a look at the master plan that was approved, they're more or less in the same location. The roads are being built now and those two buildings have a slightly different footprint, but similar size and similar use. But because we're coming in with a new user, Community Bank, who we're excited about, we wanted to get the board's feedback on their building and their drive-through. The drive-through wasn't part of the original proposal. And the B2 building, we've made it a little larger. It now kind of wraps around Wood Drive and Connerway Extension. And to do that, we eliminated the D1 building, which was part of the original phase two approval. So the units in D2 have now been operated into B2 because it's a little bigger. So that's what's going on in phase two. And the other part of phase two is that Fourth Community Bank, we're actually gonna be subdividing a lot out for them because Community Bank is actually, they wanted to purchase a lot and build and own their building, which I think says a lot about their commitment to Williston and this area. So that's another piece of this application. So Community Bank's been working with Truex Cullins, David and Ben from Truex on their design of A2. Bill Gardner is designed to B2. It's almost a copy of a B1, which was approved in 2016. And so they're here to talk about those two buildings. And Dan and I can answer any questions you have on the phase one amendments that we're seeking approval for. Those are relatively minor. The big one is the curbing along Cottonwood Drive in the relocation of the Pocket Park. And I think Matt and Emily's staff report is a great way to see those changes because it's really, you really gotta compare them side by side and that's what they've done. Okay, I'm still timing. We've got essentially three groups of people here to make presentations. So I'm trying to think of whether I go boom, boom, boom, back and forth or do... You want to speak to A2? Why don't we follow the order of the staff report as just a proposal. We'll start with A2 and then do B2 and then we can look at the changes. However you want. I think it would be good to do one of those buildings and we'll go through all the issues there. Okay. So, well, I want to have some other suggestions. My name's Dave Epstein. I'm with Trux Collins. This is Ben Allred also with Trux Collins. He actually does all the work. So we're very pleased to present on behalf of Community Bank their new headquarters. This is their headquarters building and there's a branch bank in it. And the building is essentially L-shaped similar to what was approved originally. We took great care to locate the drive-through over here on Cottonwood Drive away from route two. So it's essentially hidden from route two. We're treating the Cottonwood Drive elevation as sort of the main street elevation. So that's where the main entrance is. And there's a similar rhythm along Wilson Road but no entries along that point. There's also a main, there's two main entries. There's sort of an atrium space that slices through the building on the courtyard side. We've treated the Cottonwood elevation very much like a main street building with both in scale, material. There's a covered walkway. There's a curved glass element. Show that on the drawings you have in front of you as well. We're really excited about the entry here. Behind the curved glass element is a community room. So there'll be a lot of activity. It's a space the community can use as well as they can use it for internal use. The building is brick and fiber cement panels and glass. They're very much, we like to say that the buildings A2 and A1, they're not twin brothers. They're more like cousins. So they have similar scale, similar material. A1 has a more pronounced corner unit. We have also a corner element as well to reflect that, but we're not trying to mimic it. On the interior courtyard, the building L, we've worked pretty hard to keep the courtyard free of parking and there's a curved walkway you can see and it'll be planted and it'll be a place for employees during the day and visitors as well. The plan is where that walkway curves is to connect that across the parking lot to the adjacent building to B2. And that's what was referred to in the staff comments about connectivity. So this curve right here will come across the parking lot. It'll be a surf, it'll be a different material in the surface of the parking lot that will take you across to B2. So is there a site plan that shows that? The site plan I have is on the cover of what you said is here and it doesn't look like those really line up very... That's going to be revised with our discretionary firm application. The site plan doesn't show that right now but that connectivity over to B2 is going to be incorporated in our perspective. Okay, I mean it seems... That was feedback we got last week from the HAC committee and we agree with them and we've already started to work out how to... I thought I had the same comment. I guess similarly by the curved glass piece that's showing four trees and there's not the trees on there, are the trees on the other door? We're working to coordinate the site plan so that they speak the same number of trees and they have all that things. This one preceded that one and... Is this the correct way? Will the trees be there? There will definitely be trees there. Yeah, yes. The exact number, I can't say but there will definitely be trees in the front. Any questions? So if we go, I guess there's one comment that I would make which is right off I think a particular challenge that we've got here is that you've kind of divided this design components up and that initially this was, as Matt said, a very well-scoring, high-scoring project as a single entity. So I guess I would just say as one of my comments that when we get to discretionary permit, I'm gonna wanna see kind of how those are still working together. But this is a single project and a single design of this site. Now, I'm looking at you, Brian, because you're the one that's connecting the people on your left from the people on your right. Yeah. Yes, and I agree and with Community Bank, yeah, we may be selling them a lot for them to build their building. They understand that their building's part of Cottonwood Crossing and we like that and so do they. There's a lot of nice features in Cottonwood that their employees and their customers will appreciate and there's a lot of shared amenities, things like the roads which will be built to public standards but remain private. So it won't look at all like a standalone lot their building. It's really their building is a part of our project and we need to design it so it looks that way on paper and we're getting closer. And do we have, and I apologize for not looking at this closer, do we have anywhere that's a better comparison of, oh, this is a one, but a comparison of what we're looking at now compared to what was approved? And I ask that because it's gonna be a recurring theme I think tonight is that you had a great presentation at the growth management and whatnot and made a lot of statements there of what this project was gonna be and I think it's important to the DRB here that we maintain those components of the design. I think we're gonna want to be looking back and making sure that there's not a diminishment here of any of the things that were proposed at that time. Okay, yep, and we'll take a look at that score same way we scored it originally, but really not a lot's changed as far as things that the growth management score is based on. There's still a lot of affordable housing and a lot of recreation space connections, street connections, pedestrian connections and I'm not seeing that comparison in this application. In terms of a perspective growth management score. Yes, in terms of what goes. I think to some degree, as we understand it, paths and trails, pedestrian connectivity is not changing. The number of affordable units and the composition of the unit types is not substantially changing. We are losing that building D and moving those units into a multi-family. So you're going from one kind of multi-family to another. Design elements are probably a little more subjective. So design for context, neighborhood compatibility. Multi-story mixed use buildings adjacent to a project like Maple True Place where there's multi-story mixed use buildings across the road from the place with multi-story mixed use buildings and tap farm. I think we know from experience that you can get a growth management score and you can change some things about your project as you flesh out your design, especially when it's a big one. However, the board should always be in a position that if it's allowing changes to go forward, it's comfortable saying we would still see this as a competitive project under those criteria worthy of a score necessary to render the allocation schedule that it got. So for those of the board members who weren't here and those who might not remember, this project competed for growth management allocation the same year that Finney Crossing was coming in for a large amount of allocation. And the two projects were essentially aimed at the same pot of units. Finney was given units a little sooner in time than this project, but both projects were given all the units they were requesting. The timing thing, both because of changes in the bylaw and the passage of time has become a lot less of an issue for us. In other words, you could both build all of these units in Finney tomorrow if you could find a way to buy the sewer allocation to send. Growth management is no longer the timing challenge. But you certainly as a board and as managers of that growth management process want to always keep an eye on, is this still a project that was worthy of the type of score it got when we scored it? Because if it's not, if it changes so fundamentally that you think that score would be fundamentally changed, the answer is it's a different project and it needs to be taken through the full review process. So just, I hope I'm not even gonna add it. Right. So I guess, let's, David is. I have a question. Sure. A clarifying question. The, when you talk about the single project and the compatibility of the buildings, I think the, if you compare like a maple tree place which where it has a very homogenous architectural expression and then different tenants inhabit those expressions and about all they get to express their identity is their sign really. And I think for the bank, similar to the Union Bank project, the bank is, you know, the building is their identity. The building, they want to express themselves. And they don't, I'm not sure they want to be of a homogenous architectural style with their sign being the only thing that distinguishes them from the rest of Cottonwood Place because they do own the property, they do own the building. So I'm, you know, we're planning on, from a scale standpoint, material standpoint, you know, rhythm standpoint of the building to be very compatible with the cotton tree, even the materials and the colors. But formally, we weren't expecting to need to comply strictly with, you know, if they have this kind of cornice, we have to put that kind of cornice on. So I'm wondering what the sense of flexibility is among the board. That probably varies with each member up here. So I can speak for myself, is that I am sensitive to the issues that you bring up. On the other hand, we need to be careful that we're still reviewing the same project and that we don't need to go back if it came out a very different feeling to this building. It was a different character to the, lent a different character entirely to the development. I think we would want to say, you know, let's stop and think about this for a minute. So, I mean, I haven't seen anything in what you've presented here that raises those alarms. There's a couple other elements on the site plan that I have questions about. So, we'll get to that I think in a minute. I would say given what David has presented, does anyone have any questions of him about what building materials are? I don't know about the materials, but on the building A2 that was there before, wasn't there an entrance off the Walliston roadside? Or was it? No, the level of design of anything that wasn't in phase one was pretty much limited to a footprint in the approved final plan. So, if you go back to what currently has an approval for Cottonwood Crossing, there's a design of the phase one buildings and arching area and everything else sufficient to allow those to be permitted and built. There's a design to Cottonwood Way and the streets and the street layout in the entire project. And then there's a whole bunch of essentially polygons that say there will be a building here, building here, building here. Generally the idea of whether a building would be multi-story, whether it will be commercial, residential or mixed use was identified in that overall plan. But beyond that, at a minimum, you fall back to the standards of 22 and the design requirements of the, sorry, gateway. Mixed use residential zoning district. Change in the parking complex in phase one. Did that get run by the fire department? The reason I ask is, can the tower truck come in and make that turn now with the floor trees that are now basically cornering that rectangular parking area that used to basically have a rounded off, chopped off little park in there? Sure, so this did receive, this was submitted to the fire department for review. I'm looking to see if I have specific comment from them about getting the truck around. We always direct our applicants to work with the fire department as it relates to those things. Well, I'm not clear. Are you referring to phase one or phase one? The backside of the L in phase one, they used to have a park and then what happened is the parking lot now is stretched more vertical and that turn seems a lot sharper than it would have been in the old days. And now I see trees on the corners there. I was just wondering if they were aware of that because I don't know if the big ladder can make it in there. So the short answer is their comment memo asks to confirm the ability for truck access and we've proposed our draft recommendation that all of their comments were correct. So I want to bring this back a little bit in that this is a pre-application. So these folks are here to get recommendations and feedback from us. I have another? I have another question. One moment, Paul. Right now we're talking about building A2. So I'd like just to try to focus our attention, which we're having, it's been a challenging time so far because this is a big sprawling project. So I'll start by saying that I appreciate the location of the drive-through. I appreciate the maintaining of the street view along Wilson Road. I'm not sure that's a great spot to have a building entrance. I know that the project was designed initially to create that street along Cottonwood, what is it called? Cottonwood Way and you're maintaining an entrance along there, I think that's a good response as well. I have no issues with the materials or the massing of the building. My question would be is to what extent is this a mixed use building at this point? The two uses are a branch bank. Is that a change from where you had envisioned? Is that a significant change? It was both the A1 and the A2 buildings were commercial buildings, two-story commercial buildings. No residential. No residential. So we originally planned for the first floor to be retail and the second floor to be office. So community banks essentially doing that same thing. The retail banks on the first level, their office is gonna relocate from South Burlington to here. Okay, so anybody else have comments or suggestions on building A2? Are there gonna be two entrances? One on Cottonwood. One is on Cottonwood Drive and then one is in the corner of the alley and there's an atrium space that connects through there. It's gonna be really nice. I guess I would suggest having connecting the sidewalk on the top side of this building over to the sidewalk that's gonna be built on a long Williston Road. Yeah, just that little connector there. Nope, up, up, up. Right up there, exactly, right. Yeah, it will connect to the, there's a bike path right here that's gonna be built and it will connect over to that. So we should make another connection right there. If anyone's coming from up there, they probably won't go all the way down. They'll cut across to the closest entrance. And along those lines, when you put that connection over to B2, it seems like you're gonna wanna pay attention to how it crosses the parking lot to create a safe method, especially if you had that little spur of a sidewalk that you're likely to have people on bicycles. Right. You're talking about using different materials on the bicycle, right? Yeah, yeah. So we'll just wanna see that, I think. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So this is a great segue over to building B2. It is. Just one thing, you know, like the lighting standards, the lighting poles will be this, we're gonna try and use the same that are being used throughout the complex. So there will be common elements throughout, you know, Cottonwood Crossing and this site that tie it all together. That's great. Just a question, I think, for Matt, the connector road that was coming through, the other connector road over to make it a place, that went away last time we were here. That doesn't exist. Yeah, the one closest to Williston Road. Yeah. Yeah, so that went away as part of discretionary permit review. You may recall a bunch of, back and forth between the board, the applicants and the butters about just how much driving connectivity there would be through the site. So the decision was made to use those other two street connections. And then last, just from an overall, so if this becomes its own lot, there will be some shared parking presumably happening here. Is that just handled through some kind of easement that tenants from other buildings can park in this space? Yeah, there's a connector, the parking lot connects along this edge over here. And then the parking along the road is not designated for the bank. It is right in front of the bank and they hope to use it for, they hope their customers use it. So I think they'll naturally, because the parking lots are connected, I think they'll be naturally be some shared parking, but I don't think it's gonna be programmed per se. Or signed as community bank parking only. Right. All back there, right? No, we won't have the signing, but because essentially that's the two lots on paper, it'll be two lots in the bank. People own their lot, but if you're a customer or a resident of the project, you'll pull into this phase two area and it's more or less one parking area. And especially when we improve the connection between the two buildings, there'll be people parking most likely closest to where they're visiting, but yeah, it won't be signed for Cottonwood only or A2 only. So while we're talking about parking, the staff has recommended a shared parking study. Do you have any objections to that? No. In fact, we did provide our best guess at that at this stage, knowing that we're not sure exactly how many parking spaces will be under the building or what the final count on the parking configuration will be, but we have a mix of uses and what's provided at this level is actually less than the town's requirement for if each use had been tallied individually. Right, so the staff interest here is primarily as much as possible to continue to treat all of Cottonwood as a piece and try to look for opportunities to right-size the parking through a share that extends across the entire site, just as much as we can. And understanding that we have that minimum maximum number we're going to arrive at, we can take some spaces out via share, we can also consider things like proximity to transit, and the town's goal here is that sites have enough parking for the use that's there, but you're not building a parking space that's generating stormwater 364 days a year, and then it's used on Black Friday for retail shopping. You would rather have it a little tighter than that. And I note here that actually this site plan increases the number of parking spaces by seven. In phase one it did, yes. And so I guess we wouldn't necessarily be looking to approve that tonight. We really want to see this shared parking site that shows that those are necessary. So, right, so we would at the discretionary permit application we can provide a shared parking calculation for both phases, but if that would. We're just, we're very sensitive here to how many parking spaces end up on a lot. Yeah, I know. And then it can creep if you're not careful. So suddenly there's seven more parking spots than there were before, why is that? And what is the need for that? Yeah, well the need is we've been talking to a number of people actually for the A1 building and that was one of their comments every time. So to get those seven spaces we actually made B2 smaller. So we didn't take away anything from the green areas or we really took away from the footprint of the B2 building. So now you've got me confused in that you're talking about altering A1 and A and B1 to get the additional parking spaces? The alterations to A1 don't have anything to do with the parking spaces. The change on B1 was to reduce the footprint by I think 500 square feet. And basically what it allowed for is on the overall plan the spaces on the northeast side. Yep, the original plan didn't have those seven spaces. It had seven spaces in front of opposite side on the A1 front, but we added those seven spaces by making B2 a little bit smaller. By making B1. I'm sorry, B1. That's where you're confused. Okay, yeah. You said B2 more than once. Okay, sorry about that. Yeah, right, so by making B1 smaller you increase the number of parking spaces. That makes, yeah. My question's going away now. It could be, isn't it? Is there gonna be a fence between you and the maple tree housing? Not a fence, so landscape buffer. Well, then I can tell you where some of your parking spaces will disappear. All you have to do is look at the cross the street in the development that's already built. How many of those spaces are taken up when everything is closed? Yeah. I'm just saying, it's something for you to consider. Okay, is there a screening requirement? I guess I would just ask along the, kind of along Wilson Road, between Wilson Road and the parking, it'd be nice to have some additional screening there. That would definitely be a good plan. That's the other one I'll bet on too. If you look at where your parking behind A2 where it juts towards Wilson Road, gets close to the bike path, I'll be willing to bet money within a year. There'll be a path through the grass into the parking complex for people on their way over to the building. Oh, I think they would cut through there. Yeah, but if we add David's connection to the path near the front of the building, they may be, maybe we can solve that a little bit. Like I said, you can claim that you're going to forestall it, you won't because people always take the shortest distance possible. Not if you put up landscape buffer there, they're not going to block the shots. Unless it's thorns, people will make their way through it. Some will. The requirements. Yeah. So this is a question as much for staff as anyone. This is now going to be two parcels. And does that trigger any additional landscaping buffering? So not as formally as I wish it was in the bylaw, but certainly in practice by the DRB, there has been a treatment of some internal parcel lines as not generating a requirement for a landscape buffer. Footprint lots and residential projects, various kinds of ownerships formed under what in most regs would be understood as a planned unit development, have been understood interior to the project to not generate those same kinds of buffer requirements as a conventional subdivision of land. So in the absence of a little bit of more clear direction in the bylaw, which we're working on drafting and hope to get adopted eventually, I say you have the leeway to look at, for example, a parcel that would be created around the community bank ownership and say, this is interior to the subject property, doesn't generate a buffer the same way, a property line that is exterior to the overall development does. Does that make sense? Yes, I'm glad they're here altogether because that makes that an internal property line. I'll say property line between healthy living and the hotel goes along with parking medians on a shared driveway. Yeah, it's just providing parking lot landscaping. Any other questions on A2? Oh, A2? No, that's a good building. I want to move on to, I got questions on B2 and A2. All right. Then let's move on to B2. Let's hear about that. Bill Gardner has been helping us with B2. And B2 is kind of, now it's U-shaped whereas the original plan had it as L-shaped. There's two angled fronts of B2, one's on the square and one's on the corner of cotton wood in entrance to A2. And we look at both of those as really prominent features of the building that will look nice. When you pull into cottonwood drive, it bends to the left a little bit, so you'll be looking right at that angled face of B2. And so the building's basically been designed to have a front all the way around. First floor is a retail space with residential housings on the second and third floor. But not knowing who the eventual tenant's gonna be, we've designed it to have that storefront look to it that's accessible from both cottonwood drive with the on-street parking and the phase two parking lot, I guess you'd call it behind B2. And it's a similar design in same building materials as what was approved for B1. It's just a little bit larger and across the street. Right, right. Yeah, I have a question now on B2. Yes. B2, that thing looks like a jetty sticking out there. Is that where tractor trailer delivery is supposed to come in? Which portion of B2 are you looking at? It's on the left-hand part of the U. Yeah. And according to this little thing, it looks like it's got a line punching out into the parking lot. Yep, so yeah, on the left of B2 it's both, there's almost like two, it looks like two lanes. The lane on the right is to go into the underground parking garage. That's how the underground parking is interested. And then on the left, will be exactly like a spot for not tractor trailer trucks. I was gonna ask the question because I was looking at all these turns in here. I was going, I don't see a turn. Right, no, it's not a loading dock. It's a delivery service car. It's just a door that they have to show up to and they do the... Yep, yeah, exactly. So box trucks, food service trucks, just a spot for... So then that'll answer my question on the A1. That's underground parking that I'm seeing there for the, that Jetty sticking out on it and B1 as well, right? Yep, exactly, both of those. Yeah, that'll answer that, that's on me. So are there changes to the underground parking scope? As part of A1? Well, let's start with B. Okay, B2. Let's stick with B2 because it's consistent. It was, B2 was L-shaped now. It's U-shaped a little larger. It originally had underground parking where it still has underground parking. So it actually has a, you know, it's a larger building so, you know, more underground parking. Yeah, as B2 wasn't designed with the original discretionary permit approval, we made assumptions about the number of parking spaces based off B1. So now that we're going through the design for B2, we're going to finalize the number of parking spaces under there. So, but there was originally planned to have underground parking under B2 and you're still proposing to have underground parking under B2. Good. So tell me about what happened to Building D. Building D, Building B2 got a little larger and the reason it got larger is because we, we wanted to kind of have B2 address the square and in the original master plan, it was kind of, it looked more or less like the end of the building B2 and we really liked how B1 angled on the square and so we're basically, you know, using that same feature on B2. So made B2 larger and to accommodate that extra square footage in the parking that it generated, the D building, you know, was eliminated. Those units were moved into B2, the resident for the residential unit count and in then phases three, four and five, which are the future, have more of the varied type of housing but we're looking at phases one and two as more of the commercial side of the development with commercial and mixed use whereas Connerway extension, which divides the property, what's on the south side of that is all residential. So the same number of residential units in phase two as originally? Very close. Same number of units overall. I'm not sure, you know, we may be one or two, we may have increased by one or two but we're still kind of working out the unit layout with the floor plan and the number of units based on the footprint, but it's essentially. Did you want to say something about it? Yeah. It looked like you did. Yeah, I was going to answer that. Okay. We're still looking at, you know, is it, you know, six two bedroom units or eight one bedroom units. So in a way, you know, it's hard to say at this point how many units exactly they're gonna be in building B2 because we're still trying to adjust those numbers slightly to mostly because of market pressures, you know, that, you know, we're finding certain unit sizes are more rentable than others, so they're still floating a little bit but generally we're in the same ballpark we always have. Well, certainly you have growth management allowance or allotment of a certain number of units in total. Yes, and so the total has not changed. If we've added, if we add two units into phase two that weren't there before, that's two units that we end up having to take from phase five at the end of the project. Is the semi-circle kind of on that angle, right? At that first intersection, is that a plant, like a courtyard? It's like a courtyard, yeah, outdoor seating area. We're talking to a restaurant who likes that space. I wish I could say, you know, who that was but they're not ready to announce anything just yet but it would be for outdoor seating. Any other questions, comments from the board here? David? Dave? I like the look of the mix of colors and it does feel, and I actually think the combination with the community bank, I mean, it looks more like a village with different buildings rather than all kind of one, the uniform look, right? I would concur that a little more variety there is a more vibrant solution. I like the fact that the de-building disappeared. That just less sidewalked a plow and less places for wind to come whistling around the corner. I find it to be a plus and minus here in that I concur that the benefit is on the angled facade against the central square. The loss of the de-building does take away a little bit of that streetscape of Conner Way as it connects over to Maple Tree Place. I mean, in my mind, it's a plus and minus. We have to weigh that and see, but I guess overall, I don't have a huge issue with that. I think the benefit outweighs the loss. Anything else on B2 in terms of a pre-application comments? Other than to remind them, they could appear first on their parking lot. Like I said, just for entertainment purpose on your way home, when you drive up, take a look into Maple Tree Place of how many cars are parked over there. That are not appearing to be near any of the commercial buildings. I have seen that. And that's what I'm trying to say is your back row of building B2 is gonna be perfect, I see. I find that it's usually the Grazers truck that keeping me from being able to see around the corner as I pull out onto the road. So let's talk about the changes to A1 and B1. So the changes to A1 architecturally, originally when the project was first presented and approved, Al intended to own both A1 and A2. And they were kind of designed to look a lot like each other and with a tower feature on each. So when Community Bank was interested in our project and we began working with them and since they were gonna own the building, they wanted to design the building and so the tower feature kind of on their building became a lot smaller and made sense for us to take a look at our tower feature as well. And originally that was a third floor office space. It was fully usable, had a stairway that went up there but it was done to kind of have that look at the entrance of the project of both buildings having a tower. So we reduced it, it still has a tower feature but it's now smaller and not usable space anymore. So it's just really to look at that corner. Is it four-sided or two-sided? Four-sided. But other than that, the building materials are all almost identical. I think we still a brick building with storefront windows and stone columns along all, at least on three of the sides. So it's a similar design, same footprint, same size. Am I looking at the right elevation here? Yes. Is that building? That's the current A1. So we still have a taller building element there. It's a full building mass. It's enclosed or is the roof down at the lower height? No, the full building mass goes up. The roof is taller on that tower. The roof is up another six feet. It's not occupied. Correct. Reduced floor plan, floor area, leasable area. Stop on the elevator in a stairwell. Yeah, it was no elevator space. It wasn't, I say it was too small to require that. And that the stairs that we need to go to can't do is about the same size? You should be sure to give us your name and address. I'm sorry. Most of us know you, but one of those streets. I would hope that would be his office someday. Yeah. We're private office, but yeah. So those were the changes to A1. Changes to B1 are only with the footprint size and that was a decrease by four or 500 square feet to accommodate seven extra spaces. And we obviously really felt that we needed those seven spaces to make the building smaller, but that was some of the feedback we were getting from the commercial tenants who we've met with. And there was a shift in the parking area of the pocket park. And to go with Paul's concern, that shift was actually done to improve circulation for things like the fire truck and delivery truck. So if you look at the original design on page three of the staff report on the left, any large truck would have to pull into the parking lot and then drive around that pocket park before it could get to either buildings loading area. Whereas now it's able to just drive straight in. And so they have a much easier time navigating that parking lot, which retailers are concerned about because they don't want to have a large truck swimming in and out with their customers in parking. So that was the change to the parking area. And actually, we actually were able to make that parking area just a little bit bigger, not much, but it's still there. And I think that's, from my perspective, I think that's a key component here that is still there. I think we would have noticed it if it disappeared. I know. So we didn't take the park away for the seven spaces we took from the building. Thank you. That's noted by the board. Thanks. The other major change that I see here is along the streetscape with the change to the curb pattern. So the original plans had sawtooth curbing. It's a nice-looking design, not that I can say that I've seen around here, but it was part of the original approval. And we started looking at both the cost to build and more of the cost to maintain that. And just started getting concerned. These streets are gonna be managed by an association because of all the different buildings. And so sawtooth curbing really required somebody shoveling it or snow blowing it, whereas the straight curbing is plowable. So that adds a lot of cost as far as ongoing maintenance, which this project will have every all winter long. There's challenges to plowing with on-street parking in general. So the sawtooth curbing just added an extra challenge on top of that. So we were able to still keep the same street trees that were there as part of the original approval, same street lights. It's basically, we took a little bit out of the sidewalk that between Cottonwood Drive and the building and only around where the trees are. Those trees will be now in grates. And the 10-foot sidewalk where a tree was planted will be reduced to eight feet just around that grate. And that's how we were able to- So instead of 10 feet between the building and the tree, there'll be only eight feet? Yeah. Yeah, which essentially was where the tree was. Because the sawtooth curbing allowed us to place the trees in those notched areas. Exactly. Yep. So now the trees are set back two feet. Closer. Yep. How does anybody feel about that? I think it's a good move. I think that would have been really tough to maintain. Good thing Ken's not here. Ken wanted the other parking. Right, well- The parking would never take the road over with that sawtooth. And he still probably won't take it over. But he's never take it over with that sawtooth. He's complaining. Yeah. Yeah, because you were saying this is gonna be maintained by association, but it looks like the idea is to convey it to the town, right? Yes, the roads we've given the town offer dedication on the roads. But the town obviously can choose to accept that or not. And what Bruce has told us is he doesn't plan to accept these because of the on-tree parking and the sawtooth curbing. So hopefully that's a change we can have done as part of this application. And then the town could come in and take these roads over. There's nothing that would prevent them for. In fact, we'd like that. But in the meantime, ultimately the select board decides whether to take a road. They obviously get a recommendation from public. Is there a town policy of not taking over any roads that have on-street parking? Not an established town policy that I'm aware of. No. Because there's certainly a number of those roads around. There's lots of them. And it seems like we wanna make this available as we want on-street parking. I would agree with that. So when I first started working for Williston in 2008, there was a total, I believe, of zero striped established on-street parking spaces on public rights of way in Williston. And one of the first applications I processed was to establish a pull-off for three parallel parking spaces along Zephyr Road as part of the Hamlet project. And that was seen as a big deal at the time by Neil Boyd and the Director of Public Works at the time to do that. It's part of the evolution of the town and the development of a more urbanized area in town to start dealing with streets that have a higher degree of complexity and need for active management as compared to the traditional town road. Plus it provides a good spot for teenage drivers to practice their parallel parking. I know that by the fact. In front of the Chinese restaurant. It's where CBU takes their kids. So I think you saw the nods here about the curb cuts. There were three yeses and there's one no. So. Okay. What I would say is the interests from the town's perspective in having something like that more complicated curb section is essentially traffic calming and pedestrian friendliness. So whatever can be done design wise to continue to make that street feel narrow and granular even if there's not a lot of cars parked there. And I would identify sort of like Main Street in Burlington in front of Mirabelle's has straight curb angle in parking. And on early Sunday morning when there's almost nobody there the street feels very, very wide. Once there's people parked there the street feels much, much narrower. If there's any pavement coloring differentiation stamping that can happen that sort of helps establish where the car stop and further emphasizes what angle the car should be parked at, right? So even if the stripes get worn down there's something that sort of helps indicate that to people. Anything that visually narrows the street I think that continues to help towards achieving the goal of what the town would see positive about that design. And the converse of that is that when the pedestrian area widens right there it provides more of a stopping spot for people who are standing there. And so if you stop to fix your kid's shoelace or something you don't feel like you're standing in the middle of where everyone else is walking. It gives you a little bit of place to kind of eddy out of that circulation path. So I think there are some positives there to the extent that you can populate of the pedestrian areas of that sidewalk with some more interest and variety. I think that would be, that was one of the other things that this step sawtooth curb was doing. So to the extent that you can maintain those positives that I mentioned are mad I think that would be great. Our landscape architect, he's a pretty creative good. So there was some of the subsurface parking that was eliminated. Can you just make sure we're all clear on what that was? A2. Okay, so the bank building. The bank building. I got you. And so is that the result then, and maybe you said this and it got, I missed it in a lot of the other conversation, but those parking spaces have been replaced or just eliminated? They've been replaced with surface spaces. It used to be a three-story building originally, right? A2 was two-story. Was always gonna be two-story? It was with, well, three if you count the tower, I had a small tower just like A1 had, but very small. So it was essentially two floors with about 20,000 square feet and an underground garage. Now it's two floors, 20,000 square feet just without the underground garage. I did not exceed the town's 36 foot height limit and it doesn't need a height bonus to go above 36, which it could have gotten. That was my next question. I got 130, 33, 34. I think that. I don't know where the bank could come back and put another floor on there sometime in the future then, huh? Parked. They would need subsurface parking to go above 36 feet. Right, but they're not going above 36 feet. But they're not. So I presume that at DP we'll see more of a plan for the pocket park. Yes. There's not a lot of detail there right now. What's the number of parking spaces? Is it 24 before we need an island? You can have a run up to 20. So that one parking lot is over 24. What will the one along Maple Tree Place are? Yes. Up here is 24 spaces up here. Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at the old. I didn't think I was coming that far. That's 31. So we'll have to tweak where that parking island is up there. Yes. Which is 24 spaces? That's 24. Any other questions, comments? Paul? Dave? Oh. Well, I'll hem and offer a couple minutes. David? I'm curious that this may be an after-question, but just finding retail tenants for these mixed use minutes seems like that's the hard thing. I mean, are you having luck with small retailers or willing to have apartments above? Yeah, there's a lot of people who like to want to be in this part of Williston, but it's still, it's always, we've been talking to a lot, but it's getting the deal signed is, you know, it takes a while. The floodgates are not wide open. Uh-huh. Keep prying. Yeah. We have to be really aggressive with our pricing. We're pretty creative with our costs and you know, spending some of that cost over the lease, the term of the lease, but we're talking to quite a few people with a lot of restaurant interest right now, so that's small, local restaurants, you know? That's great. Yeah. Contact Amazon. They're always looking for more places. So I have not opened this up to the audience yet. Are there any comments out there? Most people seem to be. All right. One last shot up here. Big, now, now you're here. I think of anything else right now. All right, well, then we're going to close this at 902. Thank you for coming. Thanks. Thank you very much. I know what place they're going to be. You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? You want to go? Very interesting. This is a very interesting challenge. I am dying daughter of me. I'm using myself. Still. No, it's not bad. That's part of the high pay package. OK, the, let's see. They can hold $1 million. I didn't get a teacher. 10.06, the Town of Williston's Development Review Board is out of executive session for deliberation, Tuesday, August 13th. Do I have a motion for DP 20-01 Global Montello Group Corporation? As authorized by WDV 6.6.3, I, David Saladino, moved at the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application material submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Unified Development By-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 13, 2019, except the findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval proposed by staff for the review of DP 20-01, subject to the following changes. Under recommended conditions of approval number three, under canopy fascia, we deny C4, the C1, C2, and C3 are approved, C4 is denied, the remainder are approved. Insert a new condition of approval following number seven that states the applicant shall remove colored banding from canopy fascia C4 and replace with a single solid color panel. That would be condition eight. Condition eight, yep. Condition eight becomes condition nine, which states the proposed canopy fascia, which includes fascia C1, C2, and C3, is considered background to propose pectin and may be approved under a master sign plan according to WDV 25.5.5. And then condition 10, I guess we're calling condition, the board finds that the above changes result in material reduction in total sign area for the property. Great. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it. Any further discussion? No further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Five ayes, no nays. Motion carries. Do I have a motion for DP 20-02, if I can find the name of it, DP 20-02. It's a pre-app for Nick and Arwin Steggers. Yes. As authorized by WDV 6.6.3, I, John Hemmelgarn, move that the Williston 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 Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 13, 2019, and the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of the DP 20-02, and authorized this application to move forward to discretionary permit review, we are going to add three recommendations. So recommendation number four, garage, the garage access drive shall be eliminated and the garage shall be relocated to be accessed through the parking lot. Recommendation number five, the applicant shall show evidence of correspondence with V-trans concerning the proximity of the driveway to the adjacent curb cut. And recommendation number six, parking shall be limited to the maximum allowed by WDV 14. And that the adjacent curb cut being O'Brien's. Yes, curb cut. So could we say the adjacent O'Brien's curb cut? Yes. I'm fine with that change. Emily, all right with that? Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. David seconds it. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Five ayes, no nays, motion carries. Mr. Hemmelgarn will read the next motion. Okay, I have a piece of paper. So do I have a motion for DP 16-05, pre-application for the Allenbrook Development and Community Bank requests for a pre-application review for phase two of the Cottonwood Crossing? Yes, as authorized by WDV 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move 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 By-Law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 13th, 2019, and the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of DP 16-05 to amend the number one and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary review with the following recommendations. Number one, must address the sidewalk connection between multi-use path on Williston Road to the sidewalk behind A2, and number two, parking lot behind building B2 with 31 spaces in a row shall comply with WDB 23.5.1, and number three, explore the treatment to cottonway pavement that would calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian experience as intended by the sawtooth curb. Good, thank you. Do I have a second for that motion? I'll second that. Paul seconds it. All in favor? Aye. One abstention. And I should say aye as well. So we've got four ayes, one abstention. Motion carries. Motion carries, thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of July 9th, 2019? I move that we approve the minutes of July 9th, 2019 as written. Second. David seconds. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Five ayes, no nays, motion carries. Do I have a motion to adjourn, what's anything else guys? Anything else? Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting?