 Okay, everybody, we're going to bring the meeting to order at 7.05 only if we can get the attention of our esteemed staff person over here. Oh, no problem. Okay, we're going to bring the meeting to order at 7.06. So welcome everybody to the Town of Williston's Development Review Board for Tuesday, February 13th, 2018. Again, the meeting comes to order at 7.06. There is a number of items on the agenda for tonight. We are going to switch around the order just a little bit. And we're going to start with a certificate of appropriateness, which is AP 18-0140 and HP 18-05, Williston Federated Church. Mr. Lamb is at the table, and if you would state your name and your address, sir. Anthony Lamb, 24 BB Lane, Williston, Vermont. Great, welcome. Matt. Hey, this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness. The applicant has also applied for administrative permit from staff for the restoration and replacement of the steeple at the Williston Federated Church, 44 North Williston Road, or more commonly known as the intersection of North Williston Road and Williston Road. The applicant's proposal is to reconstruct some of the lower portion of the steeple on site, and to replace the upper portion of the steeple with a new reconstructed replica of what's there. This project was reviewed by the Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee, both on January 29th and a return trip on February 5th to discuss the details of that application. I'll let the applicants describe a little bit about structurally what that replacement steeple is made of and looks like, but some of the hack's concern with this project is that there are some new materials, replacement materials, and that a significant amount of the wood on the steeple is proposed to be clad in copper that is then proposed to be electrostatically painted white. So there's a materials change there. Most of what's up there now is wood, and some of what is up there will be wood clad in white painted copper. The reasoning the applicant's given for that and that the hack agreed with is weather-proofing of surfaces that are exposed to wind and rain and an attempt to make this replacement steeple last longer than the prior restoration work. That said, the reason the hack asked the applicant to return for a second audience with them was to clarify some details via a really extensive set of shop drawings. The steeple jack is prepared showing how the architectural detail on the steeple will be very, in my opinion, carefully replicated by the applicants. So the drawings that I have rolled up in front of me were not in your packet because I ran them through the scanner and it generated a file too big for my computer to handle, so I'm taking them back to do that again. But the preliminary work that's been done has been to take down fairly exacting dimensions of all of the various features of that steeple so that it can be replicated, constructed off-site, brought and swapped out for the existing one. And the hack, after reviewing the details of the project, made the recommendation that a certificate of appropriateness be issued with materials design and location of materials as specified by the applicant and that these drawings as well as any as-built documentation and ongoing documentation of the restoration be filed with the zoning administrator. So we like in the town to maintain a really significant file of what was reviewed and what got built and how. One of the hack's concerns is when you deal with the materials change and maybe a more contemporary material, at least one member said, well, what if the guy down the street wants to vinyl-side his historic house? And in the discussion we had with the board and the applicant, there are some really fundamental differences with vinyl-siding a historic house and doing what the church is doing here. Vinyl-siding a house doesn't retain all of those dimensions and architectural features and other things. This is a much truer attempt to replicate those. So with extensive documentation on file with the town and the applicant proceeding as proposed, the hack is recommending a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the DRB. Great, thanks. What would you like to add to that? Not much except that this is a, I was thinking about it coming over. Our steeple was built and designed by the same architect that did the first Baptist Church in Burlington. Their steeple only lasted until 1920 before they clad it in copper. Ours has lasted almost another hundred years. But we want to do it for the same reasons they did it. The maintenance of wood up in the air in Vermont is just really, really hard and expensive. The proposal is any place that sort of is like a roof like the, not the flat, all the flat parts but the vertical parts of the steeple would be clad in copper in such a way that the detail that is there will be maintained. The pieces of the steeple which are underneath the beginning where the clock is down, that's the bell free, the slatted part. That would all be wood just as it is now and the preserve, the detail, the little curlies and stuff would be preserved. Okay. Any questions from the board? Yeah, what are they going to do now? I want to make sure I'm there to watch this. This is going to take place in June. It's on sort of a, because they're doing the work inside, one of the benefits, they do it on a spit. And if you, on our website, it's steeple.org, you can see the spit and we're going to add more stuff because it's fascinating. I love being over there watching. They have a big granite shed. They do it on a spit. They rotate it when they want to work. They're in the dry and warm and they can, so they'll be able to crank it right out. With care, though. With care towards the historical detail, of course. So, will it still be white when you're all finished? Yes. The copper will be white? Yes. How does that work? They electro-plate it. I don't know the details of how they make it stick, but they do. There's a specific process they follow. If it happens on a Wednesday, if you were there on Tuesday and came back on Thursday, it would look exactly the same. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference except on Thursday it would be clean and white and on Tuesday it would look really crummy like it looks now. But the deal-tail would all be there. I don't believe that, especially from the ground, you'd be able to tell the difference. And I think even up close, you would be hard-pressed to tell. The copper work that Joss, who's the man who does their copper, does is just superb. Very detailed. What's the life of the painted copper before it has to be repainted? I'm assuming it doesn't get struck or something. We're having conversations about that. Probably 50 years at least. It's more likely to... It's more likely to... The color is more likely to yellow or something like that rather than coming off. Does that make sense? That's hard for me to imagine. With paints these days, they tend not to yellow, so I wouldn't expect that to happen. But it would be probably 50 years before we need to do something significant again. With it being metal instead of wood, is it going to be more likely to attract lightning? We already have a lightning rod up there that's dealt with. And I don't think that the... We don't anticipate that to be a problem. I mean, Burlington has... There are any number of copper spires around and they don't seem to draw more lightning than other ones. So it's not known to be a problem. Our steeplejack has done 150 steeples out throughout New England. And if it were a problem, I think he would have brought it to our attention. We haven't specifically talked about it, though. Okay, we are going to close AP 18-0140 and HP 18-05. The Federalist Church is... We're going a little out of order tonight. Is... Ben Avery, are you around? I'm not seeing you. Anyone here from Northridge Residential Subdivision? Not yet. Okay, all right. What was that? Scott, I'm not sure anybody is going to come. Oh, is that right? You told them not to come? Okay, I guess I missed that part. So you want to open it and continue it? Yeah. Okay, so we are going to open DP 17-01 Northridge Residential Subdivision at 715. Mr. Belebo, floor is yours. Thank you. So this is a request for discretionary permit for 40 unit residential development in the residential zoning district. So the Board may recall that a public hearing was held on January the 9th. And as part of that process, the Board decided that the item would be continued in order for the applicant to submit revised plans. The staff was going to get a legal opinion on the applicability of any covenants of the homeowners association as well as get some additional information. So the applicant did submit a set of revised plans. However, public works sending out the plan set to their outside consultant because of the complexity of the public utilities. And we just learned last week that there were some key information like all the stormwater calculations had not been provided by the consultant. So I informed the applicant, Ben Avery, needless to say he wasn't really pleased about that. But it also meant that public works wasn't going to be able to get their review completed by their outside consultant. So we would not be able to get the comments from the public works department. So we informed the applicant that we would continue it until at least March the 13th, assuming we get all the information. We also informed all the people who had come to the previous public hearing by email as well as there were two notices in front porch form. Some of you may have seen that the Northridge application wasn't going to be taken up tonight. So we reached out to everybody to make sure that they knew what was going on. Our recommendation is that this item be continued forward to the March 13th meeting. And then of course assumes that the applicant gets all the information in a timely fashion so we can complete our review. Okay. All right. Board okay with continuing it to March 13th? Okay. All right. Okay. So then again, let the record show that DP 17-01 will be continued to March 13th. Okay. Back to the top of the schedule. Next up is DP 09-15, amendment number one, Allenbrook Development, Inc., master sign plan. And we're going to bring the hearing to order at 718. Valentine's Day is tomorrow. Okay. If everybody would state their names and their addresses please. Brian Birch, Allenbrook Development, 31 Commerce Ave, South Burlington, Vermont. Tom Longstreet, the Executive Director of Resource, currently in Burlington planning to move to Bolston. Do you want my home address or 3590 Stage Road in West Bolton, Vermont? Thank you. Janice Sabo with Resource. My home address is 1847 North Avenue in Burlington. Great. Thank you and welcome. Matt, it's you. Okay. It's me. This is a request for discretionary permit. It's to amend an existing master sign plan at 329 Arvis Lane in the Taft Corner Zoning District. Some of you might notice that the natural provisions are lumber liquidators or former Goodwill building. The applicant is proposing to add new signage to the site in addition to the existing group signage on site. There are some signs proposed such as wall signs larger than the maximum allowed size in Table 25, as well as awning banner and portable signs that are only allowable under the approval of a master sign plan by the Development Review Board with some special findings related to those signs compatibility with the by-law and the purpose and intent of the town's comprehensive plan. So that said, the project, the site has a lengthy permit approval history dating, dating back to 1988 and the original site plan approval. It was a master sign plan approved in 2009. And we didn't really, we're not able to find evidence that final plans were ever submitted on that sign plan, but generally sign development on the site proceeded in accordance with the DRB's approval. And most recently, we have approved administratively the interior changes and change of use necessary to locate resource there. Resource has some sign needs and a desire to change things up on the site sufficient to trigger a request for a new master sign plan. There's also a chance for the DRB to make a clean approval and for us to process a set of final plans. So that will be good for us going forward. So you can see a table of all of the proposed signs. These include, as I said, wall, freestanding banner, portable and window signs for a total of 318 square feet. And there is also a public art installation proposed as part of this master sign plan which pursuant to WDB 2511 needs to be reviewed by the DRB as well. Hence the models you see on the table in front of you, I think, if I'm reading that correctly. So in Williston, your master sign plan allows broad flexibility in terms of the size and locations of individual signs and the number of signs. You can have more than one wall sign. You can have more than one freestanding sign. They can be larger than the size is allowed in table 25A. But totaled up altogether, the area of your signs cannot exceed 8% of the area of the street-facing facade of the building. So the staff has prepared a street-facing facade calculation, 5,180 and one-half square feet. 8% of that is 414 square feet, and the applicant is proposing 223 square feet of signage. So that number, I will note, is a little smaller than the street-facing facade number the applicant submitted. The staff made a tighter calculation of that street-facing building elevation, attempting to take out any roof area that will start a significant pitched roof. The staff just dialed it down to only include the wall area. Finally, there are some signs. Like I said, they're larger, including wall sign B4, 32 square feet, which is larger than 24. And again, that can be approved with a master sign plan, the findings is draft. The other recommendation staff is making related to signage is that some further specifications on sign lighting be provided by the applicant. Williston does not allow internal illumination and only allows fully shielded downward faces. And then maybe the fun part, the part the DRV doesn't see very frequently, the proposed public art. This is a proposed 12-foot tall sculpture. The applicant says that more details will be presented at the hearing. There has been some discussion between the applicant and the staff about potential ability to illuminate the art. You can see in your staff report the full quote of section 2511 related to public art. And as I said, we're not necessarily regulating taste or freedom of expression when it comes to art, but making sure that we're not creating a hazard to driver's cyclists or pedestrians and that we're understanding it as, you know, working within the site plan. That's the, you get to review public art, but not necessarily matters. So that said, the staff has prepared findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law and conditions of approval. These would approve the signs and sign areas as proposed by the applicant with that condition requiring some additional detail on sign lighting. And then we'll leave it there for discussion with the applicant. Just before we get going, I know two pieces of art on the desk, I'm assuming that's what that is, but I'm only seeing on the site plan one location. Are you proposing two or just one? No, just one. Just one. This is, it's going to be called murmuration, which is what a large flock of birds will do when they all fly in formation. So this shows the formation that these birds will take. There'll be 500 birds that will move like this. This only shows the movement of the sculpture. Great. So everybody on this panel is qualified to judge art. So I just wanted to warn you about that ahead of time. So if you could, if you can't add levity to this board, you shouldn't be here. So Matt gave us all the rundown. What would you like to add to Matt's opening statement? Just a little quickly. Resource is a nonprofit organization that has people may know us as Recycle Morse. A lot of people don't get the new name. But part of what, the reason we wanted to do a public art installation was to try to speak to the values that the organization has around community, coming together, and about art and creating fun. You know, we want our location to be fun. People come to us for goods, but they also come for job training to get skills that they can go on and get work, get them to become employed. And we're also faced with the challenge of relocating after 20-some years on Pine Street. And so an art installation, the thought is, is that we would have a permanent location for a significant sculpture that would rotate, would change periodically. And we would give new artists a chance to showcase a work that would be made out of salvage, reusable, recycled material, and then it could change over time. And so the idea is, this is the first one that we would put there, but we would hope to have chances for other artists to demonstrate and showcase their work. And let me just ask staff a question here. Not necessarily. What's important is there's a distinction between what's a sign, what's public art. So we don't want the birds to spell out resource. Right. There are cases where what somebody says is going to be public art is really a Bob's Big Boy, by example, or a giant red lobster. And in reviewing any sort of site features, including other things like architectural features like awnings or ornamentation on buildings, what this board's done in the past is looked to see that there weren't any elements of a corporate logo or identifiable shape or figure to it. So the shell gas shell can't be called art. It's part of their signage. Or the chef, the chief of wheat at Nair Brad was originally proud of the awnings. We have to call them signs. We have to calculate it in this way. So there is a limit how the board wants to handle the changing out of art. I don't think that's, we've only dealt with what's been understood to be permanent installations. Single installations. I don't know if you want to interpret this staff to see it. I think an occasional drive-by to make sure that they're not self-promoting is probably all we probably need to do. We're all qualified to judge art, too, by the way. That's right. How often would you anticipate rotating? Well, it's a new concept. I mean, I guess I should admit that part of it is we don't have a big budget for a big art installation. So the idea is that we'd like to make it available and then someone will see it and we can connect the buyer and then we get a chance to have some new art. And I think it keeps stuff fresh. It makes it exciting to answer your question. This is a big, heavy installation and there aren't that many people who are going to buy big, heavy installations of art. And if they did, part of our arrangement is that we're going to have to contract and work on an agreement with a new artist to replace it because we don't want an empty space on that concrete pad. So I can't imagine changing it out more than once a year is sort of what I've been imagining. But maybe I'd like to say, let's say six months would be sort of my minimum and I'm not sure there's a maximum. This could become a permanent installation, but I don't think so. I mean, I think we'd like to keep it fresh and change it around. Great. What else would you like to add about the signage? Well, just about the sculpture really quick, did we want to talk about lighting? Yeah. So the artist, my understanding from talking to Tom is the artist would have loved to have that be lit by three upward-facing lights. So now I talked to Ken and realized that that's something that's not allowed. Now this being a piece of art, I'm not sure if there's some flexibility with your decision. But another idea we had, which maybe wouldn't be quite as intense as some upward-facing lights would be Christmas lights. And could you explain how that worked? I wasn't quite sure. Let me jump in one more time and just ask the staff. So upward-facing lights are prohibited under our bylaw, correct? So that's kind of out. How about an upward-facing light with like a diffuser on it or something that blocks both a shield and something that deadens the direct beam? The language in our bylaw about lighting is it's downward-facing and fully shielded. So it's downward-facing. That's one of the first things that it says. There's not a lot of wiggle room here. We don't want any more light pollution. No, we don't. I'm just trying to figure out if there was any wiggle there. So I had talked with Janice and Tom and that's where the idea of something like a Christmas light. I'm not sure how the artist was going to incorporate that, but that would be something obviously like a very low light level. It wouldn't contribute to light pollution, but would kind of add to this sculpture. During the evening it would be... I think if it was going to be permanently lit, we'd probably want to... And it was a whole bunch of lights, a whole bunch of lights, i.e. Christmas lights. We probably want to see some form of a hotspot or a lumen count around it, right? Well, I mean, it's a slippery slope. So we had some language in our bylaw that exempts holiday lighting. And the danger is always, well, it would look really good on this piece of sculpture. And then the next thing you know, we've got somebody down the street who sells whatever. Harvest equipment maybe decides that they're going to permanently decorate the John Deere tractors with holiday lights 12 months of the year. And then so I would just encourage you to tread carefully in this area. The holiday lights by definition are not permanent. There's a time limitation in the bylaw on using those. What about flag poles? Are they covered in the bylaw? There's an exemption for upward lighting of, I think it's up to one flag. The only other thing I can think of is there's a maximum sight, there's a sight wide maximum for what's called unshielded light. That's really intended, you know, the beside the front door carriage lamp where you can see the element inside. It's not meant for anything much stronger than that or bigger than that. The Shelburne have their outdoor art lit at night. I don't believe they do today. What is the height on the units? 12 feet. Have you thought about downward facing with reflective material underneath to light them from that direction? I haven't thought of that. I mean, I think one of the challenges is that we're trying to get approval for something that would change over time. I think they're going to have to be somewhat individually planned and constructed. We appreciate why the downward light is important. From the artist's perspective, they're saying this would really be the way it would show best. I don't know what, but I think that's a good suggestion. I think what's most important is the chance to have a sculpture and if we could maybe continue to work on the lighting and try to work with the artist and maybe we can deal with the lighting after the fact. I think that would be okay as well because some of that, you know, maybe we could explore something where, you know, almost if there's a cloud above it with downward facing light, maybe that would work. I think one of the challenges from the artist is that your light shining up then bounces back down and reflects off the item itself. But you might be right that if we could downshade, I mean, if there's some sort of reflective material on the base that might give it some general illumination. I think that we don't need to figure it out tonight. I think that it's going to, you know, as you've said, it's going to change with the installation and you're just going to have to make sure that it complies with the ordinance as the ordinance is written. And it just means it's just another thing that the artist will have to think about, you know, when they're proposing something for the site. I'm sure that'll work out fine. Does the Board have any questions on this back on the issue at hand, the signs for the building? Just a question on, you know, the 12 feet high, it looks like it's less than 12 feet up from the edge of the driveway. And just a concern if there's like, it's probably not going to be engineered. So if there's a heavy wind or something, it might blow it onto the driveway. So you might want to set it back far enough that that wouldn't happen. We'll weigh 500 pounds. And while it's on the 10 foot pad, it's going to be secured by a 600 pound cancel lever base. So it can't tip. Somebody could try to climb it. It wouldn't tip and such. But yes, for safety's sake. I just want to set it back a little bit. I'm going to try it. 500 pounds, that's a lot of bird. Yeah. Just one case question about resources. Since you're relocating from Pine Street, what are you doing with all the stuff that used to be out in the yard at the new facility? Are you just leaving that back in Pine Street? Or are you just laying out that aspect or what? We will have, moving forward, we're currently in four locations in Chinden County. We also have a berry in a Hyde Park. The four locations will consolidate down to two. So Wilson and the 339 Pine Street. So we'll go, we currently have. 339 is going away. That's right. It will change. It no longer be pure building materials. It will be household goods and building materials. The yard space will shrink. Many of those building materials will go indoors in Wilson because we can't at this site have outdoor space. That was my curious question. Yes. Where's all that stuff going? It'll fit inside. It's a bigger space. It'll got to go inside. We'd love to have a yard space, but that's not permitted. So we won't. Paul, I would add that we had a number of, the staff had a number of discussions with resource when they were exploring the site where they made a decision to locate. And the topic of outdoor storage was, was thoroughly asked and answered. And it was made clear that outdoor storage is not allowed in the zoning district. So I should just add the staff were great, really very helpful, wonderful questions. We really appreciate all you've done. Good question, Paul. Other questions from the board regarding science. Other questions from the board regarding your opinions on art. Nobody wants to step on that. So I'm assuming that the red color is not just an honor of tomorrow's holiday, but you're proposing this to be read like that. The artist says that he's thinking this is all up for negotiation, but he would like it to, the birds tend to be dram, but he would, he was describing it as bright for million reddish orange. So that's what he's hoping for something that'll pop and attract the audience. I applaud your proposal here to put in public art. I do too. Any comments or questions from the audience? Sir. You promised not to pursue a sponsorship from Red Lobster though. Despite the color, we won't go that direction. Just out of curiosity, who is the artist? It's Tyler Venetuli. Venetuli? Yes. And sir, just, just for the record, could you state your name and your address? Thanks. Any other comments or questions from the audience? Anything else you'd like to add? Well, you know, we talked about the piece of art, but the signage for the new signage for this building is pretty straightforward. So we read the approval conditions. There was a small discrepancy about how the facade area was calculated. And I agree with Matt's calculation. Ours that I submitted actually included a portion of the roof line as he mentioned. So when I looked at Matt's calculation, we agree with that. So we're under what's allowed and seems like a pretty straightforward application. Just brings the property and compliance and allows resource to add four or five new signs. Most of those are window signs. So they're hoping to open March and I think we'll think about the lighting. But what the immediate need is to get the rest of their signage approved. So we'll keep this application to the signage and to the art as presented and any changes. I think you may find in here that we may add a condition for the public art that simply says, once you decide the type of lighting that you are going to propose that you work it out with staff. Perfect. Rather than coming back, rather than coming back here. Okay. Staff as well qualify to judge arts. Yeah, absolutely. The lighting of art. Go ahead. Is that a longer liquidator sign? Can you do this on the highway? Lumber liquidators. So that was the one sign Matt mentioned that is larger than 24 square feet. That sign was approved back in 2009 under a slightly different master sign regulation. But really you can't see it from harvest lane. You can't see it from harvest lane. The sign is like the only thing you can see is after in the parking lot. Yeah, you really have to be at lumber liquidators to see the sign. It's right above their overhead door. And so that sign's been up for... Anything else from Gordon? Anything else? Anything else from the audience? Okay. All right. We're going to close DP09-15, amendment number one at 744. Thank you. Thanks for coming. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP18-06, Vermont hotel group LLC. So we do have a master sign plan included with this submission too. We're going to handle that separately. So initially as of right now we'll open, we're going to open DP18-06 from our hotel group LLC at 745. There. And welcome if you would state your names and your address please. I'm Abby Derry. I am at Trudell Consulting Engineers for 78 Blair Park Road, Williston. I'm Steve Gowell, the G4 Design Studios Architects, 77 College Street, Barlington. State your name one more time. Steve Gowell. I'm Jeff Gowell at Trudell Consulting Engineers for 78 Blair Park Road. Great. Thank you and welcome. Okay. So this is a request for a discretionary permit of a, for a proposal to add a hotel to an existing developed site in the business park zoning district. The site is currently developed with a building including retail office and warehouse uses. You might know it as, this project was reviewed by the development review board on the 19th of last year as a pre-application. The ARB did adopt some recommendations at that hearing and my staff report does review those recommendations and the applicant's response to them. So briefly there were some comments made by the fire department. The applicant has responded to those and obtained further comment from the fire department. Same for public works comments that were made in pre-app. There are new comments related to the discretionary permit. The applicant was required by the DRB at pre-application to provide a traffic study. They have done so and it's discussed further down in this report. The applicant was asked by the DRB to provide shared parking calculations and has done so and that's part of our report as well. The, there was a recommendation about site-wide compliance with the Williston development bylaw. That's certainly something we aim for in reviewing a project of this scale and the applicants provided numerous pieces of information and revisions of the site plan in an attempt to comply. The final recommendation the board made at pre-application is probably the biggest one states the board is concerned with the massing and visual impact of this building from the street. The board requests the applicant show how this building fits into the context including options such as citing the building parallel with Williston road, stepping it back from the street or incorporating the top floor into a steeper roof. The applicant's proposal which is in your packets and in front of you tonight is still for essentially a 52 foot high building. The applicant has worked on the exterior materials, window arrangement, roof line and minor changes to the footprint in an effort to address the DRB's concerns and I would anticipate that a lot of that will be up for discussion with the board tonight what those responses look like and how the board sees them in light of that recommendation. I'll set that aside for the moment and just go through. The applicant is proposing to construct this new building for a hotel use. The proposed building is going to accommodate at least 30% of its projected parking demand in a structure underneath the building. Doing so under the provisions of the business park zoning district in Williston does allow for a height incentive over the normal 36 foot height limit up to a maximum of 52 feet above average finish grade and that's about where the applicant is proposing to land with the building height as shown. The applicant is also proposing site work beyond the building to make changes to the parking vehicle circulation, pedestrian walkways and green spaces on the site. There's a higher level of detail required when an applicant comes in with discretionary permit so there's a number of elements of this report looking at some of those pieces of the by-law the applicant has to address at this stage review. The first one is outdoor lighting and I've prepared a comparison of the applicant's lighting plan to the town's lighting requirements and find compliance on all aspects. That includes the brightest single point on the site, the total amount of light on the site, the average amount of light in areas to be lit on the site as well as the uniformity of areas to be lit. So in all of those aspects the applicant's lighting plan does comply with the standards of the Williston Development bylaw. Setbacks and landscaping on this site are predominantly controlled by the town's landscape buffer requirements in Chapter 23. There are a number of buffers of different widths and configurations available where we have a retail service commercial use like a hotel that is adjacent to a bunch of other retail service commercial uses as well as two public rights of way, Williston Road and Blair Park Road. The applicant is choosing where the project sets another business to go with a type three informal plantings buffer nine feet in width which is allowed by the bylaw and shown on the applicant's landscaping plan. This would be the buffer between the proposed building and the existing. Two other sides of this, four side of the lot, front on Blair Park Road and the remaining side is on Williston Road. In all of those cases street trees or one major tree approximately every 30 or 40 feet is either in existence or proposed in compliance with the street frontage requirements in both Chapter 23 and Chapter 26. Moving past the landscaping requirements, there are also parking lot landscaping requirements. The main requirement here is that a minimum of five percent of the parking lot area be provided as landscape islands. The applicant has several landscape islands proposed to be added to the reconfigured parking lot in compliance with that standard. I've already addressed street trees. There's no outdoor storage or outdoor display of goods for sale proposed as part of this application. Access to the site is proposed to remain the same as it is today. There's a number of curb cuts on Blair Park Road. There's no direct curb cut onto Williston Road. None of that is proposed to be changed. In terms of traffic, the DRB did require the applicant to submit a traffic study following pre-application review. The applicant has provided that to the staff and we've provided it to you. And that study predicts an added volume of 50 p.m. peak hour vehicle trip ends to be generated by the site. More or less 25 trips in, 25 trips out. Williston uses the p.m. peak, the busiest hour between 4 and 6 p.m. on the adjacent public street as its traffic level that it always looks at as well as the amount of trip generation that the administrator considers when applying a traffic impact fee to the project at the time of permitting. That traffic impact fee is not an element that's up for discussion at the DRB. It's established by an administrator when someone applies for a permit and those are the trips that are presented to us by the applicant. In terms of parking, adding a hotel to this site does generate demand for additional parking that would mix in with the demand for the office retail and warehouse uses that are already on the site. The staff has prepared a calculation of parking demand and found a total required number of parking spaces of 169. The applicant is proposing a total of 132 and that's following both a discount for being proximate to transit. CCTA does run service up and down Williston Road as well as the results of some of its shared parking calculations. So there's a reduction proposed there by the applicant. Otherwise, in looking at required ADA handicapped spaces, outdoor bicycle spaces, long-term bicycle spaces, and end-of-trip facilities, the only thing I noted there is if you start with 169, you come out to 13 outdoor parking spaces. The applicant's got 10. That does relate favorably to the applicant's provided parking of 132. If there needs to be three more bike spaces, that's a fairly minor ask for the DRB to make. So as I said, there is a shared parking analysis submitted by the applicant. That would reduce the 169 down to 147. They were to subtract a full 12% from that for being near transit and providing a discount bus pass program to employees you could get as low as 118. The applicant's not proposing to go all the way down to 118, but landing at 132 proposed spaces on the site. Staff recommends that that would comply with the parking requirements as they exist in our bylaw. As Scott mentioned, the site is proposed to and does house multiple tenants. And as such, there is a master sign plan and a master sign plan that needs to be amended as part of this application. And that's reviewed under a separate staff report with its own conditions and motion for approval. We can go over that following this review. There is an existing state storm water on the site, which the applicant is proposing to amend as part of this application. In terms of water and wastewater, the applicant is proposing to connect to municipal water and sewer service. Water and sewer connection fees will apply. The Department of Public Works has provided what they call a capacity to serve letter for the 96 room hotel. There is a disconnect in terms of when the town will be in a position to sell the necessary sewer capacity to this applicant in order to move forward with the project. So hotels generate a lot of demand for wastewater treatment. And it's likely that the town would not be in a position to sell that kind of capacity to the applicant until the beginning of the next fiscal year in July. We at a staff level should this project get approval from the DRV and file final plans, we the staff would not be able to issue an administrative permit to proceed with constructing the project until that sewer capacity matter had been dealt with. Public Works has also commented that there's a need for some upgrades and maintenance to be done to the pump station related to wastewater down at the bottom of the hill at Blair Park. That would also need to be resolved to their satisfaction before we could proceed with permitting. Was that this July or next July? He said coming July. So the first day of fiscal 19 will be July 1st of 2018. And that's when sewer capacity turns over. And that's assuming that when the select board assesses what's remaining for sewer capacity in the system and what they wish to make available for the various different users in the coming year aligns with something that could be sold to this applicant at that time. So real briefly, the select board essentially has a wastewater treatment budget called Attachment A to the sewer allocation ordinance. They look at that every year in March. They look at how much capacity has been allocated, how much is in use, how much is available to be allocated, and they look out over a lengthy time horizon and then decide how much to make available in the upcoming fiscal year. So that happens in March related to what will be made available starting on July 1. So that's sort of outside of the scope of review, but it's another thing that has to happen for something to move forward next to those services in real estate. The only reason why it's coming up now is because so the estimated amount of capacity they need is 12,000 gallons a day. That's a huge amount in relative to amounts of capacity that are given out in our system. So in the normal course of events it never comes up for discussion here because it fits neatly within the protocol that we have already in this case. It's a big amount and there's not enough capacity available in this fiscal year to accommodate the use so we'll have to wait till next fiscal year. Did it not come up on the previous hotel because there's some allocation for Finney Crossing as a whole? It did come up and they needed 10,000 gallons a day and they got 10,000 gallons a day under a category called Encourage Specific Development which requires specific select board approval. So as Matt alluded to the select board puts a certain amount of sewer capacity in what's called attachment A and that's all that's available for the staff to give out administratively over the next fiscal year. So we go year by year and then so whenever it's unusual that we get an outlier like this with a big usage and if there's not enough allocation that's available this fiscal year they would have to wait until the next fiscal year. Was it because the other hotel came in first they got the allocation before this? Yeah, to some extent it's a timing issue. The way for staff is that the hotel at Finney got allocation because they came in and requested allocation after they got their permit approved. So at the staff level we're not going to give out sewer allocation until somebody gets their permit approved. So this request is premature. I mean you haven't made a decision yet on the permit yet. A few other things about the site utilities have been shown in compliance with the bylaw as well as snow storage areas and there's a recommendation there that landscaping in snow storage areas involve salt tolerant species that can handle having salty snow be plowed over them a few months out of the year. There is a place for solid waste handling or several places for solid waste handling i.e. dumpster enclosures shown on the site and those are proposed to be shielded and screened with the bylaw. The project in the business park zoning district unlike some of our other Taft Corners zoning districts like Taft Corners and mixed use commercial mixed use residential you don't have the infamous five of nine design criteria or the three of eight criteria that the board might have some experience with remember going through on a project like CVS or Town for Attire however the business park district is within the town's review district and so that means that all of the requirements of chapter 22 need to be met it also means that the project receives a review by the town's historic and architectural advisory committee under those criteria and that that committee makes recommendations to the DRB related to the requirements of chapter 22. So I've quoted all of those chapter 22 requirements for you that's a checklist we use when the hack reviews these things and I'll go over some of the specific recommendations they made about the building and the discussion they had back on January 29th. So under 223 architectural design form color and materials the hack was shown some samples of the gray metal siding element that's shown on the bill saw a sample that was fairly shiny and they said is this going to be shiny like this? They said no it's a matte finish using a matte finish on that siding element. In relation to 22. 3.1 respect to the context the hack looked at the stone element along the base of the building and in coloration they saw a sample that was a little darker and a little more variegated than they thought might fit in they were recommending trying to go with something that was coherent to the stone element on the Ashley furniture building on the hill so if you were to go look at that building you see kind of a gray, lightly variegated composition stone application there. They liked that. Form should follow function building facade should reflect true building form there's no false fronts or anything like that on this building provide enclosure any streets and outdoor spaces like urban parks function best when surrounding buildings are tall enough for the structure construction of multi-story buildings is encouraged. Hack didn't find any need to add recommendations to gain compliance there. In similar light the 22. 3.4 size outdoor space is properly there was no recommendation by the hack used a variety of colors and materials but with restraint a lot of terms in general that the building should use a variety of materials and not be monolithic but not look slapdash or hack did not feel there were any conditions necessary on that. Avoid dead walls so there's an intent here that there shouldn't be big expanses of blank walls with no windows no doors no features on them being a hotel this building is proposed with windows on all four sides and doors on several of the sides the hack did recommend that in conversation with the applicant the size of the windows on the street facing elevation which is one of those short sides of the building that those windows be increased in size to the double window size used on the remainder of the elevation to give the building some more presence on Williston Road no use of reflective materials the hack didn't see any of those placement of doors and windows is important under 22.4 there was no recommendation for a condition there. 22.4.1 is about marking building entrances using architectural features so that an entrance or a door on a building reads as looks as a door from the street looking at that US2 or Williston Road facing elevation there's a door with a small roof element over it the hack recommended making that a significant and using some support columns down to the ground around that roof to help highlight that entrance that we'll face out on to Williston Road even though we know it's a secondary entrance to the hotel itself under relationship to the street there were no further conditions there we have a criterion called protect building entrances basically means that if you're going in or out of a door you're protected from sliding ice and snow and rain and there are doors protect building entrances from conflicts you shouldn't have to walk past the dumpster to get into your room or your apartment none of that is evident on this site. Principal entrances need to provide air logs so you go in one door you're in some sort of a foyer and then you go in another this is energy efficiency, environmental consideration the proposal complies with that. Use doors and windows to provide a strong but compatible visual pattern or rhythm there should be some consistent spacing of windows and doors across the building elevation the hack found no need to add any additional conditions to gain compliance there shield light spill from windows not generally a problem with the levels of interior lighting that most hotels have pitched roofs the project is proposed with a pitched roof consider sliding ice and snow again entrances are protected from sliding ice and snow by roof elements or dormers use compatible colors forms and materials the hack felt that had been essentially addressed in some of their prior comments related to the materials hide roof drains we don't see any visible roof drains on the structure consider the view from above as a pitched roof building it has a roof on top so even if you could see it from above you wouldn't be seeing a whole lot of you know mechanical equipment or anything like that twenty two point six going forward is all about mixed use buildings where you have people living there as well as using whatever the commercial use this is a single use building it's on its own and so there's no building for the mixed use buildings requirements of chapter 22 in terms of signage the project complies with the town signage rules pertaining to needing a master sign plan and asking for one site planning the bylaw in twenty two just references the rest of the bylaw and I think we've been through most of that twenty two point nine point one says respect the terrain buildings parking areas another site improvement should fit the terrain rather than the land being fit to the building there is a bit of a slope across this site the building is proposed to be set into that slope to some degree I would read twenty two point nine point one about the terrain is meaning not not doing excessive re grading that you don't have to do a really reshaping the site significantly if you don't have to build a strong street line appropriate for the area buildings not parking areas should dominate streetscapes in the commercial and mixed use zoning districts ample green planting strip and buffer should be provided in the industrial districts the business park district is kind of sort of a mixed use district it's not really an industrial district the building here is pulled right up to the setback along Williston Road there is a parking lot element that's also pulled up to Williston Road along the side of the building expanding the parking that's there today the hack did not recommend any additional conditions there no front yard fencing we don't have any front yard fencing fencing and screening should be compatible with the surrounding landscape and uses there was no additional condition recommended there so all of the recommendations that I quote of the hack have been redrafted as conditions twenty one twenty two twenty three and twenty four in the draft conditions of approval have prepared as part of this report we did also ask for a comment from police fire and public works we did receive comments from public works and fire and I have conservation commission noted there an error this project was not reviewed by the conservation commission we had no comments from police we did have comments updated from these rather from fire and public works in the case of the fire department they enumerated some of the applicable elements of their plan review standard but we're not requesting any big specific changes to the site plan public works also made a request that the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park Road be straightened out there's a bend in it there and did also note stormwater and wastewater upgrades and the department of public works did also ask for independent review related to what's going to need to happen I mentioned and as I said they've noted that will likely need to be upgraded and I assure you folks that should this project move through approval we would not be issuing a permit without the public works director signature on it signifying resolution of that and any other matters so that said I have prepared recommended findings of fact conclusions of law and draft conditions of approval for consideration by the DRB and again we're addressing the master sign plan under a separate report and motion for approval thank you Matt okay thanks for the summary Matt so where should we start we have a 96 unit hotel proposing review and they are proposing to meet the 52 foot maximum building height so G4 has prepared some building elevations and 3D photo renderings to help you get a feel for how the building fits with the scale of the surroundings and what it will look like from the street view so we can go over those right now yeah let's do that discuss the architecture a little bit yeah we kind of we kind of address the hacks recommendations of we doubling up on the windows west side of the building with faces we address that I don't know if we should pass out to revise elevations or not but we also want like a little covered porch or covered entryway on that double doors on the east on the west side and we address that as well we kind of want a little more curb appeal on that side so we address that we did make some changes to the mixture materials the color we made the stone a little bit darker perhaps recommendations we did kind of redesign some of the wood paneling in the middle panel in the middle section we kind of redesigned that a little bit more the upper portion which is a composite panel as well I pretty much stayed the same but I mean that's about it we took hack recommendations into account made those changes and I think for location of the building on the site for massing I think you want to recommend the furs to have a cat location I mean just for parking circulation and flow and also for future development on the site if they do want to do any future development this building is the best location for that as well so alright when you were last here the forward had a couple of concerns about the massing of the building as well and so I appreciate you taking into account the hacks concerns what have you done about the board's concerns concerning the massing of the building as it relates to the street I think we were pretty specific about what we were looking for so maybe you could address that well like I said I guess we need a four story building to make this project work I guess we could push it away from the street a little bit more but again that's going to interfere with the parking and the parking flow towards the back of the lot I think the board asked you specifically to address that well we just feel this we just feel that's the best recommendation for it but I mean does the board want us to push the building away from the street further or are you asking me or asking the board well I think the board was pretty clear so how did you address it well we kind of just the way it is I mean we didn't really change it from pre-app we kind of left it where it is yeah I think what to address the concern with the massing on the street the architect created different ways of color and a variation in the building facade that's up against Williston Road there's going to be a covered entryway that's more welcoming to pedestrians that John created a landscaping plan with a little seating area some and maybe he can go over the landscaping a little more the building where it sits it kind of fits into the topography that's existing the site slopes from Ashley furniture toward the west down toward the post office and by running the building parallel with those contours it just looks like you're with the existing site than having to have a long flat facade against Williston Road where you would run into some grading issues toward the west and yeah Jeff do you want to pull up the landscaping plan and maybe talk about what you've done while we're on the topic of the board's request anybody on the board want to jump in on that while we're on it right now I'll send them around I'm confused as to why we're looking at two different sets of elevations these were refined and these renderings were created following the hack conversation by the applicant this is just a small version of what you folks are seeing in front of you on the boards I see different colours than was on here before yes different orientation of metal siting yep that's in this 12 second review you handed out the photos so this is what I've just handed out so yeah that was slightly pre-hack so that was an illustration that the architect prepared to show this building elevation in 3D photo rendering following the hack we prepared we're working on a draft of something new and we brought copies if you want to look at it tonight you can it just shows the enhanced covered porch structure that's on the south face of the building the double window panels that are on the south face of the building and the slightly different colour variation in the stone layer made the stone a little bit colour the hack wanted we had single windows on the west elevation we doubled up the windows we didn't have any covered entry on the west elevation we provided a covered entry and like Abby said we wanted a little more curb appeal more pedestrian friendly on that side and we kind of addressed that as well to address your concerns about the massing I really think that the stepping up of the covered porch structure on Williston Road followed by the stripe of the different building facade and then finally the pitched roof it doesn't feel like a 52 foot wall when you're standing next to it it sort of steps back from the building and forgive my lack of architectural terms but that's trying out this elevation here yeah that's the south elevation so on the plan that was originally submitted it's a pretty small covering really small covering it's very small and let me just interrupt one second while we're talking about we're talking about the entrance I think it's this one that this entrance this is the one the south side so it's the one on the top of the sheet but again this isn't the one that we're reviewing tonight I haven't seen the one that we're reviewing tonight I still even if this handed out to me I still don't see that so I'm having a very hard time approving the words I'm hearing that tell me that it's nice and that it's better do you I can hand out what we've worked on since we've been in the hack for you to look at you don't have it yet this could be part of what you're reviewing or you can look at what we submitted prior with the conditions that the hack had recommended so I guess there's two different ways you could do it and I'll take staff's recommendations generally on a project this size we'd like to have the submission fixed we're not here to design it with you we'd like you to figure out what you want pull your submission together get it to the staff let them take a look at it all of the requirements and then they can distribute it to the board you can hear a little bit of frustration in John's voice because what we were given is not what we're now talking about it's a big project it's a big project and it requires a certain level of study on our part and the staff's part in order to make a informed decision about it we're happy to look at it if you do have drawings with you or renderings with you we can take a look at them I think we'll probably end up continuing this to the next meeting so that you can get your submission together and get it to the staff then we can talk about what it is you want and where you see you're going with it so with that said if you do have something that you've developed board okay with that? the bottom line is even if we were to manage to say this is good to go right now you can't break ground until after fiscal right but we're working on a different timeline so the fact that you you're not under the gun right now to have the answer for us tonight if you want to come back tomorrow the next meeting what we're really talking about it's not like that's a good way of putting it but we do have our own process that we like to follow whether or not you have water allocation is not really within our purview at the moment may I ask something? Matt would you please read the condition about massing in the pre-app please? so this was recommendation number six by the board out of pre-app the board is concerned with the massing and visual impact of this building from the street the board requests the applicant show how this building fits into the context including options such as siting the building parallel with Williston Road stepping it back from the street or incorporating the top floor into a steeper roof if you have the staff report I did quote it in the staff report so if you see the two column table at the beginning of the report it's the sixth item great thank you Scott you asked whether having them pass out the new elevation information I'm finally getting that I'm going to have our time really evaluating that I think in this short time frame what I want to know is make sure that we've got complete set of new plans though because are the floor plans changing at all are the window locations are the window sizes changing so if there's any plan changes or site plan changes I'd like to get all those at once I really don't want to kind of reevaluate this and then find out there's another little change over here that we have to reevaluate at another time we're here the hearing is open other while we're on the we're on the architectural side of it we're looking at the renderings does anybody have any general questions that they'd like to ask the applicant David? on the south side I usually try not to weigh in on aesthetics but it struck me that it might break up this the gray band to use a band of the wood down the middle got three rows of windows in my head at least it looks good I don't know if it would look good on paper but that was just a thought it looks like in the sign plan there's also a sign a Wilson hotel to go on this facade as well both east west and south side David, if we're talking about signs let's save that for the master sign plan well I think it would be because you're showing it in the renderings for the two long ends so I think it should show it on the two A side if that's the proposal okay so are these the plans that the hack had they are the hack is advisory only I'm a little confused they didn't say anything about does form follow function here in that I think what I'm looking at here are the exact same windows on the entire building including offices lobbies what not that are the exact same windows as in the hotel rooms and so therefore there's like the exact same amount of glass and fenestration on the ground floor which is the public floor which is the public spaces which frequently I think you see have a lot more glass it might be a way to differentiate that I look at this I see this is an opportunity in the future to get rid of all those public spaces and put in more rooms if the rules ever change enough to allow you to do that and so I look at this building and I couldn't begin to tell you where I think on the plan it says there's a great room in here somewhere well I couldn't begin to know where that is on here and that seems like a good public space that you would want to interact with the outdoor spaces that's one comment I have the other one which was gets back to this whole route to A piece this is feeling a lot like Priya but we're trying hard in Williston to create walkable neighborhoods districts, places where people who are living here can ride bikes and walk and what not and I don't see this building catering to anything other than vehicular traffic and I recognize that people staying in hotels drive there but they may want to walk to some of the stores, they may want to walk to the movie theater, they may want to walk to some of these other places that we're at and yet I see only happen to walk past cars and parking lots to get there and you've got this wonderful opportunity with this facade that's right on route to A right on the multi-use path that you will enter the building into the fire escapes there and into a hallway that goes past a half a dozen rooms before you get to the lobby I view that as a missed opportunity and I don't see it necessarily compatible with the goals I think from a planning standpoint that I understand the town to have that's my biggest concern here and that's why I keep talking and asking about that facade of the building I don't I mean 52 feet is allowed I don't have any problems with that I think you started to mix the materials nicely here the letters are too small but but I think there's a few things there that make this from a nice project to one that I'm not very sure about right now anyway I'm done Is that into the building where you mentioned in the plans that you were having a small wall with seating area and everything else is that where that will be Yes and I guess I'd like the chance to go over that to present that to you what we're thinking for that we can do that just hold on one second let's go around the board anybody else on the board comment I know you mentioned the gray matte finish it seems like the gray got a lot lighter and it may just be a printer thing but it strikes me that the darker gray really looks sharper against that wood the darker gray yes because that looks a lot more faded that gray at pre-app was the building set back on the south facing wall the south facing wall is narrower than the mass of the building is that what was proposed at pre-app it was and why I asked that is I was wondering if that was a design element that was incorporated into this iteration to try to address the massing comment that's why I asked that should take credit for it yes we're set back a little ways so that we can have that porch that was talking about be on the south side of the building so in the next round there's a covered roof standing seam with columns supporting it so we needed room for that that's not what I was talking about I was talking about the width of the building how it's right corners is that the same as it was at pre-app yes it is I was wondering if you did that to reduce the massing well it does help on the massing but that was from pre-app but yes it does help on the massing as well in that corner you guys took the slope roof and incorporated the fourth store we tried to bring it down as much as we can for the massing any questions from the audience go ahead and why don't you walk us through so first let's start with the landscape plan because I think that can address some of your concerns with what's going on in the south building elevation and I will have Jeff talk about the that entry what I've done with landscaping and also dedicated space that I'm here should have a massing building with trees and also a seating wall let me interrupt you for one second I do apologize I'm going to do it to you a lot I'm going to echo what Mr. Hemmelgarten said it does feel like we're kind of back to pre-app because we're looking at one thing so we might as well treat it like that instead of a DP we're talking about something you're planning on showing us in the future my concern on the south wall is that it is a big blank wall and if you are going to put a little porch covering in there with a couple of columns you're going to need to do something a lot a lot more with that other than just a little deck or a little porch roof so keep going part of introducing the landscape down that side that wall down that's what that landscaping and that seating wall will help reduce the mass but the landscaping which is not shown in these it's not with leaves on the trees that we're going to have much of an effect of reducing the mass in the wall but the landscaping on the south side here will help as well as landscaping how much of an elevation drop is there from route 2 down to the there's stairs that walk from the route 2 elevation down to the that door how much elevation changes so you can walk further I mean there's a pinch of maybe 2% make sure it's draining away from the it actually goes up slightly from the bike path elevation to the finish floor but no stairs no stairs I think what you're meaning was if you want something that looks like the road portion of the Wilson hotel where they got the the driving section you just took that whole piece and put it on the end of the building so you have nice double windows and have a shape to the rather than just up you're talking about something like that I think Paul you kind of just reiterated the board's recommendation number 6 on page 2 I'm not sure that they're actually hearing that my point is what we're saying is if you took literally the rough shape with the Wilson hotel and pulled that down put that whole section and stuck it on the end of the building with that little 5 or 6 out would be a much more acceptable view right? I think what we try to do is stay away from playing architect I'm not understanding I'm not hearing any response over here so well it's the same conversation we had on the Sharon Gotwin where we were looking for a more substantial presence from the street but we were reluctant to provide design input because that's a slippery slope this is a similar situation the sculpture that's noted here with the flags is that indicative of what you imagine or is that just kind of a place for her symbol for a sculpture to be determined at a later date so yeah can we go over, if you flip to site plan C202 I just wanted to make sure that you saw with what we're proposing for the pedestrian might not be as the main entrance to the building normally when you go to the lobby you come into the corner of the park with a chair and it's obvious that's where all your names are we do have pretty easy pedestrian access from the bike path so there's a big sidewalk closet here sidewalk up here into the building we have the sculpture there's a bike parking area and as Jeff described there was substantial landscaping in that area to make it a more pleasant entrance so it is entirely walkable from the bike path I don't know how else would walk here except from the bike path so we have two points of entry either make your way to the main point or you can go into the side and I think the board would like to see and I think the bylaws do require a more direct connection rather than a four story black wall covered deck the board is going to want to see some form of more enticing connection to the street I will reiterate also for probably the fifth time now that you need to pay attention to recommendation number six that the board made I think you're hearing that from around the table the building is going to be cited the way it cited on the lot I think that having it parallel to route 2 would be a more imposing structure so maybe we could go through some of the site features tonight instead of the details why don't you give us your run on I think as of right now I think you have heard what the board's concerns are we can run through the rest of the program and the rest of your proposal and I think we should do that but I do think that the salient point here is what we've covered already I think we're concerned if we're going to continue this then you're going to probably hear it again if you show up this as well why don't you go ahead and walk us through and see if we can get through it assuming the building is to your liking the next time we're in front of you let's just go over the presentation of what we have for the site features as Matt mentioned we have water and sewer connection we're going to we're working with Public Works on the pump station issue it had less to do with the pump station actually being able to accept the capacity and more to do with the amount of time the pump would have to run to get this capacity through so we have meetings set up with them to deal with that and obviously that could be a conditional approval for you before we get our administrative permit the stormwater design system stormwater treatment system consists of three gravel wetlands we are under jurisdiction of ANR with this so we'll be amending our state stormwater permit right now the system is designed to treat the water quality volume attenuate the 10 year storm so the post construction discharge is not greater than the pre-construction discharge into the city system and then there are overflows for your storm events we are in traffic we had stand tech do a traffic impact study which was included in our submittal 50pmp project which we assessed the traffic impact being prior to the ministry so if you have any questions any of those things that have gone over anybody have any questions on the traffic impact I had a question about the gravel wetland what does it look like when I walk along the path what do I see that I'm walking beside four feet away storage happens between the bottom elevation of the wetland and below the surface so you won't you'll just see a grass to a grass okay so you won't see the gravel and are these how big are those trees geckos so they could be as tall it's going to take years they'll qualify for tree trees absolutely not the smelly ones are they it's the male versus female I don't remember which one it is it smells probably the male yes the question on the gravel slope just looking at the typical section it looks like a two on one slope down into the gravel I can't remember is there an issue having that right up against the bike path where I feel like it might be at least a three on one next to a railing or something it would be worth looking into that I will look into that same goes for the one across on the west side both of them just back John asked this question I'm not sure I completely understood the swales or the retention ponds are really just a grassy depression is that what they are with wetland plants as well grass cattails she's shaking her head no I mean there's four or five different species in here but some of them are flowering some of them are pickerel weed it's different wetland plants not cattails not mowed let to grow right it's a very similar treatment system to what they installed at the new city market off of Flynn Ave in Burlington I could provide photographs of that if that would help not fenced it's not intended to be fenced it's not deep enough to pose a hazard there's no water in it except when it's raining how tall will those plants get in the wetland different species different heights maximum height probably three or four feet that's a nice coexistence there with providing that's a nice height to screen the front ends of cars that are parked right there we've addressed the pre-app fire department comments by including a hydrant on the site the parking aisles are wide enough to accommodate the truck turning that they wanted the pork washare is at the height that they required to get their ladder truck underneath and to circulate the ladder truck through the site on the east side of the building next to so where you're close to the property line we've got a nine foot buffer is that a grassy swale down from the property next door it is and the intent there was to capture any runoff coming off the slope from ashley furniture and to route it around the building it's a pretty shallow a shallow swale so you've got a big perimeter drain or something along those lines there is is the boundary line along or I guess the right of way line along route 2a that you're pretty confident of that line yeah we did a boundary survey for the property seems like it's pretty narrow so it basically kind of straddles the bike path yeah the bike path is on in some places entirely on the subject parcel there would yes have a plat with me yeah Matt we have a under the parking under the parking we're expanding the parking right up to the front of the street some of our bylaw desires that parking be on the side and in the rear so what's the rule is there a rule on how that relates to this site well so the requirement or the way it's discussed in chapter 22 is pull the building up to the street so right that happens but there's a lot of room remaining in the street frontage of this site and there is parking that's proposed to expand toward the street as well the design review district while it covers this business park district it's a little different in the way it interacts with the standards of this district than either industrial where it just says grassy swale parking up front is fine versus mixed use commercial mixed use residential to have corners where it says we really want the building to be prominent and in some cases pulled right up to the sidewalk business park is kind of this middle ground where the way the zoning district was originally conceived the language in the bylaw basically said this is a built out office park we don't think it's ever going to be much more than that and we've we've drafted some development standards to memorialize it as such one of the amendments the planning commission select board has made to this district since then is to allow for a 25 foot setback to roads instead of a 50 foot setback which allows the building to be pulled up it also does have the effect of allowing the parking to be closer to the road as well there's not the same guiding language in this district that you might find deeper into taft corners where we say things like we don't want parking to dominate the visual landscape of the site or we really want and really nowhere in our bylaw do we go so far as to say XYZ percentage of your street frontage has to be building so that's all kind of a long way of saying I don't think there's a standard in the bylaw that this parking expansion as part of this site plan runs a foul of I think if the applicant came to you and there was parking between the new proposed building and the street you could look at chapter 22 and say well this really says the building ought to be up to the street in this case it is and you're struggling to some degree with what that means about how big the building feels from the street and so if you step it back which is why we asked what we did green space right so it makes the building feel smaller it does put some space there we don't have a setback that says the building or the parking needs to be any more than 25 feet off the edge of the right I'd like to ask you a question that I think I know the answer to and I'm going to ask it anyways I believe you've referenced that this site is going to be redeveloped at some point then this is the beginning and I have no idea whether you're privy to this information or not but do you have any information that you could share with the board on what might be proposed for this site I don't I figured that would be your response but I thought I would ask questions from the board as we're kind of walking through this I have I wanted to ask about a couple of specific conditions of approval condition number 12 the one about the wastewater elevation and I didn't know if there was any room to change the language in prior to any administrative permits being issued the way the wastewater allocation would be approved so I'm going to I'd like to answer your question without answering the question that is I'd like to re-ask that question when you come back next time as opposed to now we have we don't even know if we're going to approve it it's going to continue we're not seeing the final the conditions could change um that at that time then can I pose the question to staff and see if has there been an instance when allocation has been issued at a different time then at that time we're not going to we're just not going to issue an administrative permit to build a building now wastewater capacity we want the water and wastewater discharge permit before anything happens that's on sewer you got to have the allocation in hand that's just the way it is and then condition number 16 the referring to watershed protection buffers I don't think we have I don't know if we need that condition that's why we say any and not all to specifically make it only apply it's a boiler plate condition okay and that was that's the only condition that I had questions about other than that all of the public works comments and fire department comments will be incorporated into final you had a couple of things you wanted to cover before I jumped in those were that was it that was it there was a comment from outdoor bicycle spaces that's minor onsite onsite bathrooms and changing rooms that's all taken care of for employees within the within the building it will be within the new hotel building yes have you given thought yet to bus passes transit passes for employees you will want to because that will be part of the parking reduction you have enough snow storage that's always a concern everywhere yeah I would leave that up to the property management well we want to deal with it now we don't want to deal with it later there is enough snow storage onsite to push snow around but then as the winter progresses they might have to truck some offsite that seems to be one of the items that always gets forgotten is that one that goes into the post office is a single one-way entrance is the other one a one-way entrance too the main one no it isn't there's a two-way room this is two-way yes now you're talking about right here that's two-way that's two-way this is two-way no I thought you were talking about this I thought you were talking about this one you're talking about the one on the Blair Park road the one on Blair Park road directly in front of the parking underground parking garage I can answer that that's going to be two-way coming off the Blair Park road it's one-way now I think you're right that's the tip actually the post office circulation will remain one-way the Blair Park driveway will become two-way no other comments or questions from the board you got it alright um so this was this little hat pattern um the uh are going to continue this um and Matt you gotta prefer date I assume it's probably the 13th no sooner than the 13th no sooner than the 13th I don't want to overload that agenda not knowing what else is on there so when we go to well so it's not going to be feasible to go anywhere sooner than the 13th number one once we hit March the first meeting in March the 13th is potentially available the second meeting is not because the second meeting is growth management so you know that's that's a sort of an issue so it's either going to be March the 13th or it's going to be April whatever is the first meeting the second the second Tuesday in April will be April the 10th um today's the 13th meeting in February 27th we're going to be doing a mail out on the 22nd which means we need information in advance of that we just know historically that this doesn't work for coming turning back around two weeks from today it just doesn't work so I say the next potential meeting would be um March the 13th and then if not then it goes to April the 10th we're going to continue this to 410 if room becomes available it's going to be an agenda on the 13th of March would we be able to take that thought? it's probably a combination of a couple of things it's your ability to pull the information together um I think at this point we're going to continue we're going to continue with April 10th that gives you enough time that gives staff enough time last round any other questions from the board no okay I'll leave it with please pay attention to our the board's recommendation number six um are there any criteria that we went over that we can consider not being closed and not go through again at the next hearing? we may breeze through it but I think you know I think from a mechanical standpoint you've done the work with all of the different agencies and departments and I was fairly impressed with the depth of the submission in terms of everything we got from everything we got so I think a lot of that you've worked through so I don't think that we're going to spend a lot of time on that okay thanks for your time um before you go do you want to go through the master sign plan or rather wait till next time let's wait till next time we'll continue that until April 10th as well it's pretty sure I came with one next up dp18-13 Angela you pronounce your name Ray John? yes thank you I've got that one right you did seeking a discretionary permit this is continued from an earlier date from Blondens auto body we're going to open up the hearing at 902 thank you for your patience sure um Mr. Bellovo thank you so this is a request to modify the street-facing landscaping for this property addresses 992 dp18 South Brown L Road um as the board may recall we had a public hearing on January the 9th 2018 and it was continued to see a revised site plan there was a question about really where the property line was in relationship to the street and where the trees that are subject to the review of the public right-of-way were they not in the public right-of-way etc so the applicants have submitted a revised plan we have reviewed it the public works department has reviewed it um the in the short run one of the good answers is that there are I think it's three trees and public works that says that they have no objections to those trees being removed all three are just two three I believe is what it said it was two he did two just two okay so the applicants are proposing to remove a total of 15 trees and one of the things that was discussed at the first public hearing and we received commentary from the public is that not only was this site plan approved under a previous bylaw but there's a history of there being enhanced landscaping along South Brown Hill Road because of the fact that we have residential properties and a church directly across the street from it so you know when you look at the plantings that are there it clearly reflects that you have a practically a force there on the north side of the property along South Brown Hill Road I think one of the questions for the board is how many trees should the applicant be allowed to remove to help the applicant achieve their goal without undermining the intent of the original condition approval which is to provide buffering to those residential properties across the street the applicants request was that they wanted to improve the visibility of their driveway and improve the visibility of their signage so people could find them so that all sort of loads down on the south side of the site the enhanced buffering was really it was required to be on the north end of the site so what that suggests to me that if the board is going to allow some of the trees to be removed it should be some of those trees near the southern end of the site that's close to the driveway which would enhance the visibility of the driveway and any signage on the building and yet still preserve the enhanced buffering for those residential properties across the street so on the site plan there is that dashed line and I think that makes a pretty good point of reference in terms of what you might think of as the north part of the site versus the south part of the site so that's part of our recommendation is that the board should consider not allowing all those trees to be caught near the northern end of that frontage on South Brown El Road because of the testimony that we received and the intent of the prior approval which was to provide some buffering to the residential uses across the street we also had some discussion about landscaping in the parking lot the parking lot is non conforming I think the question for the board is whether or not the board is not required to bring the parking lot up to conformity with the current standards the board may wish to find that the landscaping that exists along the street is sufficient to provide the buffering between the parking and how it's visible from the street so having said that I'll stop you guys are kind of darned if you do and darned if you don't well we meet I say that with a smile on my face and then we don't see any landscaping in the front if you leave the trees up then we don't see anything if I'm not mistaken it was mentioned that we had to have how many parking spaces before we had to conform to a planning scaper if you want to say we don't meet we don't have those parking spaces I think you do and Matt could read you the requirements if you'd like the way it goes there's no run in excess of 25 the way you get a run of 25 on this side is you have to follow it 90 degrees around the building so we had a staff conversation about how that lines up with today's standard and in today's world we've had some parking configurations proposed like this one where the board sort of looked at it and said gosh we really don't like parking spaces and we don't want to have a run of 25 as it shows around the corner of that building but what the bylaw was really written for in my opinion in terms of requiring landscape islands was that you had that straight run of 24 spaces and you needed to do an island before you kept going with another run of spaces so it's not conforming to the way our bylaw requires it to be developed today it's conforming to the way it was approved at the time it was approved when the building when the site was developed right there's a three spaces that show for example on the northern property line we wouldn't approve those today I mean that's not a good design quite frankly but it's there it was approved but we wouldn't approve that today if that came in today it's not really a good design you have turning moving problems with people backing out if the lot's full it's just it's not a good design so but our recommendation is that what's there be allowed to stay so let me ask you a question you've heard the staff's opinion historically this site was approved with dense landscaping for a reason I believe we've got a gentleman in the back who probably lives across the street correct okay so you know it sounds like there may be a little it sounds like maybe there's a little wiggle room on the south end on the south end you've asked to take down a whole bunch of trees even with all the trees that we've requested to take down it still leaves several trees in the front probably not going in that direction and the trees if we were to get approval to take down the trees we've requested still meet the zoning requirements of today now with that being said you mentioned the church across the street and Quinton brothers next door they do not even have one tree in front of them they're not dealing with the church either but it was mentioned that the church across the street probably not going to get what you asked for what can you live with when we left here last last month it was said to us if we got the approval from zoning or from public works to have the permission to take down any trees that were in there right away then we would be okay any of the pine trees we've discovered were on out of the right away so we wouldn't need permission to take those if they weren't in the right away yes you I was not said to you well then I guess I misunderstood it but it was part of the prior permit so the request was to take down let me ask you again you can argue with me all night I don't want to argue I understand but you are what can you live with if you're not going to get all of them taken down I'm probably not to negotiate with you but I'd like to we'd like to come to a compromise we can live with the north end the cluster is down there but everything from the south end at least half way down through that property that's pine tree related I think that there's three hardwoods there's the three ashes from the driveway going north the first one is the only hardwood that we've requested we said they were fine with removing that one and so if you go up two trees north of that I think that would probably be an adequate location to note so there's the three ash trees the three southern most ash trees ash trees why don't you come on up are you going to re-tape parking lots so that people will see all the car shirts all over Paul hang on a second hold on can I do I got to do a bit of if you wouldn't mind I did not ask any of you to state your names and your addresses for the record so if you would look at the camera and state your names and your addresses for the record and sir thank you very much that keeps me off the hot seat at least from that side so there's three ash trees there's one, two, three and so what we had suggested removing was that ash tree all of these pines here and I think from there on up the question for these guys we're the landlord we're here to support our tenant we've been there a long time we want them to be successful so what I'd like them to weigh in on is kind of where they see that line being necessary to not only see their sign but they would like to see as well so can I can I just ask this ash tree you're proposing to come down and you've got Department of Public Works approval and this ash tree to come down as well that's the only ash tree that we're requesting there's that stand of hardwoods all along we're going to keep all of those except for the southern most one and so which conifers and would you you're suggesting kind of over to the sewer line that goes across there take out the ones beyond that would be adequate to see your building well it would from this angle but you wouldn't see anything from this angle I'd like to be able to see the building from both you know you're not going to get it sir is that your house there yes okay building sign there's nothing on the building oh there's a sign on the building yes is there any reason one at a time please so any reason that sign that's on the building it's right up next to the roof so now that these trees have grown up you can't see it is there any reason why that sign can't be brought down lower closer to the to the ground it's not right on the ground but I mean closer to the ground closer to the ground because it's like spent walk or spent on the parkway and then matter of fact bring it down onto the municipal level I think you still got a chance to use if you drive along I don't think you'll be able to see through the trees I'm back I can't see it really these trees in general they do provide a little bit but in the summertime there's not any those trees aren't invisible because of the trees that are in front of the hardwoods so these trees actually serve no purpose other than being a stick if I may say you know an upright parallel type device that creates barrier I guess you want to say but there's nothing that these trees do because all the foliage now on those trees for whatever reason whatever they planted the foliage is now higher on the tree so you got more bark and just tree going up now and it's just more of a top canopy so those are the pines so in the summer you're saying you can't even see the softwoods softwoods are kind of protected a little bit by those so what you really see but in the winter when there's no leaves on this tree then what can you see then you see the what no you see the softwoods the softwoods see then that's where it worked very well and that's the reason that they were put in there in the first place so that we wouldn't have to look at that ugly building so basically year round we're sheltered by foliage for the clothes down there do you understand that that was what the permit was designed to do we understand but it's 20 years now it doesn't make any difference it lasts forever so can I re-ask the question before where on this building is the sign that says Blond and Brothers here on the street site where is it on the building on the building this is about right over the middle of this probably through Zay right in this area by the handicapped parking yeah maybe a little way across our main entrance right about the midpoint of the building on our building you guys are at the sole occupant of the building right no you're not I'm going to just ask a question if a couple of the softwoods at the far northern end were removed would that make your sign visible as you approached because these houses obviously they're not screening the building from these houses at that far end over there there's another one there's another one right here Nancy Bates is right there he was going to come tonight but he he worked for Pomenal for years she went to the funeral today I spoke with Nancy Bates on January 2nd because we actually fixed her car we can't take testimony on that no but I'm just saying she came in she asked me about the letter that she had received and she was asking in detail what we were requesting I was very honest and truthful about exactly what we were requesting and she said I hope they allow the pine trees to come down because they're ugly that's what she said well you may not be able to take that testimony she didn't come although that does sound like Nancy I've known her for 35 years and she says okay well I don't need to be bothered because you're not asking anything that I wouldn't be bothered with so I won't need to go on the night it might be better that you're not dealing with Jerry then yeah he was sure hang on let's try to keep this focused here did you say Mr. Saladino did you say you have an approval for a sign like a freestanding sign on South Burnal so if these signs go away nothing's precluding you other than just there's no physical space to put the sign there's no visibility if you can't put a sign in on South Burnal we wouldn't, nobody would see the sign just because of the the tree cover we need a little open space to have visibility to the sign but if you open it up down here you could put you could put your sign there I drive by here every single day that's where the entrance is you've already got the approval on that end to take that one tree down as far as the heart whatever tree is the building becomes less important if you've got your sign up that's visible you have a permit or a sign design already freestanding you don't have to bring that with you you don't have to bring that with you what's the company that's doing it down the road? SB signs which Sony already gave us a permit for that looking for from the fire department standpoint like you were saying with the address and we've met the requirements of the fire department they put up their sign so sir what could what could you live with in a perfect world from here to here in terms of tree removal well I wouldn't mind I wouldn't mind a couple of softwoods up on the north end taken out but great directly across so this view corridor is critical to you right that one of the of course I have trees on your side that is where I grew up so I've been I've been right here for 70 years is that your house too? no well it was my mother's and we sold it when she passed right so your brother must be Jim yes small worlds here I was thinking you know whatever two or three trees down on the south end by the driveway so that they could put up a sign by their driveway so you would see it if you're okay I think we got the picture coming down the road let's discuss it as the board and you can call into the staff in the morning and figure out what the heck we came up with I just want to have decent visibility in both directions that's all I'm saying a little bit I just need to make sure that to some degree of angle that traffic going south down and north down okay thank you just to clarify go ahead please when asked what would you be willing to live with and there's that sewer line that's there in your mind that would mean all the trees except for that one ash would go in your mind that's how you would articulate your response basically I think they were just discussing this is the tree it's going to come out that's the tree we got approval from public workers you know and if we could is it everything except for this one well you got this one this one these are all your hardwoods these are all going to stay no matter what it's just this one right on the corner of the driveway and then these guys right here we could lose these guys right here so we can get at least some visibility the sign would probably end up going up maybe somewhere in here could we state it so there's that sewer line there everything to the south of that line would be your preference yeah it would be our preference and then if he did won't move a few on the other end and he won't move a few that were wrong we'll put them out too so there's a small crabapple there at the very south end would that also would you like that to come down as well that would probably have to succumb it depends where the sign exactly placement is going to go unless we something would have to be done with it I can't tell from the pictures how big that is it's not very big it's very small it's actually going to enhance the sign it's going to be landscaping around frequently we request that there be landscaping near a sign it's a requirement John therefore frequently that's why we frequently request it alright okay it's getting late anything else sir I would kind of I guess request for I'm looking right straight that those the softer trees there I presume are not going to be taken out but I don't I would rather not be trimmed up any higher than they already are because it's I know it was done so that they could expose the building and I think it's kind of defeating some of the purpose that they were put in for the first place the only thing that we have to watch out for and why we had some of them pruned was because you could not see coming out of our driveway and I think pictures were provided to you guys for sight visibility issues we get it we all we you know we get it okay thank you for coming okay we're going to close DP 18-13 Blana Brothers Auto Body Landscaping at seven okay we're going to shut down for just a bit not very long make it wait out there forever Delta's head right next year okay we are up and running okay back from deliberation Town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday February 13 back out of deliberation at 1015 we are going to continue DP 17-01 Northridge Residential subdivision will be continued until March 13 and possibly longer okay we will we are continuing DP 18-06 Vermont Hotel Group LLC until April 10 we are also continuing the master sign plan for the same submission until April 10 we have a DP on that that's different master sign plan 18-06 MSP so we're continuing the master sign plan as I stated until April 10 as well Paul would you like to make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for Williston Federated Church as authorized by WDB 6638 I've also said moved at the Williston Development Review Board reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory reports required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public caring of February 13 2017 except the findings of fact and conclusion of law proposed by staff approved by HP and approved HP 18-05 for proposed steeple repair and replacement this approval authorized the applicant to seek an administrator permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict confirmation with plans on which this approval is based great thank you do I have a second I'll second it any further discussion Paul in favor aye 7 ayes no nays motion carries okay Dave Mr. Turner would you make a motion to approve DP09-15 amendment number one as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I David Turner moved at the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application materials including the recommendations of town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Unified Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of February 13, 2018 except the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval proposed by staff for the review of DP09-15 amendment number one and approved this discretionary permit for the master sign plan this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval for these plans from staff and then seek administrative permit for future development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based great thank you I have a second any further discussion Paul in favor aye 7 ayes ok Courtney would you please make a motion to approve DP18-13 Blond and Brothers auto body landscaping as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I Courtney Doherty moved at the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendation of the town staff and the advisory boards on this application having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of January 9th 2018 and February 13th 2018 and the findings of facts and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the DP18-13 and approved the discretionary permit subject to conditions above this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans obtain approval for these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based in addition we would add the following conditions plural south of the sewer line they may remove softwood trees and may remove the southernmost ash tree and pine tree in the public right of way as approved by public works north of the sewer line they may remove any two softwood trees of their choosing and in addition the crabapple trees south of the sewer line shall remain great, do I have a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. I got two. You got two, perfect. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of January 23rd 2018? Mr. Saladino makes a motion do I have a second? Second. John seconds it any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. I'll second. Because I have one abstention motion passes. Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting at 1022? Yes. I'll make that motion. Courtney makes the motion. Okay. So next time the hotel comes up I will recuse myself. Or a bank. Nope. Bank is coming up next week or two weeks, huh? I'm recusing myself. Is there a bank coming up? That's where my mom works. She was all excited. For union? Is that right? This is coming in the front of any? I'll make a branch, right? My mom works in the mortgage center. They're going to combine the mortgage center and do the telegrants and stuff like that.