 Hello and welcome to the developer review board meeting for Tuesday, October 15, 2019. My name is Matt Kodow, the chairperson of the DRB with me is Jim Langdon. I'm Phil Burd, Brian Sullivan. I'm Marla Keene, developer review planner and then Delilah Hall, self-relative zoning administrator. Thank you for those in attendance and those watching online. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the sign-in sheet in the back to provide their contact information. In order to be considered a participant, you can fill out the sign-in sheet or speak during the public comment portion of the hearing. Of course, a bit of comments and writing. We should do one of these things. If you want to obtain party status, should you decide in the future to appeal a decision made by this board? Item number one on the agenda tonight, directions, emergency evacuation procedures from the company's room. There are four exits to there. To here, should you decide? Should we have to leave the number for any reason? Addition installations are changes in the order of agenda items. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Is there anything that's not on the agenda that you'd like to address? Seeing none, announcements. Yes, I have two announcements. First, I'd like to publicly thank Brian Sullivan. I was gone in the last two meetings and he, 10 seconds after being agreed to come by his chair, he stepped in and said thank you for that. I appreciate those are two unavoidable absences related to my professional life. Number two, we are down a developer review board member, Frank Cogman, who's been on the developer review board for about three and a half years, resigned. So there is an opening and I'm sure it will be publicized soon for someone who can consider it. We will miss Frank very much. Frank loved playing the churian and offering his opinions and it was, we will miss him on the board. Third, I participated in a hearing before the city council last Monday regarding minimum parking standards. I reiterated the position that we discussed at like. The developer review board, Frank Cogman, was there with me and our position then was that we wanted to keep some level of minimum parking standards to allow us to allow the developer review board to have a say on where parking should be, when parking, how many parking spaces should be applied at a development. We lost that vote, that vote went three to two and we will abide by it because we enforce the laws that the athletic commission writes and the city council approves. If I just want to let everyone know how that ended up. Finally, the last announcement is that item number seven, continued final plan application SD 1927 of Dorset Meadows Associates will not be heard tonight. The reason it won't be heard is because we do not have one of the reasons we don't have a forum is that two members of the board, one is not present, one has to recuse themselves for their professional life and the other reason is Mark Barrow who usually joins us by phone if he can't be heard in person, cannot be here tonight for personal reasons and we're down one developer review board member. So just three members that can be present at Dorset Meadows final plan application SD 1927, we simply cannot hold that hearing tonight. What we can is that when we get to it, by the time seven we'll go on one to reschedule that. So if you're here for that item tonight, apologize and we will reschedule that in November. Okay, any other announcements before? Then let's go to item five, sketch plan application SD 1926 with Travis Gallister to subdivide an existing 1.2 acre parcel, developed with a single family home into three lots of 1.63 acres, lot one, 2.8 acres, lot two and 2.8 acres, lot three for the purpose of constructing one new single family home on each of lots two and three at 1439 to the road through this year for the applicant. Matt? I would like to just disclose that Scott McAllister, what the applicant and I were neighbors in the list in 422 years. I don't believe that poses a conflict of interest but certainly would entertain any concerns about that. I appreciate that, thank you Don. Just a reminder for the applicants and for those in public that are here, this is a sketch plan, sketch plan is a high level review and discussion of where an applicant receives feedback from the board on major elements of a project before it's fully designed. During the meeting the board may provide oral guidance to the applicant which constitutes the board's determination and application that meets the purposes of the land development regulations. These comments are helped to guide the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of the comprehensive plan. This is not a formal hearing and it does not result in a binding decision and you don't have to be smart in it. You're here to tell us what you have planned and we're here to give you some good advice should you decide to come back with the preliminary planning application and actually go ahead with your plan. Who is here for the applicant? I'm Scott McAllister. I homestead have a civil engineer for Cubs and Lines himself. Scott, can you tell us a little bit about what you've got planned? Sure. We have a 1.2 acre parcel on Linesward Road and I guess we're looking to move the existing house into three lots, one approximately half acre with the existing house and then two smaller quarter of your lots. So you've got the entrance to the existing house that's currently in Linesward Road. Do you have that right? Correct. And you've got two lots that you'd like to have with the entrance on... ...House in Texas. You've read the comments from... From staff? Yes. Okay, if you don't mind. We'll go over those a little bit. It's perfect. Comment number one, staff recommends the board discuss the applicant that need to provide an option agreement to purchase TDRs prior to final plot approval for those watching at home and those listening. That's part of our land development regulations to encourage density and open space by allowing developers to purchase TDRs that accomplish both goals. You're aware of the TDRs and what you need to do in order to get there. Okay. For any questions, contact Marla. Staff recommends the board discuss this issue with the applicant regarding SEQ regulating plan. This is dimensional. This is width versus depth. Two to one, is there a... ...from the staff that it may not fit in one of the lots? I think it's close right now. My measurements, it does meet the two to one ratio right now. Okay. This is just a sketch plan, as you mentioned, using tax mac blinds for boundaries. When we come back for preliminary and final, we'll have a formal boundary survey with dimensions down to the 100th of a foot and we'll make sure it meets the two to one. Two to one. It's very easy, it won't have... Adjusting that line to meet that wouldn't negatively impact some other standard. So you're not concerned that you won't be able to meet the two to one when you come back for preliminary? That's correct. Item number three regarding setbacks. Staff recommends the board discuss the setback criteria with the applicant. That's the setback criteria which will require a maximum of 25 foot setback from the back of a sidewalk or in this case the back of the curb is that right? Yeah, I was interested to discuss this a little bit. I don't think it's a problem by any means but given that there is no sidewalk on Highland Terrace and there's no actual curb either. It seemed at that location on Highland Terrace it would seem to me that 25 feet from basically the edge of the pavement would push the buildings very close to the front property line and be a little out of scale with the neighborhood. There's that the home just to the south of that there are several homes that would be 125 if I recall that correctly. I was comparing it to some Google Earth images and it would seem to if we're measuring from the actual edge of the road as opposed to the right-away line it would it seems very close because I mean you're talking about having probably 15 feet between the edge of the pavement and the right-away and now you're going to only have 10 feet to a building face. If there was ever an idea to put a sidewalk down this road or something like that it would be very close. This is something we can work out with staff. Right, I mean again we're not regulations require us to require you to make it 25 feet from the curb. I didn't see that in the regulation though. It's under 908C1 and so I didn't see where there was or the curb if there's no sidewalk. I read that. Your question where you start the 25 feet or the fact that it's 25 feet. That is my question. Okay. That's a fair question. I think that the curb has just been how the 908C whatever has been interpreted in the absence of a sidewalk. I guess that's a good point. So I'm just pulling it up now and maybe I can read it out loud. 908C3 front building setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambience of the street environment. The building should be set back a maximum of 25 feet from the back of sidewalks. Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to 8 feet into the front setback. So I guess it doesn't specifically say but it's not 50 feet. It's a sidewalk. The other thing I would bring up is we presented, we showed some building footprints on this plan to show that something could be built here for clarity. I imagine for our preliminary and final plans we probably won't even show buildings. We would just show envelopes because these are going to be lots for sale and someone else would come in administratively to get a building permit. Also going back to that I believe that buildings within the SEQ development applications for development other than for a single family home in the SEQ are required to be reviewed as a PUD. So there is some degree of home design required. It's pretty limited it's pretty much limited to the SEQ standards of Article 8, sorry 9 but you know we would need to see a demonstration that the glazing standards are met the setback standards are met the lot ratio standards are met pretty minimal stuff but it is there is some degree of home design. In the SEQ you have to do you can't just, it's not a simple subdivision you have to do you have to meet the design building elevations materials those sorts of things a limited building elevation is an application requirement with the understanding that these are going to be built to suit so keep it to demonstrating the minimum requirement so that you don't get to hide to something that you don't want to be tied to or the potential buyer doesn't want to be tied to. And that's something we're actually reviewing for the board's benefit. The language that requires all SEQ subdivisions to be PUDs it says except for single family homes so what was given to me when I came on board is that that language means except for a single family home so our intention is to have a conversation with our legal team and perhaps the planning commission since they were the ones that wrote it as to whether that was intended to be for the purpose of single family homes only because we've gotten into the situation a couple times where there is a two lot subdivision and it's a PUD and that just feels a little silly. So we may walk that back which I think could be to your benefit regardless none of this is a big deal. Glad to hear. And the last bit is the subdivision standards and the purpose of the SEQ and staff consider the subdivision compatible with the comprehensive plan which is good news for you. Are there any questions the board has for the applicant? Any other comments from the applicant? I just point out that we did go to the city council already for interim zoning and get approval when that approval came in because you're in the SEQ and because the SEQ is under interim zoning that's what that's good. Are there any comments from the public regarding this application? Step forward please. Have a seat and please identify yourself. Mark Abrams 174 Highland Terrace so this is my third time addressing bodies here and I speak to a number of issues. My primary concern is around the long established neighborhood character of this particular street and I wonder about others in the city being affected by what I consider to be a lack of detailed consideration of the effects of adding a lot of much smaller properties to the street and I'd like the predictability that is accorded by the city for developers. I think people who in good faith paid taxes for decades in my case almost four decades to have some predictability about consistency of the character character being fairly quiet and spacious and as I mentioned last month there's some very pleasant city screening long existing on the west side of Highland Terrace that I would hate to see ruined. It's very hard to not everything can be screened and new stuff going in but I think a lot of thoughts should go to destroying it. There's an existing drainage culvert that's been on the west side of Highland Terrace I don't know where that figures in. I raise the issue with Paul Conner in April I haven't heard back yet from that quarter about the water capacity of the existing aquifer number of the neighbors draw all water from our wells into that aquifer so I don't, if anybody can speak to laws around that I'd be very interested in it I think that should be a factor and it was very interesting to read in the recent news in the other paper and otherwise I quote the shock to the city of South Burlington City Council on learning that an old established existing neighborhood in South Burlington Vermont is not too happy at the prospect of major change in the nearby character in Burlington Vermont and I see parallels there and I like to go on the record as as requesting I don't know the intricacies that the old existing neighborhoods have the opportunity to be grandfathered in in terms of what you have the 8, 10, 12, 13 acre lots not having properties on an acre or two with three or four dwellings so that's where I'm coming from if worse comes to worse compromise would be I know the what's on the books but compromise would be access to these many developments through Heinsberg Road already driveways exist I've eyeballed it and I think that should be seriously considered if we cannot be grandfathered in in terms of the I will paraphrase my friend Frank as these things come from time to time there are things that we can do and things that we can't do with regards to grandfathering and something that would be something that would be determined by the Planning Commission approved by the City Council not by the Development View Board thank you very much is there anyone else that would like to speak about this come on up Mr. Crawford you state your name for the record chair of the natural resource committee hi Dave the we offer to the natural resource committee would offer to meet with the applicant if he so desires it's not required it's something that you can do with contact me we'll get you in contact with the work group there is a currently a we've created a work group that is taking a look at the development procedures how do we want to evaluate developments there does look like on this property that there's going to be some tree removal that's one of the kinds of things that the Development Review Board works on and it's something that's a prime interest to the natural resource group so we haven't done any particular evaluation of this or anything else and if the developer so chooses completely up to you we'll try to thank you for making that offer Dave anyone else have any comment regarding this specific project well if not does the applicant have everything they need from us before to go forward thank you for visiting with us see you next time okay now we're going to go to item number six conditional use application cunitino seven of actual introduction to construct a 90 foot square foot addition to an existing single family home to be used as a garage and a 552 square foot accessory residential unit at 89 Hadley Road who is here for the applicant I am hi can you state your name Devin Prino Devin Prino are there any disclosures for the board Devin this is a conditional use application so could I have you raise your right hand to tell the truth under penalty perjury thank you very much Devin tell us a little bit about your application so on my property on 89 Hadley Road I would like to do an addition to my second floor one thing I do want to note though is on my application it says that we are actually already have a second floor so we're it's just a keep style of house so it does have a second floor so I just want to make sure that we have a second floor expanding upon that this is your house my wife so yes we're going to be adding on to our second floor redoing that and onto our footprint of our first floor and that would give us some more square footage on our main home and then we would like to demolish our detached garage rebuild it and then put an apartment above it whether it's going to be for renting or just for family that's the gist of the project have you had a chance to read the staff comics yes let's go through them item number one staff recommends the board consider whether to require specific measurement of the proposed height I think this is a sound recommendation given experience we've had in the past with homes being additions and homes being built in certain neighborhoods it makes sense to make sure that the measurement is right I tend to agree with that recommendation of staff I don't know if the board has an opinion I agree and I think with our experience part of the measurement of height is determining what you're measuring from so that should be spelled out clearly I think that's a good point I just wanted a baseline for where you measure the peak of the roof from so that's for sure a lot less expensive to have before you build it than after you agreed item number two staff recommends the board discuss whether they consider this criteria met this criteria is step back relevant comments from comprehensive plan the character of the area affected is defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within the project is located in specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan does this change your right does it meet objectives such as build and reinforce diverse walkable neighborhoods support the retention of existing construction new and affordable and moderate income housing promote higher density mix use development lower densely principally residential tell us a little bit more about your project I know you gave a brief description you have a second floor but you're taking off the second floor and going higher so the peak of the roof is a bit low I mean the scene height is barely six feet so I want to go a little bit higher with the peak and then go up just a couple feet and then go the extent full extent of house so right now like I said it's a cape style house it doesn't really have knee walls I want to go the full length full walls this is my primary home so I definitely want to make this a forever home for me if possible and what we're looking at there the white building there is that the existing that's the existing garage I didn't put a lot of effort into counting that up I'm sorry so so is that the one that's coming down so what's going on is there a picture here that is detached right currently detached would become attached this will become attached and page three is existing page four is existing page three is existing what it looks like now page three is the rear proposed page two is the front proposed in terms of being consistent with the neighborhood have you received any feedback from your neighbors I have not and they're aware of this proposed project yep so I mean I sent the letters out to all my immediate neighbors and it's been posted on my front of the house for several weeks now okay thanks I'm trying to fit with the style of the neighborhood too because it's ranches, capes colonial so it's obviously it's bungalows everywhere but yeah so I just want to make something that's out of place as well is there any issue with using the garage as a rental property in this any other questions for us I mean you did touch on that point about the reference point on where to measure the height from do you have any kind of suggestions very specific so height is measured from the average pre-construction grade which is defined as the average of the elevation of the four corners of the building or the four principal corners of the building if you have complicated buildings to the midpoint of the roof it's an average for sure is there anyone here that would like to speak to this come on up can you run this together separately okay can you state your names then Nathaniel Merrill Sarah Volinsky hi Sarah, hi Nathaniel we just wanted to express I own 99 Hadley the house right next door and I saw these plans just recently we weren't able to get them till Friday or we might have communicated with you but since the meeting was tonight we decided to stop in this plan I'm a little concerned I'm not categorically opposed to the plan I am a little bit concerned about the two-story wall that's going to be basically five feet off of my property line with a line of trees that seems like they'd have to be remote which wall are you talking about right so that's showing that there's 5.2 feet from the property line to the new proposed garage and the image that you provide here doesn't indicate any windows or anything on that side of the building or anything like that but I'm just I'm a little concerned about the optics and my kitchen window looking right out at a two-story wall here five feet off of the property line I understand there's leeway for the setbacks as laid out in the documents of course that's pushing it right to the boundary of the leeways for the variances for the setbacks that was my only issue so to speak with the scope of the project I do feel like that the two-car garage and the two-story addition of the garage it's almost a second house size being it's going from 12% use of the property to 20% use of the property which is considerable but I'm not sure like I said I'm not categorically against it I am a little concerned about that setback being five feet in that large wall right there because my house doesn't show on that image but essentially between that eight foot spruce or eight inch spruce and the 12 inch hemlock is my kitchen window when you say because I don't have a picture here in my head when you say wall there's an existing wall can we see this image? the neighborhood is primarily story and a half as he said bungalows that's the wall that faces my kitchen you mean the wall of the garage not an actual wall I guess see what you're saying like I said obviously there's no indication of how that's going to be finished or if there's going to be overhang on the roof or windows facing my house or anything like that where that mouse is pointing right there your kitchen window is on the other side of that sure if there was windows there in that living space above it is that what you're referring to there's some evergreen trees there that are getting a little long at this point but there are some evergreens between there do you want to go to the aerial would that be helpful? the aerial image right to the right there and the kitchen is actually that little dark spot that's the skylight in the kitchen right there? so then there's the two trees so it's this gap so the proposed garage is five feet off of the property line is going to be a significant impact on just sort of the visual at that side of the house not to mention winter sunlight and everything like that I understand the desire to expand the house anyway that's what I have to say about that I did have a concern about the use of the apartment essentially if I understand correctly it can't essentially be created into a duplex if you were to want to leave the house can't just become a duplex no it has to be occupied by the primary owner I have concerns about the character of the neighborhood that going from one and a half story houses primarily through the whole neighborhood with single story garages and both of these buildings becoming two full stories and a roof is quite different yes there are a couple two story houses in the neighborhood but I went down the road today and I counted maybe ten in the entire neighborhood and on our side of the road until further up the road when you get to the first duplex and I understand that you don't make the zoning code and I will take it up with zoning if necessary it is a concern to see the neighborhood character change so drastically Burlington has some issues but they are pretty rigid about maintaining historic some historic look and I'd love to see a compromise where they can get some of the space they need but don't basically build another house a garage one thing that came up as I was looking at that is the there's no windows on your on your sketch I assume that's just because you haven't yeah my employment is actually not to put any windows on that side for that reason of privacy for anybody on that second floor and my neighbors as well so it would be just windows would be on the front and back of that garage unit is there any tree removal proposed as part of this I wasn't planning on doing much maybe some liming if anything but actually I was kind of wondering about that can you get a foundation in without averting the trees I just I noticed at one point it looked like you had surveying done and I saw the pin in the front so it looks to me like they've determined that those trees are in fact what that's showing right that's been surveyed that's correct yes okay I'm wondering if you will have to win those trees to get that building in there some of those trees are pretty wide I don't know not sure about that but I'm not sure what their spread is compared to the line or what their actual placement is on the line but I guess I'll have to look at that in more detail could you please show the proposed house again yes that's good thank you is there any option do you have any option to move the garage further back and would that address your concerns I mean is this did you think about other options so it doesn't look like two houses yeah going back is an option as well something like that I don't think they have to be careful of is there close to their lot coverage limit more pavement sure right I got it so the building coverage is fine but it's be almost like in order to stretch the driveway you'd have to make it thinner which maybe that's doable maybe that's not but I don't know that for the character of the neighborhood moving it's going to do anything alright it's just going to put it further in the back yard sure so this property backs up to a city of South Burlington basement on the other side and then behind it I believe is the property owned by the sports club that's behind them this is behind the whole even though Eric Farrell did all the development yeah so if you go to page one of the stuff comments yeah right there so that's the sports club and then that L shaped thing is a pedestrian easement that's owned by the city of South Burlington that's a pedestrian easement owned by the city of South Burlington there's a walkway through there like that kind of thing is anyone here that has another additional comments is there anything else you'd like to say Sarah and Nathaniel okay thank you anything else anything else on the board okay I would move that we close conditional use application CU 19 07 of Ashley Truex second on favor say aye aye thank you very much Devin now move on to item 7 for the purpose of continuing final application SD 19 of Gorsett Meadows Associates LC as said at the beginning of the meeting due to lack of a quorum we have to reschedule this meeting we have set a date for Tuesday November 5th I would move that we continue final application SD 19 07 of Gorsett Meadows Associates LC for November 5th second on favor say aye aye moving on to item 8 continue site plan application SB 1935 of the city of Burlington international airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex this amendment consists of constructing a 54 square foot addition to an existing maintenance building to provide coverage storage for snow removal equipment at 1200 airport drive who is here for the applicant Larry Lackey director of engineering and environmental compliance Larry is there any disclosures from the board yes my law firm attorneys represents the city of Burlington and the airport in the negotiation of a potential contract with the hotel that has been proposed for the airport property I don't believe that constitutes a conflict of interest for me to sit on this application in fact I've sat on other applications not related to the hotel but I just wanted to put it out there thank you for that Brian this is a continued site plan application you have been sworn in prior I know it got continued because it got shifted from last meeting to this I have you raise your right hand Larry in order to tell the whole truth under penalty of perjury thank you very much tell us a little bit about the coverage storage for snow removal equipment area what you've got planned the location of this addition is as you head up aviation avenue do where the heritage complex is the FBO to the left is where our current maintenance shop is along with the aviatron building that we own in an old wood shed so that's the location it's pretty secluded up in that area this project consists of building a 60 by 90 foot addition to that with pre-engineered steel building concrete slab floor footing frost wall with appropriate this is for storage only of very expensive snow removal equipment that's funded by the FAA in fact the equipment is probably worth three times each equipment what this building will cost and it should be taken care of in this way in a heated area we also have storm water infrastructure which I can explain if need be and an oil wire separator so if or the vehicle drips or something or the floor is washed down it goes through an oil water separator you've seen the staff notes Larry yes I have item number one staff notes this calculation does not appear correct is that it's 54 square foot of impervious equal to the area of the building while the provides storm water modeling shows a reduction impervious of 483 square feet the applicant has acknowledged this error instead they'll provide their corrective values as necessary so if we're going to close I think we need to take that additional testimonies okay what can you tell us here at this time what those corrective values are I well I'm just confused by this submission Larry because it doesn't show with the maintenance garage edition that Delilah has up right now well I apologize for that I'm just reading it I'm just I'm looking here I am I ask that to be adjusted maybe maybe at the wrong I apologize I don't have that with me right here so we will fix that it's 54 square feet of sites about very large so I remember to the applicant has not provide documentation of compliance from the apical regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones staff recommends that we request documentation of compliance with these criteria prior to concluding the hearing the applicant stated they will have submitted for FAA approval prior to the continued hearing FAA is 45 days to respond if the applicant demonstrates submission staff recommends the DRB include a condition requiring approval prior to the issuance of the zoning permit does the applicant have a problem with that no we have made our applications and we did provide them to staff for the building quarters in Ukraine yep FAA those are both proof that they filed with the FAA item number three the assistance stormwater superintendent provided comments to the applicant on the proposed oil water separated by email on September 27th but otherwise by verbal conversation indicated the stormwater system appears to meet the requirements of 1203 the applicant provided updated materials to the assistance stormwater superintendent on October 8th and staff anticipates they'll have an update at the time of the hearing do we have an update at the time of the hearing do we have an update at the time of the hearing do we have an update at the time of the hearing for the current email today from the assistance stormwater superintendent saying they were good with modifications and they would like the board to include that standard boil-it-fit condition about the applicant must maintain all stormwater infrastructure no problem adding that as a condition thank you very much number four staff recommends the board discuss discuss with the applicant for what those four parking spaces are used the narrative description of the parking at the hearing. This is relationship, the post structures to the site. We have done that. We have typically at most have 15 people there. We have plenty of spots without those four and we will reassign spots and add some additional areas. So we've provided a drawing that shows that. So that was one of the questions I had about the materials that was submitted today, Larry. It appears, I don't know if you can zoom in on the 17 spaces striped on that page. So in your cover letter, you said that you have 17 spaces. It looks like you're reconfiguring those spaces. Yes, I mean, we could put them on an angle if we needed to either way, if it doesn't matter either way. So what Larry's email to me today said is they have a maximum of 15 employees. They believe they'll have 17 available spaces that you can see how they're proposed to be configured. Not sure if those spaces that are proposed to be made perpendicular as opposed to diagonal meet our dimensional requirements. If you'd like, if I can make sure that happens or make that a condition that should be no problem. Is there room? We can always go up a little bit further too. If we have to. Do you have to get a little extra space? Yeah. So Morgan turned about the depth, honestly, from the width. I was looking more at the depth from the width, honestly. Well, with five and six there. Is that what you're saying, Marla? Yeah. Yeah. I can make them lighter, I mean, most of it. Work with you, too. So they're required to be diagonal? Is that the? No, they're not. It's just that if they're switching them, they should meet the dimensional standards for parking spaces. And they currently don't? I don't know. We don't have the details. They're lines drawn on a PDF. Right. Gotcha. So I guess the question is, can those spaces be nine by 18 with a 20 foot drive aisle in between? I don't see a problem with nine by 18. I want to measure the 25 feet in between, though, to be honest. Right. And then, number five and six there, our dimensions are eight by 22, I believe. Oh, if they're existing, that's okay then. But yeah, just, I guess. I have no problem committing to. It's just challenging because we don't have the information in order to close the hearing. I'm wondering if that's something that we need to know. Well, it sounds like we need the other thing, too. I mean, we can configure it. I mean, there's plenty of space in this entire parking lot for cars. So if we're gonna have to continue it anyway, I think we'd just be looking for that information to be confirmed. Yeah. Along with the item number one. Okay, item number five. The project requires one existing overhead utility pole to be relocated. Staff considers the scale. The product does not warrant the utilities being located under ground. Staff recommends the board discuss whether the overhead electric should be located under the ground. The applicant has indicated they will review with GMP what it required to relocate the utilities underground and be prepared to find an update in the hearing. So essentially, you don't have to do it, but you might want to do it. The power that comes to that pole is overhead. We're moving that pole. The power that comes to that pole will stay overhead, but what's already low ground from that last pole to the building will extend the underground. So we are gonna stay underground. Okay. So that is that commitment. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part. You're going to stay. Yeah, the power from the pole to the building is underground already. So we have to move that pole out of the way, right? And power is coming to that pole overhead. We will extend the underground to the continue it to be underground. Okay. And remove the overhead portion that's there now? There's no, no, the overhead portion, what I can point it out. Hold the building? I can point it out. Yeah. And it's underground from there, right? So we're going to relocate this pole, okay? We're going to have to stay above ground here. And then it'll continue to be underground. Oh, I see. I get you now. Okay. All right. If there are no other comments on that. I remember six, the applicant has not proposed any landscaping. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide the minimum required landscaping value in trees and shrubs. Staff has encouraged the applicant to develop a landscape master plan, which they can add to each time they develop another project within their PUD. The applicant has indicated they will do this part of the next application, they wish to enhance an existing landscape area for this project. They have not yet provided a landscaping proposal. Do you have a landscaping proposal with you today? For this project, we want to propose a pollinator project for our parking garage and then commit a certain time where we want to come up with a plan for a future project where we can put trees and shrubs and stuff. It's obviously difficult because of the, it's an airport and we don't want trees. So we will work something out in a given time, if you want to say 90 days or 120 days or whatever you want to work out. But we'd like to spend the money on this to enhance an educational project on the parking garage. So while Larry's handing that out just to give a little background, because I don't know if everybody remembers, when the hotel was approved, the applicant really struggled to find locations for the requirement on landscaping. They were removing existing landscaping, which was required part of previous site plan approval, which had to be replaced and then they had to add new on top of it. And at that time, there was some concern from a couple of board members who weren't here tonight that the airport was just as good as you can. Every time you put landscaping someplace that you might want to build later, you're creating a snowball effect where you have to add more and more to make up for what you removed and for what you're adding new. So they had sort of asked the applicant to come up with sort of a master plan with a lowercase m of where to put landscaping that they can sort of use that as every time they do an airport project, they can add the landscaping in that area. So with this application, the airport hasn't proposed that. But Larry was saying is that they're willing to work on that for the next application. And it sounds like what you're proposing is this pollinator project instead. Can you describe that a little more? Right, I'll give you my comment. So we're currently working with a group to sponsor and enhance the rooftop garden. And we thought that this would even add to it spending the money here where the traveling public would have a chance to see beehives and pollination and butterflies and all that type of stuff. These are just examples of what it would look like. I am not a beehive expert at all. So I can't elaborate a whole lot on it. Didn't anticipate that I'd have to bring one, but that's what we would propose to do. These go on the roof of the airport garden garage? Right, have you been up there before? Okay, it's a garden and it also has solar panels and all that type of stuff. So this will just enhance that. So you don't need that for parking? No, it's on the roof. And because the whole thing is the airport PUD, we have allowed landscaping projects to go apart from the development or whatever's being proposed. So we have a track record of allowing things to occur on other parts of the airport. Just want to confirm that. So what you said in your letter to me earlier today, and I just want to confirm this because I thought it was a little confusing. I guess, no, maybe it was in this presentation where I saw it. Is that something about that the beehives would be in the solar panel portion of the roof? It was installed within the fence in solar array on the sixth floor. So can the public, the public can't really get to that area? Yeah, they can. They can view it. It'll be right where they can view it, yes. Oh, so it'll be like on the edge? On the edge, yeah. Dumb question, but FAA doesn't have a problem with bees, do they? No, they have problem with birds. Not like little birds, they're not bees then, I know. So is this additional greenery being added or just the apiaries? We will add some additional greenery to them. Have we ever approved this before in our history? Not in this way. So the standard is if the site is well landscaped, if the standards are otherwise met, the board can approve other hardscape amenities beyond trees and shrubs. Such as decorative statues or something like that. Yeah, so there was the sculptures at 20 Kimball, the Larkin Terrace, or not Larkin Terrace, the Larkin Micro-apartments had a wetland viewing area. Aller Square has the artwork, lots of different things that have been considered when the landscape standards are otherwise met. Do you think you're doing anything with the honey? This is really early on. I don't know what she plans on doing with that. I'm certainly not opposed to creative ideas on how to meet your landscaping budget. I don't know anything about bees or whether we're working on that site. So I don't want to pretend to do what I do. And again, we plan to commit to we do not understand we need a plan for future projects because of what type of facility we have and not being able to put trees wherever we want to. Oh, we need pollinators. Anything else you want to add regarding that, Marlon? We're sort of having a solid conversation about bees and agricultural exemption. And if it somehow qualifies for an agricultural exemption, which only is the case. I talked to someone at the state about this late last week. Only if it produces a product. That's why I was asking about the feed. But asking about the honey. If it qualifies for an agricultural exemption, we lose control over it, which means that maybe, and I'm not sure if this would be the case or not, but potentially, if we have no control over it, they could just remove it. And then we would be stuck with net without any landscaping value. So if they're not doing anything with the honey, ironically, that's better in this case, which sounds terrible. Why would you apply for an agricultural exemption for the purpose of what? If they were to qualify for an agricultural exemption. If they were producing honey and farmers marketing it or something, it would be considered an agricultural use, which is exempted from our regulations. For color, honey. But the bees might be, but the flowers and the rest of the landscaping would maybe not be. I see where you're going. I'm just, yeah. And I do know other solar projects have done this type of thing, but in more rural settings, I think, but I mean, this could work in a green roof. Yes, I've heard so far just too. I haven't asked the second question, which is why bees and solar panels, why is it to connect? It's looking for, I mean, this land that's already sort of, it's not being farmed anymore. I don't know how long can we do to have that. They can infill the agricultural development between the panels. OK. There's nothing else on that. Item number seven, snow storage. Apricot has shown snow storage. Apricot has not shown snow storage on the provided site plan, ironically, because you're storing snow removal equipment. Staff recommends the board discuss with this with the applicant. We resubmitted the plan. We spoke with our maintenance manager, and we showed spots, but we also moved a lot of snow. So if it gets to be too much there, we'll bring it where it could be placed at other locations. So. So where are you proposing it on this plan? Up on the top of the plan. Keep going up. Oh, there it is. I see it. Right there. That's where Travis wants it. And again, if there's too much there, we'll move it to, we have plenty of places for snow. And storage. We'll be a lot of anchorage. We move it all the time. For eight, staff recommends the board review the circulation, but require the applicant to remove the arrows from the plan as a condition of approval to prevent confusion as to whether the arrows need to be painted on the ground. Does that make sense? That letter, yes. It's a great sense. Number nine, the applicant has not submitted any information indicating the state DC has approved the impacts of what the consultant protection standards. The applicant has indicated they intend to submit to the state DC for approval as allowed used to the continued hearing. Staff recommends the board require evidence of this request being made prior to closing of the hearing that the board require an issuance of the state DC permit prior to the issuance of the zoning permit. Are you OK with that? I have a question about that. Sure. We made a request to the wetlands. And they've determined that they don't even have to come out because this would just be a general permit. We'll have, and I apologize, our consultant who's going to do this had the family issues. She had to go deal with it. Wasn't able to get out and do it. But they won't even have to come out the state of the site. And we will just do a general permit. And this is in a wetlands buffer area. It's not in the wetlands. And we'll take all precautions and procedures as required. So I don't know if it could be. Are you looking just for the application to go in? Or can you make it a condition that we will apply and have a permit before we build this thing? Is it a class two wetland? Class two, yeah. Type two. And I have the email from the state, if you want to see, from her. That's just a general permit and how she explains this. Is that something you sent today? I didn't send this to you. I don't believe. It should happen. Let's have it in the phone. 71 square feet of temporary wetland buffer impacts, including some fill, trench back fill, forever post-piping stone outfall. Treatment system is located outside the buffer. This is for the outfall for a strong water treatment system. And then the response is this proposal will need a general permit if impacts are under 1,000 square feet. Impacts are considered permanent. And pipe burial would be considered temporary. It appears the wetlands are at the toe of slope. And the project qualifies for a general permit. I will not need a site visit. So typically what we do is require the application to be submitted prior to approval and demonstrate the submitted prior to approval and then receipt prior to issuance of the zoning permit. I don't know if that's how it's going to be done. Prior to the zoning permit, skipping the part about submitted before. Yeah. Yes. The latter. It was fine with me. Me too. Number 10, the applicant has not provided a field delineation or wetland report. Therefore, staff considers this criteria cannot be evaluated at this time. The applicant has indicated they will provide this information on functions of Isobel until all the board evaluate whether they're impacted. And that goes back to how I answered the last question. She was unable to do that. She will be doing it in the next couple of weeks because of a family issue. This project will not impact wetlands. In fact, it will prove it. Because if you look at the site, this equipment will be inside now and inside. And we have a stormwater system that will treat the first flush or one inch of rain before it discharges any to the well. And so we're doing a better job with this project than what's currently being done. Where is the equipment kept now? In parking. Do you know all over the place? It is parked in this area without cover. That's part area in this area. You can see it on the aerial photo. But also over towards the north hangar on paved areas. It's been there. But there's some different uses going on now. Some exciting uses going on at the north hangar. But it's been uncovered. Yeah. We do plan the long run. We do have an RCIP to really look at a long-term, bigger or nicer maintenance facility. But that's the year's out. Sure. Thank you. Item number 11, the staff concerns the minimum require short-term bicycle parking for this application is two, with two long-term bicycle parking spaces to pretend and require for a building expansion of more than 5,000 square feet. But encourages the board to discuss the applicant the bicycle parking approach for the Aviation Avenue areas a whole, as agreed upon in the previous PUD amendment, SD 1907. The applicant has indicated that they only own two buildings, the maintenance building and the aviatron building southeast of the maintenance garage. And they tend to provide one inverted U-type rack outside and provide locking storage for the two bicycles inside. Staff considers the board should require the applicant to indicate where the bicycle parking will be located prior to closing the hearing. I'd like to correct one thing that just got said, if that's OK. There is a building in advance we'd like to tear down. It's an old shop building. Right here, we do own that building. OK. OK. Thanks for that clarification. And you're going to indicate where the bicycle parking will be. I thought we did in the recent middle. I thought we did. Yeah, we did. And we also have we're going to have inside storage for bikes in the new building. And OK. Look, the powder-cutter tube. Inside here, we'll have quite grand. OK. Good. Where is that relative to other site features that propose bicycle location? This is where people walk in. OK. OK. Any other questions for the applicant? Any comments from the public? State your name for the record, Dave. Dave Crawford, chair of the Natural Resource Committee. This one is new and a lot of information came out tonight. So I would preface my statements with that the NRC has assigned a work group to evaluate how we're going to handle and review the applications that come before you folks. Does the NRC have a position on bees? Does the NRC have a position on bees? We don't have one. And I don't know whether we're talking about bees or trees. But frankly, that's one of the questions I had. I got a little confused as to landscape or an idea for trees. Some place sounded like a good idea to have a place designated on airport property. That looked to me like an interesting idea. But then we got off on bees under the... Bees on the garage? Bees on top of the garage? On top of the garage. That may not be a bad place for the trees to be added to. But it didn't seem like there was any trees added in the system. See what I'm saying? And so we really don't have... I can't speak consistently and accurately as I would like to on the application because there was so much information just came in. Be that as it may. It looks like it's not something that will have any particular problem with. Thank you very much, Dave. If you could sort out the tree idea in your consideration along the way, if there's going to be a... That idea sounds really interesting to me, is if there's going to be a place where you're going to have the airport plant trees and not have to remove them in the future. That is really advantageous. We're hiring somebody to evaluate that for us as a commitment to this. Giving us a period of time to get it done. Loss on slur. It doesn't sound like there's anything that can't be solved. So, it'd be nice. Any other comments from the public? Any other comments from the board? If not, I move that we've got some things that we need to follow up on. So we're going to continue this continued site plant application, SB1935, the city of Proat International Airport for what date might be appropriate. So we're just looking at parking spaces and impervious. Excuse me, Mala, what was the date? End landscaping. End landscaping. How long do you think that's going to take? Do you want to jam it in? We're on November 5th. We've got two short ones, a medium one and a long one. That might be a bit much. So I would move that we... Too much? It's up to you guys. November 19th, I mean, the application deadline hasn't passed yet, so we don't know what else we have in. It'll be quick, but people's brains shut off at 10.30. I would encourage you to think about November 19th, but also, you know, they very graciously agreed to not be heard last time because we had shortage of time, so I don't want to extend their deadline. Are you in a time crunch where you need to get on the 5th rather than the 19th? We'd like to, yeah. I mean, I can't say we're out for proposals for this and next week I'll have a better idea of where we sit from the proposals that come in. They come in on Tuesday, but we also have other permitting that has to get done. So either one, whatever works for you, sir. So we would need any revised materials by the 25th if we were to continue it to the 5th. 10 days, like we can do two extreme to respond to those two or three. All right, well then, let's continue. Continue site plan application, SB1935, for November 5th. Is there a change? Anything changes for us when we receive bids or how the other permitting is coming along? I'll let Marla or Delilah know. Is there a second to my motion? A second. Second by Don. All in favor say aye. Aye. Let's pose. Thank you very much, Larry. Item number nine, reconsideration of preliminary final plan application, SD1924, Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC. Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC to subdivide an existing 21.74 acre lot into six lots of .43 acres, lot M1, 1.69 acres, lot M2, 1.33 acres, lot M3, 1.35 acres, garden street, 5.86 acres, lot N, and 12.08 acres, lot L for the purpose of constructing garden street in a project south of Garden Street on lots M1, M2, M3, which will be reviewed under a separate site application, 390 Garden Street. Who is here for the applicant? Tim McKenzie, South Brown Timsetic Center, LLC. Hi, Tim. Ken Braverman, Snyder-Braverman. Hi, Ken. Andy Rowe, Lamar Owen Dickinson. Hi, Andy. Okay. Thank you for all coming back. Sure. You know, we were, when we closed this, you had conversations with Marla and with Justin and others. And I apologize to the applicant, I apologize to staff. After hearing the compelling case, I said, no, we need to reopen this and discuss it further. So, in effort to be fast was probably my error. So, anyways, that's my apology. If you look at the comments from staff, wanna jump right into it? Sure. Okay. Applicant is proposing approximately 220 units on lots M1, M2, M3. Therefore, staff considers the standard requires the roadway to be connected. What would say the applicant to that comment? So, building the entire roadway presents some complications related to build two lines, the full complement of the street. I've worked with Justin, who's been in communication with the city manager. We've had some communication with the city attorney and we are in agreement that we will build the entire roadway curb to curb, that we will build the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of the first building that's going up and we'll do a six foot by two minutes path the rest of the way to connect to Market Street. So, we'll create a hard service the entire way. It will be the full infrastructure in front of the first building. The city will, at some point, will take immediate ownership of it. Let me back up. We're working on the details with Justin and with city council about the timing of when the ownership changes. But that's what we're working through. But we're in agreement for the purposes of this meeting that we will build the full roadway curb to curb and that we will build the sidewalk and the cycle track to the extent that it is in front of the first building that's going up. Prior to the issuance of the CEO. Is that so? Okay. What about the sidewalk from the building south or west to the existing culvert? Can you say that again, the sidewalk from? From the south or west end of the proposed building to the existing culvert. Yeah, from the box culvert up past the first building that's going to be constructed. Perhaps it would help me what is not included in the construction that would be reserved for a later date when other plots are developed. Can I walk up and show you? So as you know, the city center has built two lines as opposed to setbacks, putting in sidewalks, cycle tracks in a lot that is not going to have a building on it yet that will have a future building will only get destroyed. So if this is going to be the first building that is going to be constructed, we'll build the full complement of cycle track and sidewalk from here to the edge of this, leaving this open from where, so this building can be constructed. We will put in a six foot by two minutes path the entire way to tie it into Market Street. Gotcha. And then as lot L, lot N get developed, that's when the rest of the features get, but the road as a passageway for general public. Road from curb to curb with street lights and we'll be completed. I think that's reasonable. I mean, we don't want you to build a sidewalk only to tear apart. Right. There's also a question of, we need to work through the issue with Justin and with city council. There's a question of when the ownership of the road changes hands. You can inappropriate people to deal with that. Yeah, we're not terribly interested in owning a road that has through traffic and kids riding their bikes to school. I apologize for potentially beating a dead horse, but maybe I'm not following. So then when you just described it would be built to the edge of what's labeled as M2 there when building on M2 was done. And then the sidewalk from along the front of M1 to the driveway would go in when lot M1 had a building going on it. Correct. And you would be building that. Well, right now we're discussing that the city takes over ownership immediately upon the completion of the first segment and the city will do it. That's the negotiations I'm having with Justin and with the city council. I see, so the city would pay for the sidewalk on M1? Correct. So I'm wondering what that incomplete negotiation does to the board's ability to condition approval. And then what would be the negotiation on a lot L similar to M1 in which the city would own the land so they would be the ones building the city builds the sidewalk and not the developer. Yeah, so we're putting in, we'll be putting in the subgrade. It's a matter of putting down the concrete. And it doesn't make any sense to put down the concrete until there's a building in place. But to Marla's point, I understand that completely. And so it becomes an issue of ownership and once the city owns it. I agree, I understand that completely. I do also understand what Marla was saying about we don't know the reaction from public works with regards to this and when that happens, do we? I have an email that I can read to you. Yeah, go ahead, I was copied on that. I haven't seen it, go ahead. Or do you have a copy? So my email reads, this is following a conversation. Justin just confirming what we discussed Friday regarding Garden Street. SBCC, South Burlington City Center, LLC will construct Garden Street south segment curb to curb. We will install full profile cycle track and sidewalk in front of the new building to be built. I mistakenly refer to it as M1, but it's M2, but it's the new building to be built. We will continue a six foot cycle track from the end of the completed section in front of M2 building to Market Street. The city will take ownership of Garden Street immediately following the completion of the road as described above, prior to the street being opened to through traffic and will complete the sidewalk and cycle track following the construction of the buildings on the respective lots. Another response from Justin. I went on to say, do we need to formalize this agreement or will this agreement be a part of the DRB approval? Justin responded, yes, assuming you build Garden Street all the way back from healthy living to Market Street as described, the city is willing to accept ownership as a city street once it's certified complete. So. With that, it's implicit that the city accepts ownership once that's complete. They also accept the responsibility of finishing the sidewalks. Yes, it's the assumption that once it's open to through traffic, it becomes the city's responsibility. Is that your reason? He went on to say, this would be a city council action and does not need to be approved by the DRB. To follow up the email, we had some exchanges between my attorney and Andrew to understand if there needed to be some type of formal agreement before this meeting tonight and Andrew responded, Scott, as Justin notes, it's ultimately a city council decision when to accept the street. So any pre-agreement or authorization would have to go through them. Staff can recommend one course or another to city council. It sounds like Justin has no objections provided the road is certified complete but ultimately it's in the council's hand and the executive does not have the authority to bind via an agreement that legislative decision. Otherwise, no objecting to raising this email at the DRB meeting or bringing to council if necessary. Appreciate you sharing that. It's helpful. So any questions regarding to that? Go ahead. So I guess what the requested condition is that this subdivision requires the road to be built curb to curb from the existing culvert to Market Street. Sidewalk in front of... M2. From the existing culvert to the edge of law M2. Correct. And then a six foot wide asphalt cycle track with sub-base from the edge of law M2 to Market Street. Correct. Once the city accepts the road, as I understand it, the city's on the hook for building the cycle track and from the law M1 to the... Building the sidewalk, yeah. So when curb to curb doesn't include street trees and doesn't include lighting fixtures? Yes, it does. Yeah, I heard you say lighting. I didn't know it was street trees. But aren't those outside the curb? Would you like to see the pro... It might be between the curb and the sidewalk. Yeah. Actually, I think I'm just confused about what's included in the pro plan. They are outside the curb and I think Tim's saying that in addition to the curb, the street lighting and the street trees would go in initially as well. You're right, they are outside the curb but it's inside of the sidewalks. So yes, we will be doing... Am I passing that around? I don't think we have a copy of it. If it's hard for me to imagine, I imagine it's harder for them to imagine because they don't work it every day. So I should have said inside of the green strip line, inside of the sidewalk line. Well, actually, from there to there. As I said, as you're aware, in a typical developer development, which is traffic is typically just for that development, the city won't take ownership of the road for a couple of years. We have a tremendous amount of anxiety over this becoming a city street, not under city ownership. Understood. Liability and... Liability, exactly. So just to fully vet this, I'm getting there. What if a different building were built first? Say the building on Law M1 instead of Law M2? Well, we fully understand that for the building to be complete, to have its CO, we need to put full infrastructure, cycle track, sidewalk. I guess what we would do is build the full infrastructure in front of M1 and extend the six foot cycle track on each side of it. I mean, what Justin wanted was a hard surface for pedestrian and bikes the length of the street. Yep, that works for us. I'm happy, especially that the trees and lights and everything. So, any other comments from the board? No, we have some more stuff here. Did we already discuss it all? The board determined the board reference standards did not require the road to be connected. That's only round number. Put number on the message. Yeah, it was on number two. I'm just trying to, we sort of went free form here. So I'll repeat myself and we have seven. So that's, yeah, yeah, okay. So, skip number two, because we've already come to that conclusion that the road's been gonna be built. Okay, number three, staff considers that a turnaround of minimum dimensions described in LDR figures 15.1F proposed 15.1H may not physically fit into the space available when given consideration to the proposed storm ponds that recommends the board require the applicant to provide a phasing plan to show the proposed configuration of the turnaround should the board determine that the road reference standards do not require the road to be connected. No. So we don't deal with that, right? Because that's already taken care. So we're taking care of the road. Okay, okay. Great, thank you. Any comments from the public regarding this? Okay. Are there more people that are extra done on this? Well, I would move that we close preliminary and final plot application SD, the reconsideration of SD-1924390 Market Street preliminary final plot application. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Brian, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed. Great, thank you very much gentlemen. Thank you, thank you. Okay, we have item number 10, the minutes of October 1st, 2019. I was not present. But if, so, I don't have them on me either. Yeah. I wasn't there. I did read them and there's a few editorials, but I can't find it on my screen. Nothing significant. So I would move approval and I was there. Do we have a second? I'll second. Seconded by Jim, all in favor, approving the minutes from October 1st, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, sustained. Great, 11 other business. Any other business? Then that's it for the developer review board on October 15th. Thank you very much.