 Recording in progress. Good to go. Good evening. And welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for January 18th, 2023. My name is John Philippa and I'm the chair of the DRP. And with us tonight, other board members, Stephanie Wyman, Quinn Mann, Mark Bear, and Albrecht is on the phone. And Marty Gillies and Marla Marley are here from the planning and zoning staff. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. This meeting is being recorded. There's a couple of ways to participate. You can either come as those in the audience have an intended person. You can attend virtually. And you can also call in. But what's important is that I turn my phone off. Whether you're attending here in person or calling in or attending virtually that you sign in by either signing up on the front with your name and contact information. And if you're attending virtually, please sign in and provide your contact information in the chat room. And if you're calling, you can send an email. Sorry for that. Interruption. You can send an email to mkeenee at southburlingtonvt.gov. Okay. First of all, first item on the agenda, the evacuation procedures. There are two sets of doors in the back of the auditorium in the case of an emergency. You would exit those doors and either turn right or left and you would be outside and presumably safe. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of the agenda items? Hearing none. I think we've covered the other announcements and reminders that we usually talk about. Do you have any other announcements, Marla? No. Okay. And are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda tonight? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move ahead. Pardon me. Onto the first agenda item. Pardon me. Agenda item number six. That's the first agenda item. Oh, I totally missed that. Oh, is that why a lot is here? Okay. Totally missed that. Sorry about that. Please. No problem. Tell us about the TIF district bond vote. Sure. And if I may, I think I can share my screen. Sure. If you don't know me, my name is Alana Blanchard and also for the record, my title is Community Development Director. And I'm very grateful to you for allowing me to present some information about an upcoming bond vote. It's actually article four on the ballot. Let's see if this works. I'm not sure. Where? Yes. Okay. Good. All right. Great. So this March, town meeting day, article four is going to be on the ballot. It's our last four projects are up for authorization from the voters for the council to issue debt to finance those four projects. And I'm going to give you a brief presentation on the projects, what a TIF district is, and what the question is that will be on the ballot and then where you can find more information. There's a lot more information. I'm going to try to be brief today. I see you have a good agenda ahead of you. So the city center TIF district, it's about 100 acres. It's bounded on the west side by Williston Road. I'm sorry. The west side by Dorset Street, the north side by Williston Road and the east side is Heinsberg Road. And it does include San Remo Drive. So in a TIF district, the way that it functions is that in 2012, the city established the TIF district. It was approved by the state and that froze all of the land values in the TIF district. And that's all the values inside that blue boundary. And then each year going forward, all of the taxes on that value continues to go to the city and to the ed fund where it would normally go. As development occurs within that boundary, that new value, the same tax rates that is applied to anywhere outside of the TIF district, that value goes, 75% of that value goes into a special fund. So all the taxes on the base value goes to the same place. New value taxes, 75%, we keep them in order to service the debt on infrastructure projects that we have done or completed inside the TIF district. And that's a huge deal because that's the education as well as the municipal tax. And if you've ever looked at a tax bill and if you haven't, because maybe you're a renter, about a third of that tax, of those taxes goes to the city and two thirds if it goes to the state. So that means that, you know, this very special opportunity for the city to invest in public infrastructure inside or benefiting the TIF district. And there aren't that many in the state. We're very lucky to be able to make these investments. And so 25% of that revenue still goes to the city and the ed fund where it normally would. And just so you know, the state as a whole makes up that taxes that would normally go to the ed fund. So it's actually a state economic development tool. It's not coming directly from what would have gone to the school. So we are bringing this to the voters, meaning the city council is bringing this to the voters in March 2023 because it's really our last opportunity to bring a vote before our deadline to incur debt. We need to do issue if we're going to issue bond bonds on this, we'll need to complete all the paperwork by March of 2024. So this is our last vote. We're not in a presidential election. March is our big opportunity. And then that revenue, we actually started collecting revenue in 2017. The city would continue to, or will continue to collect revenue until 2031. And that stays in that fund if we have excess until all the debt is paid off. So there are four projects. East-West Crossing, which is the Walk Bike Bridge over I-89. The Wilson Road streetscape, which is only on the south side of the street. It's a shared use path between Dorset Street and Midas Drive. Literally on Wilson Road in the right away will not affect the roadway in between the two curves. And then Garden Street, which is called Garden Street because it's part of the overall Garden Street project that will connect a healthy living to Alice French fries. And that includes intersection realignments and tightening, which I'll show you in a moment. And then City Center Park, which is a north-south connection between the south, the neighborhoods to the south, to Garden Street and Market Street through City Center Park on a boardwalk where it crosses the weapons. And so together, actually, let me back up a sec. So the blue represents the TIF portions of these projects in the pie chart. The orange is federal and the gray is between, because of eligibility, other funds that will either make up using the existing reserve fund or through a new grant. So this represents just the blue area. So the authorization that is on the ballot. And so all together, the total is $15,086,430. And that is the question that will be on the ballot. And I'll show it to you in more detail. So this is Garden Street. And the big, big part of this project is the realignment of the Williston Road, Midas Drive, and White Street intersection. So if you've ever been driving through this intersection, you probably know why we're realigning it. And if you've ever wanted to cross there on foot, there are no crosswalks across Williston Road at this intersection. So this will bring some big improvements. And you can see this is what it's like today and both intersections that we'll be working on are shown. And then this is the future, the plans that show how these different accommodations will be brought in. So the east-west crossing, the bike headbridge is, there's been a lot of news. I'm not going to say that much about it. But our anticipated year of construction is 2025. The Williston Road streetscape, as I said, it really is just south of the curb on Williston Road and really creates an area for snow storage as well as a shared use path right now. There's only a sidewalk and there's no bicycle accommodations. We'll be building a bike accommodation on the west side. There is an existing bike lane on the other side of Heinsberg Road. And we're also building a bike accommodation as part of the Garden Street project. So this will make a continuous bike-ped area or transportation corridor. And so here's City Center Park Phase 2. This is actually the most straightforward project because we already have the land for it. And so we're hoping that we can get it at least beginning construction in this year if not next year if it is authorized. So we have a big revenue model that shows us what we would expect from the TIP District. This is actually attached to the council agendas and I'll be putting together a full information notice, public information notice that will get sent out to committee members. And that will come out in the beginning of February. It'll also be available to the public. But I just wanted to give you some highlights of our preliminary model that we put together. And what is always good to know about TIP Districts is a yes vote will not increase the property tax rate. There are caveats to that. But the basic principle is that new development is used to service the debt in the TIP District. So when we look, when we build the model, you know, the first thing we're going to look at is what is in the work. So what has been through some part of permitting, the biggest thing right now is Catamount Run. And this actually shows all of the property that's been developed or is in development or has been shown as part of a permitting process for the Snyder-Braverman property, which they've contracted. It's actually owned by South Burlington City Center LLC. And so the red represents Catamount Run. The purple represents projects that are in development. So the Prospect Place Apartments on the lower left, that one is just broke ground last month. Union Place is about to open. The others are developed. And then the pink represents things that they have not said when they will develop them. But we know that the red is planned to open by 2026. So that's what they've contracted to deliver to UVM, which is a major investor in those red buildings. The two that are in construction right now, Union Place and Prospect Place, which are the UVM MC. So UVM Medical Center has a big investment in those projects combined. That's 476 more homes. And that adds a lot to our taxable base. So when we look at that new development that's in the pipeline plus what's existing. And we look at year one, I have up here year one and then I have year 2037. The yellow is that pipeline number. So that represents that each year that TIF district would receive three million in tax revenue into that fund in the last year. So obviously right in 2018 when we started, we were at 72,000. So we will be building up each year to get to that number. We also model the other parts of the TIF district that have not been redeveloped yet. And so, you know, I think as we move forward and we get our projects built, our job is really to reach out to property owners and developers and start to work towards more projects within the TIF district. And then, so you can see at the bottom the increment total if we look at all projected development being built, that's 47 million. If we look at the existing development in pipeline, that's 32 million in terms of what each year if we take it all together. So obviously there's, you know, an upside and also a downside. We've got considerable opportunity but also a lot of risk. And so right in the city does have a CIP reserve fund. We are the tax rate that you currently pay is contributing to that CIP reserve fund. And that is, that reserve fund pays off the debt on this building. It is also saving up to pay those gray areas if we don't receive grants. And it provides a cushion for cash flow so that as the increment builds up, there's funds in place. It also will serve to reduce the impact if there is a shortfall. And so we, you know, I think our job is really to work on getting development to happen. It's to look at federal grants opportunities for transportation, which we know there are a lot right now. And so essentially, you know, we want to come out somewhere, we don't have to come out at 47 million but we don't want to come out at 32 million either. We don't want all the development to stop with cat about run. And, you know, the purpose of the TIF district is really to make this a dense walkable area and bikeable area. And so that's what we'll be continuing to work towards. So all TIF debt is general obligation debt. That means that if there is a shortfall, it is backed by the full faith and credit of the city, meaning that we will need to pay it one way or another. And this is the question. And so the question, we have all four projects as one question. And then right now you see this and it's all in nice little paragraphs. It may just show up as one big paragraph, which is what happened last time with this building when we had City Hall Library and Senior Center and then it all came in to run one paragraph. So that's my presentation. We are presenting this to you guys because we know you're super volunteers to the community and you talk to people and so we want to make sure people are educated and know where to find information and can answer questions. So thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Why is it, you said this is very, pardon me, unusual in Vermont. Why is that? If this is such a good opportunity, why are more municipalities taking advantage of this? So the legislature is very protective of TIF districts. And so right now the legislation only allows one TIF district per community. For a long time there was a cap on the number of TIF districts that would be allowed within the state. And I know there has been some interest in smaller, a smaller program so that you, let's say you wanted to redevelop a block in a, in more of a village or a town. And that hasn't progressed yet. You know, it would be, I think that, you know, there are many smaller communities that are very active, but that hasn't happened yet. So thank you. My second question is what's being done, I think it's great that this housing is being created. What's being done on the school side to ensure that there's room to educate the students of the children of those families? So I know the school also has a bond vote. And that is being, I'm not sure if they've approved it yet to go on the ballot, but I think that they would have to expand their capacity for elementary school. And I'm not, I know that the steering committee is coming up on Monday, but I'm not sure if they have announced additional, I know that they've done over the years many different exercises and I know that they have been talking to the council about impact fees for the additional modules, but I don't know beyond that if there has been additional planning. Okay, thank you. And will you be having like public information? Yes. Good. So I don't have it on this slide. I had it in a different slide from this morning. So there will be public information sessions in February. I will send them to Marla so that you have them. I know one of them though is hashtag Love Your City. It will be on Valentine's Day. We will have it from six to seven. There will also be an information session that the pre-town meeting day and we'll present the information then. So, but I believe there are two meetings plus town meeting. Great. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Alana? You've been busy. I think everyone's busy right now. I know you guys have been busy too. Well, thank you for letting us know about this and I'm sure we'll all be following it and keeping our fingers crossed. Thank you. Okay. Number six on the agenda. Continued site plan application SP22039 of David Hockey to amend a previously approved site plan for 21,420 square foot mixed use building. The amendment consists of constructing 3,550 square foot third story edition, which will be combined with 4,600 square feet of existing building and used as six residential units with 16,605 square feet of commercial space to remain at 370 Shelburne Road. Are there any recusals before we are disclosures? Who is here for the applicant, please? I'll do a disclosure. I'm sorry, your name. I didn't get your. Jessica. Okay. Thank you. And. Madam chair. I'm going to swear you in. Would you raise your right hands, please? Do you soundly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Yes. Thank you. I'm chair. Yes. Just to disclosure, Dan Albrecht, I live about two blocks from here from the location. But I do not think it will affect my ability to be fair on this application. Okay. Thank you, Dan. Any others? Okay. I was not here the night you did your presentation in December. Not that you have to redo it by any means, but I wonder if you could start off by giving us just a short overview of what brought you to this point. And then we'll go ahead and start reviewing the staff comments. Sure. So we're trying to redevelop the rear portion of the property is former grocery market way back in the 60s. And the area we're looking at is a was a loading dock. And so there's a second floor up there above, you know, where the retail or in addition to the retail space in the front that is basically vacant has no real use. And we're trying to redevelop it as six housing units. Thank you. And this I have the wrong project. I'm sorry. This is the building that the post office and the fish and ship chopper in. Correct. Okay. And so, so my understanding is that there are about four staff comments. And typically what we do is we go through the, the comments that are in the staff report that are in red and ask you to either clarify, provide more information or whatever. So starting with the first question, this one, and I'll read the last sentence. Staff recommends the board invite the applicant to describe based on the revised materials, why they believe the board should modify the required setback and buffer to permit the proposed building addition. So last time we were here, we had a lot of discussion about, you know, impact to the adjacent single family home. That's to the east of the project. And one of the homework items we are given was to locate the elevation of the windows on the west side of the existing single family home. So our survey went out and shot the elevations of the windows and they essentially line up with the top of the roof of the 370 property, the flat section of the roof right there. That's being highlighted. So they're essentially the same height. You know, we did a sun study that essentially shows that it's very minimal light to be blocked. One of the comments was made, you know, are we going to cast a shadow over the adjacent property and we don't believe that to be the case. So what's being looked at here is the sun study. So the third story, which from the road on Proctor Ave only looks like a second story because we have about a pretty close to a whole 10 feet, almost an entire story, buried underground by the time we get to where the loading dock is. So it looks like a two-story. The homes on Proctor Ave are mostly, you know, saltbox, colonials, also two-story. So, you know, we're 54 feet with our proposed third story addition from that home. The property to the east is another single-family home, but it's located about 25 feet away, also a two-story structure. So we're less impactful than the adjacent single-family home. It's not shown on here, but we maintain that we don't feel that we're going to create an adverse effect that would be uncharacteristic of this area. Incidentally, the ability to show us the shade on Solstice in December and June in this graphic way is amazing. Yeah. Very impressive. That was Jess. Wow. I hadn't seen one before, but I liked it. So, Bord, what are your thoughts? The previous page. So that one, I think, shows it really well, because the board was talking about, like, how does the home relate to the proposed addition? So you can see that middle, I don't know, Mark, what do you call that band around the middle of the new building? That's where the existing roof is. Correct. Oh, right. That's probably a word for that. Probably something fancier than band. I mean, is it just like a little roof edge stand? Yeah, I think that's just the existing quarters line of the roof. Yeah. So that essentially is the same elevation as the sill of the window. And as Proctor grades down, as you get closer to Shelburne Road, the second story elevation slowly grade down as well. And then the page previous to that shows it, oh, two previous to that, I think, shows it in sort of a flat view on the top. Right. So we didn't have the existing single family home in that diagram last time when it's been added now? Okay. Okay. And you're required at what, 65 feet between non-residential? Well, I want to be careful about the language, but yes, because it's not required is that the standard buffer is 65 feet with 15 feet of it heavily vegetated and the board can modify it when they feel that what the applicant has done creates the same effect. Correct. And one of the things we talked about last time, which is echoed in the staff report is the conversion from commercial to residential where the buffer is intended for commercial next to residential, you know, plays a role in our opinion. Sure. In the reduction of the buffer. And are the tenants down below in favor of this? Have you received any pushback from them? No. Actually, one of them wants to rent some of the space that is below the housing. Okay. And we're kind of holding them off until we find out if this is going to move forward. Okay. So we can do it all at once. But no, they're not. Okay. Okay. Other questions? One question of this. And Marla, I didn't see the typical zoning chart, you know, with heights and whether it's one of the compliance, what are they allowed to have for building height in the district for the residential? Because I know was it just direct directly across the street? There's a building that's much taller than that. Correct. Yeah. This is one of the districts. So they're, they're at the boundary and the reason this isn't even a standard is they're at the boundary of the zoning district. So the residential residential and their C1 are 15. And so the C1 are 15 isn't governed by height. It's governed by a number of stories. Okay. And it's four. Four was our max. Yeah. Okay. So they're under their zoning allowable stories. And the real issue is the fact that they, it's the setbacks difference between the residential building and this building and whether it has the equivalent of like a 15 foot vegetative buffer. Right. Okay. One could assume that when the planning commission said four stories, when it's adjacent to a residential zoning district, they knew that that buffer was in place. Right. And the nonconformity is the setback requirement currently. Right. Which we're not, we're changing the use within that setback, but we're not changing anything in regards to the actual building within that setback. I think it's the. The additions outside. I think it's in the staff report, but what's the setback? Or what's the distance between the property line and the proposed addition? I think it's in there. No, just a second. Between the residential property. I would say if it's 54, you're looking at probably 30. Looks like it's a shade closer probably to the single family. Yeah. Now the proposed addition is highlighted as being all the way to the property line, but it's only the shoebox area, right? Not the full L shape. That's correct. Yep. Yep. Cause the other part is existing and it's becoming like entrance laundry. Yeah. Community space. Right. So that's existing and not changing. And the addition is going above. You know, the area that's setback off the property line about 30. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready to move on? I have a quick question. Yeah. Go ahead. No, this is just a minor thing, but is Eric Ferrell still the owner of that property? I thought it changed hands about two years ago. You're correct. I'm not sure who the new owner is, but it did change hands. Okay. I assume that new owner is the one who got the notice. Correct. Okay. Just a minor, just a minor thing. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's all. Yes. So, Marla, you're interested in whether we think the setback should be. Waved. Modified. Modified. Yeah. Thanks. I do. You think. Okay. Yeah. I'm comfortable with that as well. Okay. Dan. Are you comfortable? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. All right. Number two. Okay. And could you review your plan? And I guess we have to decide if the applicant should proceed with this. Yeah. So there's a bit of a round table at the last, at the last hearing, we didn't really land on anything. We kind of were just giving a little homework to come up with some sort of connectivity on the south end of the building. And so we took a look at it. There are some service connections on the south of the building. There's a gas meter. And there's just an opening. You know, for the second floor. Conduits on the side of the building. So if we are going to construct a walk there, we'd like to maintain at least 18 inches from the building, just a little bit of separation. We do plan on putting a stone crush stone within that gap. So it's not a dead patch of grass or something like that, but we really have way of three, three alternatives. One is the the do nothing. There is connectivity from the stair wells within the to get to the north side of the building. So all the units that are being proposed can get to the north side of the building. There is one handicap space within the parking lot, but there's also a handicap space within the parking lot or two within the existing parking lot. So there is connectivity currently. So that's one option. Another option would be to construct a four-foot sidewalk, but holding 18 inches from the south end of the building puts us at least a foot inside the city right away. Now we've talked to Planning and Zoning and the Department of Public Works and we can work out an easement with the city to keep that sidewalk privately owned and constructed within the city right away. So there's some legal work that needs to go on there. And then there's we could construct a three-foot wide sidewalk. That would keep us out of the city right away would make it much simpler. We don't have to get any legal easements drafted up for just an extra foot of concrete. So that would probably be our preferred approach if the DRB determines that that level of connectivity is required. Again you can get to the north side of the building within the building, but those are really the three options that we've given you this evening. So Dan, I understand you had concerns about this. So let me ask you first what are your thoughts about their proposals? Yeah I think the three-foot you know is workable and it's still private. It'll make it simple. It'll I think increase the attractiveness of the building. It'll make it you know it'll just look a lot better than it does now and be safer than this current patch of asphalt that functions as sort of a stormwater gully right now and stuff. So I appreciate their efforts to meet with the city and work out something and yeah three feet is three feet is fine. What do other board members think about the three feet? Is that adequate? I think it's adequate especially since it's not something that's required by the city correct Marla? Right. Right so it's just something they're adding in because we requested connectivity so I'm fine with the three feet. And it does meet the ADA requirements on the three-foot sidewalk does. Plus it's not three feet against the side of the building. There's the 18 inches and then three feet so it's not like you're feeling like you're walking down real tight. Yeah. Does anyone not okay with this? Pardon me. Okay good thank you. Comment number four. This is about the trees and shrubs facing Shelburne Road. Not having been part of the hearing in December I was a little puzzled by what was meant Marla in the last sentence. Consistent with the standards summarized in the paragraph above and because trees and shrubs are what has been improperly removed. When were they removed? Sometime between the last approval and today. So I can't help you with when. We've just been involved with this property for five years and could be just as likely it wasn't put in in the first place. Okay. No there was a CEO so Ray wouldn't have issued a CEO without them. So yeah I think where the shrubs were what I've heard anyways is they weren't surviving because of snow off the roof. Right. There there are landscape architect made testified that there was a lot of runoff and salt and that was just not good condition and so that's why he's not recommending putting the full contingent of shrubs back that was previously approved what he thinks is likely to succeed is what's shown on this plan instead. So the options here for the board are accept his testimony that this is not a good place for shrubs and allow them to do something else. Suboption A is allow them to put this bed of perennials in the front which may or may not thrive or be maintained or option B would be to say yeah you don't have to put anything more against the building but we want you to put something that's you know trees and shrubs up in the front yard and then I suppose option three would be to say well tough luck you're going to have to figure out how to make something survive in those ramp planting but put them back where they work you know that may be putting gutters or putting like ballers to protect it from snow storage or something like that. Okay let me ask the applicant first what are your thoughts? I would just soon put the money in the shrubbery where it's going to have the best chance of surviving which I think we've shown on this plan you know it just between as we said between snow salt there's sidewalks there that you know the snow gets shoveled in that area during the winter air slides off the roof we do have some small gutters up there but anyways it's a it's a pretty long run on that roof and there's quite a bit of snow that ends up right where the shrubs originally were. So are you saying that on this picture or graphic um that long dark line to the left right there yes that's what you'd rather do is do do vegetation there? Correct. What do you think board? And so this sort of gets into the fourth staff comment as well is like what should that vegetation consist of because right now it's supposed to be things like agoniesia and hostas. We did take before we had vegetation there's a city palm station and a little green belt at the corner of so we did take it I was discussed that that should be removed from the right away the city accepts trees but not shrubs in the right away so we did take those out so that's different from before. Okay board what do you think? I don't think we want to do the like planting bed around the perimeter of the parking lot between um the parking lot and shulburn road only because yeah I'm looking at street view and that looks more like a prototypical front yard with street trees and then a sidewalk I think or parking lot I think if you were to sort of do that planting bed it's going to look at a place you know it's one thing with the you know the the development where you had that you know a couple streets down where you had the big stone wall enclosing the parking lot that created it um I think we need to find something other because also that's going to be almost right underneath those existing trees you know that's that's there right now that are all along the parking lot so I'm that's my my opinion is I don't think we should do the one where it's the fan going around but I'm not sure what the correct answer is. So what Marty has up now is the things that are green are trees that exist trees and shrubs that exist yep so the black is what was previously approved and that's been completely changed around no no blame being so on the left Mark you're saying there's those three trees and then some perennials and stuff at the at the sign at least three trees yeah and so they they're proposing to plant a bunch of perennials underneath them I see what you're saying because it's sort of a front yard feeling right look at you see also does that bring us back to option the first part of the challenge is spending the budget amount within this property well but trees and shrubs are a lot more expensive than perennials right oh yeah no 20 trees and shrubs as opposed to 100 perennials right right yeah you know Mike Lawrence just did a lot of this and was that was a privy to a lot of it but you know I I'd hate to get held up on this is it something that staff could work with us moving forward I think we have as a board have to get pretty clear direction as to what we need to see for staff to approve it Mike's not on attending virtually right now is he uh no okay because sometimes if you were to say okay well instead of perennials we've done the math really quickly and we figured out we could do 20 shrubs and four trees that make this make up the same value then the board could say okay but without a specific proposal they can't close so tell me about the gutters yeah sure I mean yeah I mean we can I mean there's gutters there but it's probably more the the snow that slides off that causes the problems okay because the uh you know the gutters in the winter time will get frozen up and stuff so gutters like the solution not in the winter time you know but in the winter time more the issues probably just the snow through the sidewalks and you know they've got to put it somewhere so it ends up there I mean currently you know we we could go back and put what's there we bring out you know the little shrub protectors in the winter for what's there and then the planners that we do have will put things in in the spring and then and then they'll be dressed up in the winter time again but but they're planners are not well one thing I mean if I'm looking and again I'm just on you know street view look at this and you're it it looks barren you know with the you know where the drip edge off the edge of the roof you know in the front of the building yeah it's just the gravel and then you got the empty planters but I don't see gutters on the building I think there's just a couple above the walkways so I'm just wondering if there are you know if you put snow guards and you know like the the bars snow guards that'll really hold the snow and gutters if that would really keep the snow from sliding off and collecting there I think it's a do the actual landscaping that was proposed sure you know I'm open to trying that I'm just wondering yeah no it would be easier because I don't think and you're not looking at a large cost at the other end of the development or a parking ladder necessarily rather than assigning you know maybe specific species with the board and staff be comfortable maybe assigning a percentage of the landscaping budget so we're on the hook for about 32,000 just throwing out a number you know if we allocated 10 or 20 percent of that budget towards you know dressing up the front of the building through plantings done by a professional landscape architect reviewed by staff it has to be specific yeah it has to be something so state um precedent in environmental court is that if it can't be understood what exactly is being done by an ordinary person we can say like add four trees along the north of the building spaced evenly that's enough for staff to be able to say you've done what the board has asked saying you're going to add 10 percent of landscape budget with nice looking stuff that's enough yeah yeah we can do the same thing the city did around the pump station and keeping in mind that there's a bunch of moving pieces here right there's the ones up in the pink box a that aren't there and those have been rolled into that budget um and I don't think anybody saying that what's there today is not as good because I think that there is some like visual visual benefit to having those two parking lots feel connected rather than having an arbor mighty hedge in between them or whatever um I don't think it's as simple as saying like okay we'll put back the ones that were approved and then work done you know because they've already been rolled together in the budget um but I'd be happy to work with Mike before I continued hearing and get something that staff feels is all the way buttoned up given the direction that I heard today um I would like a little more guidance on how we're feeling about perennials and this is kind of staff comment number four um so if you know that if you go back to the other sheet that's the actual proposed um if the board wants to see instead of um a bunch of perennials if they want to see the landscape budget shifted more towards trees and shrubs it looks like in the staff comments above comment number four it says additional grasses and perennials along Shelburne street are valued at almost 14 000 so if I could get some feedback on like okay all of that should be shifted to trees and shrubs half of that you know just a small fraction of it I can work with Mike between now and the next meeting and it's sort of two problem where it's what type of planting and and where to try something there in combination with more gutters or something yeah I think so because I think right now the front of the building is pretty barren you know so he is proposing if you go back to the plan um some trees along the front are those proposed oh yeah there are those are those proposed to go into those existing planters that are there okay just be planted into the ground there okay well there is that cat that sits in the window of the that way so is the is the breakout maybe of perennials acceptable if they're planted in that front you know if we just change the location so we have the same amount of trees posed up front there well I have a question in regards to that because is there anything about proposing addition proposing plantings in the front of the building to meet this landscape budget when there was plantings over there originally that are no longer there is there any any of this about correcting previous site plan approval or are we just looking at all this is whatever new planting I'm fine either way I'm just asking sure the previous the way that this works is pretty open to the board's interpretation so we're largely going on what the board's practice has been in the past which is to when the applicant wants to change the previously approval landscaping plan do something that achieves the effect that was previously achieved if the board still thinks that's a good idea like we had that one on no our review road recently where the board said well of course you can achieve the same effect because you're putting a building where it was but you know does it achieve the same objectives is it as nice as it was before and then go from there yeah I mean I would hate to hold them no no to something that they had no responsibility for that wouldn't be no I don't feel the need to do that either I think we should take what the landscape budget is and we should mix it so that the site is properly landscaped and I'm I'm one thing I am a little worried about is putting actual trees in the front of the building because you don't have enough distance separation they're going to crowd the building you know so I think maybe like some ornamental trees that don't get large you know only because of the distance I'd love to see large you know trees but I just don't think you have the distance before gets too crowded like I hate when trees are planted so close to buildings that five years down the road the crown is crunching in and you're slicing up the side of the crown so I think it's a mix of you know shrubs and perennials and some small ornamental trees that will give the the the barren gravel planters you know some some soft feel to it and some green space so Mike's testimony when he presented this on December 6th Mike Lawrence the landscape architects that he though the trees that they're proposing are columnar which he thinks will be more successful there yeah there's the way that the roof is shaped there are those cutouts yeah I think the trees are placed in those cutouts to try to let them get tall but they don't they shouldn't want to get too wide I think is what he was okay yeah I mean that would be a great concept if you can execute it yeah yeah so which is where I think the trees that are proposed yeah um shift some I'd say like a 50-50 split between some perennial shrubs and plantings in the front of the front of the property and on the in the building the building planter beds that are currently barren do you think that might be enough that statement to take 50% of what's on the west side of the parking lot and propose it on the east side of the parking lot everything's there so my concern is that what's I'm not allowed to have an opinion but I have a small opinion and that is that these perennials along the Shelburne road sidewalk aren't likely to be that successful right I would agree so I would if I had had the ability to have an opinion it would be that that some of that or most of that budget should have to what do you vegetation in that area instead I would say there are perennials I think it doesn't want to be a strip it would you those types of beds want to be like in landscape beds rather than a buffer strip so I agree with Marla that that strip even if you took 50% out you're pretty much guaranteeing 50% failure you either want to supplement an existing bed make it a little larger a little more substantial or move the majority of it against the building I'd be in favor of moving it towards the building I would too I don't think it's needed along the parking lot okay does that give you enough to work with Marla yeah we might have to make Mike watch the video but I will try to work with him all right sure I should so is that are we saying that's enough not to have to come back no no we have to come back but I think it's enough for me to work with Mike oh yeah I agree with that I was just trying to see if there's a way we yeah is there any way we can I don't say we're on something so I guess my question is if we're saying we don't want the plantings along the Shelburne roadside right we don't think they'll be successful there are appropriate there but we're taking the same amount and putting them in the bed I mean the math is already done for these plantings are we saying we need to supplement or change what those plantings are I guess that's not what I understood what I understood is that put an appropriate amount of plantings up along the building and then there will likely be some leftover that can't fit there and that leftover that can't fit should be either what is it discreet beds or woody vegetation along the street is it descriptive enough to you know do what you just said along the building and then maybe the balance gets allocated to the bed in the north west corner that's really the only other space we got them well I think what we just said is that some of the plants can be along the front yard but it should be instead of a continuous strip it should be in beds and it should contain some mixture just the west end of the parking lot right man David I saw you shaking your head I well no I have I just get frustrated because we've come so far and the big component of this is providing more housing and fixing up the property and you know I I like to maintain our property as well so you know it's important that we put in what's going to survive but um you know I'd like to just let the professional mic who I should have had here this evening but I thought this was kind of already dealt with but um you know tell us where to you know where to put it and and you know there's a certain dollar amount we've got to spend um and this was a staff not not the landscaping around the building but the the comment about the perennials versus trees along the western end of the parking lot that was a staff comment that's a carryover from last time so it was discussed it was determined that perennials were adequate last time but understanding that you know obviously things change and if we can move them to the east side of the parking lot and maybe whatever the balance is we could leave on the west side or in the northeast corner and have a chance at closing our meeting I don't know if that's descriptive for you but the board has 45 days to issue a decision once the meeting's closed yeah why don't we move this towards a draft decision have you come work on stuff and um have you come back to present it you know we'll work with mic so that staff feels confident that the it's consistent with the board's expectations and then you can have pretty perfunctory hearing the next time and the board can you know sign it a couple days later rather than 45 days later so we'll be ready at the next hearing to close as long as the board you know checks the box that the landscaping is with and that puts the next hearing a month about a month from now right okay it's probably gonna be faster than closing it then having that staff work with mic and then write a decision based on that you know and then have questions did it really meet it this way it's clean yeah it's clean okay you know it sounds like staff can have a draft decision we can issue it it's okay yeah no i think that's fair and thanks for meeting us in the middle yeah i appreciate it the reason it's a month is because of the requirements for warning and public notice and whatever so sure so what would that date be i think it's february 22nd by the way wouldn't we be able to hear it the first meeting in february uh because for the first meeting in february i would need their revised materials tomorrow so that gives them two weeks to work on it so i need stuff two weeks before the hearing yep so that gives them two weeks and me two weeks okay got it still sounds like that's going to be quicker than trying to yeah been able to gray area sure it allows us to get going on state permits so yep not a huge deal um let me just confirm that is the 22nd because that's a wednesday but that is the date i had in my head town meeting day oh no that's march that's right uh it might be president's day or something that monday yeah i have it as the wednesday as well okay yep wednesday and i i also want to see if there's any public comments to be made are there any members of the public who indicated they'd like to provide comment so thank you for your time and patience and we'll see you here in a couple of weeks so we have to do a formal motion to continue oh i'm sorry i entertain motion i'll make a motion then we continue uh agenda number six sp 22 39 370 shulburn road to february 22nd i'll second that any discussion on favor favor of the motion say i opposed motions carried thank you okay we'll see you next and so are we just focusing on the landscaping at the next meeting like if other the guy it wasn't here i i think that if there were other issues that we needed to focus on they would have been in the staff report and we would have stumbled upon them tonight okay so we're okay with the other three items are the staffs or you guys are leaning towards okay with all three with the buffer oh pardon me yeah frank was pretty like up in arms about the shading on right he was the one that brought that he's not here so no no but that's okay and deliberation the board decided that they were okay with it i mean i don't want to go come back and say oh we want a 65 foot buffer and i mean you have a majority of the board here you have five members who said they're okay with it if we have a split vote we have a split vote but you have enough to get okay yeah great then that's perfect intentions that have the draft decision right yeah okay we wouldn't get it to a draft decision if we weren't comfortable with okay 99 yeah i guess i miss it we need to fix it up molly's got enough to do yeah yeah okay she wouldn't offer you a draft decision if she wasn't comfortable with where the board is yeah so thank you all right thank you see you next month um so have mike reach out okay um all right item number seven final plot application sd 2301 of 111 no jj south burlington llc to amend a previously approved plan for a 291 unit planned unit development the amendment consists of establishing lots around 30 previously approved single family home sites and creating one additional point to zero acre open space lot to be maintained by the hoa at 1580 dorset street and 1699 heinsberg road who is here for the applicant ryan courier lary burk um so we actually i need to swear brian and i will um do you saw me swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury i do thanks brian okay so we what we have here actually is an introduction in the staff report and a draft decision correct yes and i don't recall seeing any red areas in the draft decision so what are we to focus on marla well so um you might want to have brian introduce what it is they're planning on doing and then in the cover memo we talk about that um just highlight for you that in order to do this the board would be required to grant additional waivers beyond that those which were previously approved however um these additional waivers would be only to allow the applicant to build the project that they were already approved to build now now with the new lot lines so the project the amendment has three pieces to it probably the most significant or most notable i would say is uh the carriage homes the uh originally approved single family units on a shared lot uh condos we're now proposing them as uh single family lots so there's been no increase in the buildable area there's actually been a decrease in the buildable area for the units uh the previous plan had rectangular boxes on liberty lane and the first part of russet road if you want to pull up sheet pl2 um shows it uh that's an overall plan but uh pl2 show shows the lot lines and basically we're taking those those single family units on a shared lot and the only thing we're doing is we're changing how the area around them is managed and owned so rather rather than it being owned by the condominium condominium association and distributed by limited common elements basically the the the HOA governing the use around the units themselves we're proposing them as single family lots so under the new regulations there's uh encouragement for reduction of setbacks in order to put uh these units still close tight together what you'd expect in a pud in this seq um but now they're on single family lots so instead of spacing them 11 feet apart we have lot lines in the middle with six foot setbacks on either side so the buildable area isn't changing the only thing that's changing is now we're putting lot lines around the units so there's no increase of units no increase of bedrooms the buildable area actually is being reduced uh due to one of the uh the staff comments about we can't ask for a waiver for a zero setback in the rear um and we've uh provided an updated sheet pl2 I don't know if you have it there you probably can't see it at this scale anyway but we're we are proposing the minimum required five foot rear yard setback in the back so before the footprint lot went all the way to the back of the lot now it's five foot shorter they were pretty long footprint lot because it was a footprint lot now it's a single family now we gotta meet setbacks so the minimum you can grant is five feet um so we're amenable to be doing that so actually the building area is getting slightly smaller but front yard setback essentially lines up with the front of the footprint lot the sides now are just setbacks so if someone comes in to to put a addition or a porch or something they deal with the city instead of the hoa got it so something planning and zoning is trying to push in the city and we're amenable to do it so uh so that's that's one aspect of it or the most uh noticeable uh another one is a uh cleanup issue if you got sheet pl3 so it's just to clean up uh Pippin Lane actually the top right of the road Russet Road is the major road on the outside the interior small road on is called Pippin Lane the area in the middle is the two tenths of the open space that now we're creating a lot so originally that did not have property markers associated with it it was part of the right away so under technically speaking the the attorneys when they were writing up uh some of the legal documents notice that the irrevocable offer would have given that land over to the city the city had no intentions of taking it over it's really just a mistake so we're now plotting that in that open space will be maintained by the hoa instead of and what will it be uh just open grassland that's all that's basically all that was not a playground or anything no no no okay two tenths of an acre plant trees yeah yeah yeah yeah small single family lot yeah it's just kind of an awkward small piece the city can really do anything with and makes more sense we thought to leave it with the hoa and then uh the last piece of it uh isn't really a drb issue but uh the Champlain water district has now allowed the construction of pvc water lines uh it was originally approved before they did that uh ductile is really hard to get nowadays so uh we're proposing pvc water lines so so on that last one i'm sure you saw in the decision i did speak to Champlain water district and they said that they did not want to accept that change because there's been no change in the project and they thought it would be precedent setting to allow different material but that is the way i've written the draft decision i don't understand i don't understand that so they will not allow pvc for the mains but they do allow pvc apparently we just can't change it mid project which i don't understand what i was told and i did not dig into it so where does it leave us well so that i've written it with the feedback from Champlain water district that that is not that the board declines that request can you live with that i'm sorry are you saying that can you say that again maro so are you so the draft decision that was in the packet yeah it says uh the applicant is requested to be allowed to use pvc water mains instead of ductile iron the city of south berlington water director indicated this would not be accessible the board denies the applicant's request to change the approved material for water mains yeah i uh i guess we'll accept it now and if we got to go back we got to come back but well i don't understand why did you feel like this had to be part of this application but we were coming in for cleanup materials anyway we had asked the champlain water did the previous decision or plans associated with decisions say all the all water mains shall be ductile iron yeah because they were required at the time in 2018 the champlain water district didn't allow pvc and so this became a board issue because it said shall on the approved plans yeah so we we asked find a way to just take it yeah we typically these things can be handled you know between public works or the water department and us and uh we asked when it was time of construction we said hey you know ductile iron is very hard to get you know material shortages and it's about double the cost of pvc right now you accept pvc water mains everywhere in the city can we switch and we were told no because the approval specifically stated and the approved plans had ductile iron so we're in doing these other pieces and we thought it was an opportunity to clarify oh so you did reach out to champlain water district they said no as well because it was in the proof plans when we started right the console uh the main road aurora lane a little piece of senator i don't know if you've been out there but um yeah you want to show the so um a decent section road like 2 000 feet's already been built yeah there's probably 2 500 feet of water main in the ground that's all ductile iron currently so at that time we asked for change we're told no the approved plans even though we accept it the approved plans over that so champlain water district said no because the approved plans said ducted me so you're hoping that we would make the change even though they've said no because then you can go back and save the board as grants at it yeah well we would assume they would have been given the application materials review we've provided a detail sheet i assume that they would get department right so what i can what about this idea tell me this sounds crazy we weren't trying to back to no no i understand i'm just trying to understand if they accept it now you pull up the draft decision yeah i mean page that section because i have an idea what if we said the board finds something like um is there some way we can phrase this where we take it out of this freaking decision and say something like the board finds um the applicant shall be permitted to use materials approved by the south berlington water director um yeah and if the water director accepts it because champlain water district is accepting it then that's you're good i would say so that's fine it allows you to i don't think it's fair to ask you folks to overrule him so no but i'm trying to find a way to take it out i'm trying to find a way to take it out of this and just have it not be let you go duke it out with the i know i'll talk to jay i you know i say that we approve you know we'll allow them to use pvc or ductile iron as determined by you know the i think you're saying material as approved by the south berlington if you could say or and include the detail sheet that we provided in the approval i think that gives gets rid of that excuse i would say i think the preference is probably ductile and they're trying to you know but it's double the cost for us so obviously we'd rather use a cheaper acceptable material i mean it makes a lot of sense on our end so um i'm sure pvc is going in on you know garden street so so if i said the board finds the applicant may use ductile iron or pvc as may be approved by south berlington direct water director and as shown on sheet and did your your revised plan say ductile iron or pvc or do they just say pvc they should just say pvc get all the details to oh shoot i wish they said details either it's okay if you want to just leave it up to uh the water uh the water district that that's fine well that in order for me to do that i want to say i want to reference yeah you have to reference the details i mean we're saying they can use either use you know ductile iron or pvc and just kind of leave it at that if the water district in public works says we can use pvc that that's been good enough for us in the past so i'm not worried about it um i i don't think they'll let us but so just say the board finds the applicant may use as the ductile iron or pvc yep you can strike this from the uh from the approved plans if you if you think it will be approved okay so i'm gonna take that previous sentence that says the board denies i'm gonna say city south berlington water director indians not be acceptable the board finds the applicant may use ductile iron or pvc it's a little clunky but the board finds the applicant may use as may be approved in the future just to make it clear that we're intentionally saying we're intentionally going against what the south berlington water director said any other discussion point based on the draft decision findings conclusions board applicant so this leads you with some footprint lots right the the duplexes duplexes remain on footprint lots correct would you explain to me what a footprint lot is versus the other kind yeah so typically what you see is either a footprint lot or uh limited common element both condos just the way the legal documents are written are slightly different i don't actually write the duct but effectively the difference is uh with a footprint lot you own the land around your foundation basically coming out of the housing crisis hoas or condo kind of minimum groups we're going um bankrupt and banks were worried about well if you're part of that association what happens if you don't own the land underneath your own unit and that entity goes bankrupt so it basically just came out of the housing crisis banks uh prefer it it helps with financing it makes the legal transactions the closing is a lot simpler um so most developers prefer to do footprint lots but effectively when you walk down the street they don't look any different right okay so the ones on summerfield have those were done on shared lots so those were done via uh limited common elements so essentially every time the closing happens we would record a mylar that showed a boundary around the unit plus a little extra in the back that was a limited common element it was not uh owned by the homeowner that owned that unit but he had specific rights that no one else in the neighborhood had to that land okay so it effectively works the same way just the legal mechanism and the way the banks perceive it to be is slightly different okay thank you yeah so fun fact about footprint lots because you're saying that developers prefer them um but what i understand and correct me if i'm wrong is that developers prefer them over the limited common element but would prefer lots if if setbacks are allowed to go that which is why we're changing the ones in the middle right yeah so what happened in the ld ldrs is there used to be this is all background and on port for this conversation but i think it's important for the port to understand um there used to be no more than five foot setbacks and that's what made them change the building envelopes on the lot the single family lots um the ldrs have been updated to now allow zero setbacks when there is a shared wall hopefully eliminating the need for footprint lots ever because if you're say units 125 126 127 128 are 10 feet away from each other they can have a five foot setback on the non-shared wall zero foot setback on the shared wall and then they can be realized was that because frank said enough times that he yes when marlott told me frank wasn't going to be here tonight i was upset no frank raised a very valid point you know we said that's what we always done he said but that's not what the regulations say so i'm glad they fixed it they create zoning challenges too because if they're perceived as lots you assume setbacks coverage everything that goes with them so some towns refer to them in their zoning regs and some don't and you know yeah they're different in every town when somebody comes in for an addition sure that's a footprint lot and then we say well you don't own this you have to go get the signature each way and what are you saying i don't own this so we kept the footprint lots and the duplexes because about four of the foundations are in the ground where we're on a fifth now but also you know being in a duplex and being they're very tight they're in a different zoning district it's like double the density there we felt going in for an extra you know a sunroom or something like that shouldn't be allowed and that was something that we wanted to include in the HOA docks so we're using that mechanism to kind of stop those sort of things on purpose on the north where there's a lot more space in the middle we're going with with the lots okay anything else before we ask for a public comment i don't see anybody here is there anyone online that would like to make a comment wordy okay all right so um i would entertain a motion to close pardon me no close this hearing make a motion we close st 2301 1580 dorset street and 1699 heinsberg road i'll second thank you any discussion all in favor say i i okay the motion is carried thank you thank you brian the minutes of january fourth do we have a motion i'll make a motion to approve the minutes of january fourth i'll second any discussion all in favor i i post that's it for the meeting nope nope what do what do we need to do about the reconsideration yes okay under other business other business which comes after minutes um o' brian eastview lc has requested reconsideration of final plot sd 2210 pertaining to approved timing of blasting operations um the board in their deliberative session has made a correction to this section um based on a review of the video and um the applicant calling the board's attention to it and staff has shared the correction with the applicant and the applicant said that's great we withdraw our requested reconsideration okay perfect i'm welcome and i think that brings us to the end of the agenda and the end of the meeting it does um can i ask you all to stay for a minute to issue a decision on um the one we just closed sure i will walk