 It looks really close to the screen. My concern was just having a sidewalk that close to her tonight. Speed limit road. John, wait. It didn't bother me when I saw it on the page, but it bothered me when I see it. You can take it out. My concern was that there's one I need to. Okay, so A.V. is ready to go. Charlie, are you ready to go? Okay. All right. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, April 3rd, 2018. First item on the agenda is direction on emergency evacuation procedures. If there is an emergency, you can all go out the way you came in, or we got these two doors here and we will meet in the south parking lot, which is right behind me, straight ahead for you. And we want to make sure that everyone that signs in to the sign-in sheet is there so we can be sure everyone's safe. Chad, good to see you. Additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. I know of none. Okay. Now, number three, comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. I don't have any comments or questions, not related to the agenda. Hearing none, announcements. Do we have any announcements? No announcements. Okay. Did you guys, is this like dress alike tonight? It's good. Your work well. It happens a lot, actually. Worked well. Looks great. Okay. So, this is the application CU 1804 of Charles Farrell to add a 427 square foot addition to the second floor of the existing two-story house above the existing structure at 9 Pavilion Avenue, who is here for the applicant? Who is here for the applicant? What do you do? So, this is a square. Raise your right hand, please. I promise to tell the truth. The whole church has nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. We are looking to add a second story addition to the rear of our home that already includes a one-story addition to increase in the impervious area going straight up on the existing one-story addition and have worked with Marla to understand the non-conformities that exist almost everywhere in Queen City Park, but at least with respect to our property. We were here, I was here about a year ago, and the motion failed based on six-inch being out of compliance for a distance of three feet by depth of six inches, which is shown on one of these areas of second floor encroachment. Can you see that arrow? It's that little notch right there. So, we have updated the design to include a cutout for the second-story addition to make sure that the second-story addition is in compliance with that three-foot setback. So, we are looking for a waiver because we can't achieve the five-foot setback, but we can achieve the three-foot setback with this. Do you want to mention the addition to the basement? Yes. Oh, yes. There was a, maybe on the site plan. Second page. It doesn't show on the survey, it doesn't show on that either, but it's going to show on the elevations. So, the next page down, I think. This new roof over basement entrance that had to be constructed over the winter. So, we're looking for an after-the-fact permit there. I think that's it. There was no roof there before? Is this a repair? There was no roof there. It was extended to the driveway. We needed some shelter over, you know, there's some steps that now have provided egress from the basement onto the side area there, into the driveway. That requires a roof because there is about a three-foot difference between basement elevation and creating. So, normally we step through the staff comments, and there's only one comment that is in red. So, staff recommends the board consider whether the proposed addition has sufficient potential to impact sunlight on the adjoining property to the north to warrant requesting the applicant provided shadow analysis of the proposed addition. And that is what the helioscope is about, isn't it? Okay. Yeah. So, let us look at the helioscope. Please, yes. Thank you very much. So, our neighbors here, Lynn and Pam, are here this evening. And this is their home at 11 Pavilion Avenue. I know that Lynn had some concerns on shading with respect to the addition. So, what I wanted to do was run some analyses to indicate what that shading impact would look like on two different dates. I wanted to look at December 21, which is the date in the northern hemisphere when the sun is lowest on the horizon, and is therefore going to cast along the shadow. And this is using industry standard solar design software. I think I've provided a link toward that software in the email. But anyway, so you can see this is an existing, this is the two-story main house, and this is the one-story addition on the back that we're looking to raise up to the same roof line, a 25-foot roof line to be consistent with the front of the house. So, this is the existing shading on December 21, between 10 and 2 in the afternoon. And so, you can see there is impact on their home, on their deck. And so, there's already impact there. So, if we go down, I'll walk you through a couple of the different scenarios. So, that is, now this is the proposed conditions. Now, we've raised the roof up to 25 feet, so you see this shade impact, and you'll see a little bit more through here, still covering the house and still covering the patio area. So, no different. That's December 21. So, that is the greatest degree of shading that this property will see as a result of the new addition, which is fairly similar to what the previous addition is. Can I stop you for a sec? Sure. So, the concept is, in terms of that shading, I'm over here. Sorry. The concept is that the shading of the roof tracks across that wall, right? That's what the curve is from. So, you're not going to be all, not all of that's shaded at the same time. Correct. The other point, if we could just go back up, I think this is important for Pam and Lynn. They have solar panels on their roof, right? I wanted to make sure that we weren't going to be shading those solar panels, and that's extremely important. Not that we get a ton of sunlight on December 21 in Vermont. Okay, so now if we can go down and walk through. So, this is March 21. So, this is indicative of spring solstice when folks are generally starting to come outside, more spend more time outside in their yards and their properties. You can see the current shading, no impact whatsoever. So, sometime before March 21, the shading impacts subside back onto our property. So, from March 21, all the way through the summer months through September 21, that is the shading impact from our roof now. And if we go down further, we'll see we carry that across. Same thing, still no impact. And obviously, that shadow will shrink as we move through the summer months and the sun tracks higher in the sky throughout the summer. So, that's the shading analysis. I welcome, I guess, any additional questions. This looks fine to me. My question had to do with the little roof you had over the cellar stairs. Does that project any further into the setback? No, no, that's well within the setbacks. It protrudes into our driveway basically. So, that's right here. This is our driveway. You said you had to put the roof, that was that because of a snow issue? Yeah, because we have recessed steps going down to a landing to get in the house. We couldn't have snow and rain falling down there. We do have a drain in there, but it was to shelter the entry steps. Marla, I've got a question on the table on page two for clarification. To take the max building coverage. It's got a check mark for in-compliance. Should that be existing non-conforming? Right, I think that max building coverage and the other one you pointed out, the setback should both be existing non-conforming. Neither is supposed to be any worse with the proposal. We can change those. So, anybody else have any questions on the board? I have no questions, I understand it. It looks fine to me. Questions, comments? In the public, questions, comments? I'm just looking forward to medicine chat growing up so they can shovel the shape of the driveway in another window. Yeah, sure. That's good. All right, motion to close. Move. Okay, in seconds. Second. It's been moved in second. We can close this application. Opposed? Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda. Number six, conditional use application CU-1803 of Anthony Settle to alter the pre-existing structure by raising the roof height of an existing two-story house adding a covered front porch extending the rear deck and lowering the grade of the south lawn. Number five, Central Avenue. Who is here for the applicant? Myself. Come up and sit there, please. Thank you very much. If you raise your right hand, please. You promised I would truth the whole, so it's nothing but the truth on a penalty of perjury. Thank you very much. If you describe the project, please. Okay, so there at present exists a 12 by 15 foot, let me see it, a 15 foot Y by 12 foot D deck under the rear of the home and we propose to extend it across the entire rear of the home so we're going to extend it approximately 27 feet. Number one, number two, we are going to add a covered front porch at this corner of the house and that will go outside of the existing footprint. We are, we would like to raise the roof to a height of 25 feet and we would also like to at this point the front of the house is one story that it steps back and goes to two stories and we would like to raise it across the whole front. I'd like to add an additional bathroom and we would like to lower the grade of the south one approximately 870 square feet by four feet and add a retaining wall and we would like to oh yeah, so we also want to we have a unusual for Queen City Park we have a plethora of parking spaces and we would like to we would like to reduce our impervious space on the property and yeah, and I think that I can't recall the exact square footage but it is well, actually, that's right. So it would be this area right here and as per regs we would plant vegetation or grasses that would not be mowed in that area since we're replacing the impervious it goes back and those slide over and then these steps are added and the coverage of those steps is included in the calculation of impervious services. Yeah, nothing closer to the lake that's pretty much it. Okay, and unless anyone has any questions on other items I'm going to go directly to staff comments. You've seen staff comments. I have, yes. Okay. The first one is that staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise their plans to show that removed parking areas must be seated so just to show on the plans that you're going to do what you just said you were going to do. So I actually resubmitted the landscaping plan yesterday and providing electronic copy and so it shows I had spoken with Marla earlier and she linked over the comments with me and there it is it is now updated to reflect that comment. Great. Any board members having any questions or comments on that? Next staff comment. That's it. Is this not conforming in any way more? Side setback. Waterfront setback. Coverage. Coverage is complying Waterfront setback is existing non-complying Side setback is existing non-complying. No new non-conformity is no none of the affected elements of the project are non-conforming. And the he said the footprint was being extended by the covered porch. That does not create a non-conformity either. There's plenty of room in the overall coverage and in the building coverage both. And there is a second staff comment which was hiding in my little pdf program. Staff recommends the board include the criterion of placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within the stream buffer is prohibited. And so I discussed that as well and we have no intent on cutting any trees which is actually prohibited to cut trees unless they're diseased. But we would, were that to happen? There are none that we're thinking of doing that too. We would remove it properly and there are approximately eight small bushes that will be removed and I will most certainly load them into my Honda element and truck them out to the South Burlington dump promptly. Okay. And that is it for staff comments. All the other staff comments about criteria being met seem fine to me. Board comments or questions? Comments or questions from the public? My name is Dave Gerpin. I'm on the professional community of the South Burlington Fire District, number one. We are at Butters on both the north side of the project. There's a parking lot and then on the south side of the project there's a green space and we're just here to learn about the project and participate in the process but don't have any comments at this point. Thank you. Yes. I live in Queen City Park and am on a butter just by way of living... Would you please identify yourself? My name is Lynn Vera. Thank you. And so as a resident owner of Queen City Park I understand that because the firehouse and the parking lot are co-owned by the residents that we all sort of have a butter status and my view is from across the park and my concern is just a little bit of I think a disingenuous presentation of addition to the second floor extending a deck and closing in the front porch and lowering the grade. I am aware of all of those pieces but we're really looking at a total tear down to the concrete pad. Everything of this historic house will be gone. So as a resident of the park who appreciates the history of the park and in looking at the non-conforming architectural design I just felt I would be remiss if I didn't ask the board in places in South Burlington that may not have historic protections. I know that it may be beyond your purview and certainly beyond mine to ask Anthony to change the design but I am concerned when relative newcomers have not an appreciation for what might be impacting people who came before them and I just want to share that. I feel that the design as it is in this drawing and I'm hoping that Tony and I talked the other day I am hoping that windows color of side things that could make a less wall like impact looking from across the park or as you pull into this amazing neighborhood to not be hit by a wall of dark wood but perhaps invited as we are currently to see the lake in the sky through windows and reflected off I know we're going up and I know we're going out and I know we're having the deck come all the way at a higher rate than is there right now the major view between the end of the building and the garage will be impacted by that deck. We're we also lucky to have that amazing property it is wonderful and I understand one you can fully see it but I just really want to encourage you more to think about people who don't own but I brought lots of photos if you're interested in having them. This increased height is within the height limit for the district. We have no historic preservation binding regulation that affects the property. Thanks for coming. Appreciate it. Yes, please identify yourself. My name is Stacy Jealous. I live just a little bit further down the street from Tarrie and I'm only speaking to share that I hold the absolute complete opposite opinion just so that you hear that there are people living in the neighborhood who feel completely differently as well. There is no, in my opinion, historic style to the neighborhood and they were started out of tent sites they became camps then they became houses and people did that transition as any way that they saw fit to do and it's a unique and funky and interesting neighborhood and I very much welcome anybody's input who wants to improve their property therefore thereby improving property values and be part of a community I very much want to be part of a community that allows us to grow and change together. I just want you to know that there are different opinions than that. Thank you very much. Other comments, questions? Yes, please identify yourself. I'm Chris Grace. What I really did right next to that land and my question for Tony is just I guess a seeking of reassurance so where the land is going to be graded and changed and it will then drops very very steeply down to the lake and I have some concern that that grading and changing the slope of the land will be stabilized in the higher slope down to the lake and if that happens that could affect our property and our house right there. So I don't know if that will happen but just looking at how steep that land is and if that starts getting destabilized that could cause a serious trouble for Tony's house but obviously our condo complex that would be helpful so if you could just walk through I'm sure you've had civil engineering done on this so in two phases a second that's happening tomorrow and Chris I consider that to be absolute worry Chris I consider that oh please sit down I consider that to be absolutely valid point so I engage civil engineering associates to evaluate and in my erosion control they're doing the existing psych conditions and they created a plan to address the disturbance of the soil and erosion prevention however like you because I live on the top of that bank and I'm also concerned I've also engaged SW Cole who are geotech engineers who are going to do bore samples to evaluate the stability of that area and I will follow their recommendations I welcome sharing their findings with you you and I are in the same boat of that I would love to lower the grade but if it's going to adversely affect the slope stability of the slope then I wouldn't do it so the curiosity what would the point what is the desirable the desirable aspect of lowering the grade there are two the main point is to have light and views in what is currently a dark basement and the right now the grade is halfway up the basement wall the other is when we are unfortunately going to have to put in a new foundation due to deterioration of the old one so there will have to do some excavation there but that could always be back filled once that's complete I would love to more precisely answer your question it would be for light and for views so should we be awaiting the result of the engineering study before passing before closing the application seems like a fairly significant I mean the applicant is acknowledging so if the change would be that you wouldn't change the grade and you would just do no retaining wall and the grade would remain as existing can we do that administratively as a site plan amendment if he needs to get rid of that retaining wall and keep the retaining existing grade I'm not sure that he would need approval to do that the approval is basically because it's reconstructing the house the retaining wall is not eliminating something that's approved is not an issue that requires coming back before the board if they was going from no retaining wall to retaining wall then that might trigger coming before the board that proves the retaining wall and the grading and he doesn't do it I don't think that triggers coming back before you just leaving it natural without making a change well I'm asking I get it but no it puts a lot of trust in the applicant are we concerned with the results and if it's an issue are we concerned with wanting to know what the engineering results are are we concerned with the decisions requiring the board to have this engineering information is you're not approving the engineering of the building of the soil it's basically because it's a reconstruction of a house within 150 feet of the lake in this sensitive area so we've never the board has never asked for that information in the past that I'm aware of on a quick skim of the applicable standards that are in the staff comments I don't see any standard which applies something related to long-term stability so just as a hypothetical if we had a completely reckless homeowner who got an engineering report and said well there's a 50-50 chance you know the whole slope is going to slide into the lake we would have no power to the board would not there's other mechanisms that would okay good to know doesn't the state shorelands program would have quite a lot to say about it and the I guess the storm water program would as well yeah so so it is in our purview to look at the slope but it is the states shorelands shore got that right shorelands prerogative to look at that and authority to look at that so and as has been explained there's no interest in harming his house or your house so but it does depend on good engineering go ahead yes I mean this comes under the move or go the best way to plan to my cement so if damage is done how do these other boards or people involved check that this is not going to happen or if it does start to happen during the construction because once that once that starts falling down yeah so the state must have so the state is the people to talk to and I'm sure they have procedures for you to be involved and to check on things right Tony but you've been in touch with the shorelands program so do you have a letter from them certifying that you're good or do you have to get a permit from them I have to do a registration with them and that registration has been completed and it's on file would it be a good idea to require him to file that with this city before flying a zoning permit it actually is filed with the city with the flex office and land records correct land records okay so we'll pull a copy of that great great good and if there's conditions on that we can reference them in our decision absolutely great other comments from public yes but I was asked to bring a letter from a neighbor who couldn't be here and can I just give that to you or do you want that I think giving it to us puts it into the record but if you could summarize it briefly okay let's try to do that 25 year resident times they are changing should I say not my backyard it's an architectural interest tradition of history caring for the land sense of place is being lost I expect when a home is to be torn down and a new edifice follows it would incorporate perhaps and he says some of perhaps his personal opinion about wood shingles and siding and things but he did ask me to get it to you so can I do that so one of you would read it into the record thank you thank you very much we won't read it into the record but just by having it exactly it will be part of that thank you very much other comments and questions from the public please yes please identify yourself I'm Steve Crowley I live in Queens and Park also and I've been there for 34 years and I guess my comment is about the sense of whether this really qualifies as a historic kind of a thing there was a big in there a while back I think it was the 40s that burned down and this house replaced that so this house is on the site of the old hotel so that right there limits how far back it goes in history but I guess the more important point to me is that the whole neighborhood has changed quite a bit over the last 34 years you know many of the houses down the main drag in Queens and Park have been renovated extensively most of them I don't know about most but probably half of them in a way look quite a bit different than they did at one time there's a greater appreciation for lake facing glass for example that wasn't there 34 years ago well a greater appreciation for glass and rattle and wind blows also but a whole lot has changed and with that the character and you know you look back at history you can say we're creating history we are kind of with a unique name but it remains unique and so it's not the kind of thing where we have a 100 to 200 year old set of houses that all have that sort of character and preserving it's an ever changing neighborhood and so I would just want to express that I have a feeling that history isn't in one of your conservations here but if it were I think that it's an ever changing kind of place okay it's a tasteful design so thank you very much appreciate it other comments from the public hearing none entertain a motion to close move that we close conditional use application cu1803 second move in second we'll close this application all in favour say aye opposed thank you very much likewise thank you very much as well take care next on the agenda number seven continued preliminary sd 1806 of minot larkin partnership LLP to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units a 60 unit multifamily building with 17,976 square feet of commercial space a 20,000 square foot movie theater building 1,000 seats a 22,500 square foot restaurant medical office a 3,500 square foot restaurant with drive-thru service and a bank with drive-thru service of constructing a four-story 47 unit residential building at 115 Fayette Road who is here for the applicant hi good evening my name is David Roy with women landfill architects and I'll be presenting information on the project and as you've stated this is the we're here to address two specific issues which one of which was left open and one of which was a little ambiguous at the last hearing so to set the record straight on those two items and finalize the application one item was I stated at the last hearing that the street lights in the parking area were to be 14 feet in an effort to get them more to human scale in that area they are actually proposed to be 15 feet to match the adjacent properties which are being developed so all the street lighting will match fixture type and height throughout that entire development the PUD can you say that again, sorry parking lot lights are proposed to be 15 what about the street lights no the parking lot lights that were proposing in the rear parking lot of the micro apartments so the project is proposing both parking lot lighting and street lighting there are four street lights that would be the city standard and then we reduce the parking lot lights to 15 foot let pole lights to match the parking lot lights across the road and the street the height of the street lights it's the city standard 15 so we have there's also going to be a third light pole required because they're shorter than originally proposed and we'll have site plans and photometrics for you we have hard copies of that today we do not have so we can provide you electronic copies as well and another item which we want to address which the staff asked us to address was the width of the entry drive into the parking area for the micro apartments and dividing it and separating it from the adjacent parking structure approach and we have gone through and developed a concept which does that I don't have a pointer is it okay if I just get up and walk around yep so we have as you come down off of Fayette Road you have the entrance drive to what is the Palestine Theater and we are going to reconfigure that it is currently a very wide open cut from here to here entering into this parking lot area and into the parking structure we would like to divide that so that we have a standard 24 foot width entrance into the parking lot and exiting from the parking lot on Fayette Road and then a separate ingress only into the parking structure under what is the Zen gardens right here 57 Fayette Road and that that entrance is directly opposite the right hand lane coming out of the Palestine Theater so operationally if they are leaving here they could move straight through or people could come in this way down Fayette Road and enter into the parking structure that way the exit for the parking structure is on the other side and they would come out here and exit back on the Fayette Road so this is one entrance and then we would come down here and extend a radius we are going to actually provide more pervious is it pervious or is it gravel it will be grassed so there is more pervious surface here that is currently paved and we will modify that radius to enter into the site and we are actually proposing to keep this radius pretty much the same and I believe it is a 17 foot wide radius and we want to keep it to that extent to allow emergency vehicles to navigate in and out of that space I guess I will use that for any questions just one comment for the board the driveway that goes to the movie theater right now is a future street planned on the official map so that is part of the reason for this reconfiguration of having the driveway aligned with it so going back to comment number one does anyone have comments is staff okay with 15 foot all the way around board have comments questions on 15 feet versus 14 what may I just don't understand why the 14 foot comment was in there was there misunderstanding about what they were doing I simply made a statement we were talking about the height of poles at the last hearing and I said 14 foot not recognizing that the adjacent fixtures on the site are 15 foot the picture is an extra foot okay so no new lighting is at 22 feet thank you no comments questions for me on that can I just discuss that for a second if they're proposing one additional parking lot light fixture beyond what the board has reviewed do we need to get the condition that it be added that it be shown okay does the board want to see those plans that they have now so that the board is approving yeah I think that would be good then we don't have any weirdness I will add that the third fixture was necessary to match the photometrics required so you want to share that with the board not us so the third light is going to go here I have the photometric study as well so basically we have the corner at the entrance yeah this is extra paper the new one is right there so the two original are up there and the new one is right there keeping track just so I understand this third light does nothing to the surrounding properties and all it does is cast a little more light on the ground so it looks like from the photometrics yeah that's how it looked in general there's some very low light levels as you come out of the parking garage as you're making that swing around there's 0.2, 0.2, 0.4 that would be nice so is there a reason why you're keeping them that low on site I just don't want people tripping and falling where are you looking John right here as you exit the current I don't know what the number is on Fayette but the road that goes into the garage you come out of the back of it the interior you know most of these are one or one and a half and that's a level that you can walk and see but 0.2 is not is that part of this application improving that lighting it's not a requirement that they improve lighting the board is certainly welcome to request that they improve lighting I don't have a real problem with it it seems to me that the sconce on the back of the existing building could throw more light and fix this I don't know the specific numbers exactly but I think it's in the owner's best interest to provide a secure area in and out of that garage and I think not knowing the impact right now if it's unacceptable they would shoot to improve it in order to have safety and security of that garage for no purpose my concern as much as anything is you've got people coming out of that garage you've got people merging from these apartments at the same time they've got to be able to see each other you've got walking traffic theoretically these are micro units so many people probably won't drive so I'm a little concerned about people walking so if you just take a look at that absolutely thanks John more comments from the board on lighting if not let's move on to the curb geometry which looks great to me I like it a lot thank you very much for I think it does a lot especially the sense of going straight ahead from the right hand lane across where you can find parking so right straight ahead is the only garage that looks great to me I agree I think functionally it will work much better for everybody the community, the residents the parking structure itself I think everybody was in we just didn't know how to accomplish it at the last meeting I think working with the city we're able to figure out a way that's very nice yeah board comments questions did the fire department approve that I didn't quite get that the geometry I understand that a fire truck access may be capable doing that I'm asking did the fire department look at it the proposed access to the new building both I mean you've just changed the fire truck doesn't get going to the garage I guess right so it's only into the garage nope the fire department has minimum geometry that is in our LDRs and this exceeds that and that was the point of the staff comment is that it exceeds it on the western edge of the 115 Fayette for no reason that we were able to discern and it seems like there's additional impervious that doesn't need to be there on the western side it's actually the existing curb cut on the west side the existing curb cut is intact as well as the pavement that's there so we're actually just not modifying that western radius what's the condition of that curb is it going to be able to actually be retained I think so again Ward staff comments comments questions from the public hearing none entertain a motion to close move that we close continued preliminary final plot application SD 1806 second it's been moved and seconded we close this application all in favor say aye opposed thank you very much for coming in thank you very much everybody next on the agenda number eight sketch plan application SD 1809 of pizzicata properties LLC constructed a two story 55,000 square foot medical office building with 275 parking spaces on 15.07 acres at 194 tilley drive to the applicant Bob Bouchard pizzicata properties how are you Bob very good thanks you Bill Bill conflicts oh thank you very much conflicts of interest we do some work with Bob and his cohorts and I don't think it'll affect me in any way but if the board or Bob would like me to refuse myself I will Bob why don't you close up the fence between the hospital parking lot and the guys next door you have to show me that beautiful park with the past it is beautifully right we didn't close it up Frank the other guys did yes sorry me too the park's still beautiful okay Bob if you'd walk us through what you've got so 194 tilley drive is lot five in the mountain view office park subdivision this is the sixth building it's being proposed in the subdivision it's a two story 55,000 square foot medical office building 27,500 square feet per floor 200 I think I've already said 275 parking spaces 15.07 acres and it's being proposed right now for the medical center the building is proposed to be LEED certified and we are proposing a substantial photovoltaic array on the roof there will be just as you come in to the main drive on the right hand side a series of electrical vehicle parking stations with electrical vehicle charging stations as well the core and shell will be LEED certified and the fit up will be LEED certified as well but the fit up is taking place a little bit later than the base building well obviously we're here for sketch review and what I really was hoping to do is just I know it's not technically a formal approval but just to get the board's thoughts and consensus on the plan before we moved on to preliminary review and obviously there's a extensive amount of additional design work that we're going to be proposing under pre-limit and so if board has no other comments or questions or staff has no other comments or questions I'd like to just move into staff comments questions so the first staff comment is how the properties intend to provide visual and physical access to open space so previously we actually had the building position where it kind of had its back to the adjoining building 192 Tilly Drive Medical Office building that's occupied by the University of Vermont Medical Center and so we flopped the building away so the buildings now kind of look at each other they have a nice connecting walk and the building also now connects to the with an extended sidewalk to the rec path so you've got interconnectivity between the buildings in addition to the sidewalk the parking lots as well have a connecting drive on the rear part of the site for shared parking between the two buildings I'm not sure if that addresses your question exactly was staff looking for like I think this is north where you're looking for connectivity to the east like to that or is the interstate in the way isn't that the digital you know the whole community drive off to the right technology part is here so obviously this is class two wetlands so staying out of all that zero impact to the wetlands or buffers and this is the walk system that takes you down here and connects to the rec path which goes through the technology parts extensive series of rec paths so first caveat I didn't write this comment but the idea was to talk about I guess we talked a lot about pedestrian amenities but also there's the sort of open space to it not necessarily active recreation but passive recreation for lunch okay right well we're happy to show that under the next series of plans we'd like to consult with our prospective tenant hospital and see where they would like to have picnic tables and maybe a patio or something like that probably to the the southeast of the building we're pretty good distance away from the wetland buffer so there's plenty of room there to put picnic tables and whatnot happy to show that yep right there board have comments questions on that response as long as you have the parking lot up there I mean it's enormous right yeah let's go to comment number three now I was wondering if you could keep the picture of the parking lot there because I was going not so much to the number of spaces but whatever breaks it up are those little white islands landscaping and barriers is that what that is right there's a specific obviously there's a specific requirement for the landscape interior landscape islands and that I mean this is again this is sketch this is preliminary franken in nature at this point in time but we'll make sure that we meet that requirement well yeah if that's all the requirement is my instinct of my at least as I apprehended right now it just doesn't look like enough to break it up some there's a requirement that they provide at least 10% of the interior of the parking area in green islands of minimum sizes specified in the regulations does that meet does that meet the 10% I'm sorry we don't know we're not at that stage yet but obviously the intent is to meet that they'll have to comply with that at the next stage maybe they could exceed I mean it just looks massively concrete even with the you know whatever you can do well it's 275 parking spaces 5 per thousand according to the regulations maybe it builds a point it's well taken we go to the next comment yeah number three staff considers that the board has the authority to grant up to a 25% parking waiver you have experience with similar property at 192 can you get away so a 25% waiver would be like 50 ish 60 ish off 225 to 15 no I can't stay with the 5 per thousand regulations and that's what our tenants going to want as a matter of fact they'd want more if they could it's an intensive medical office uses that they're proposing here if you went out to 192 the building next door you see that's the same parking ratio and they utilize those spaces the first two buildings in subdivision 62 tillie drive and 118 tillie drive both almost fully medical office use at this point in time 5 per thousand parking ratio they use them all yeah I can as a patient 192 I can confirm that my question would be is one of the comments is a campus like field you expect the staff will be working in both buildings you expect that some of the parking spaces the new building will be utilized by the 192 is there going to be or is there going to be really a separation between the properties well they have the ability to do that with the interconnectivity with the drives right now front and back I think there is that possibility but we're right now designing this to accommodate this building alone I don't know if the board's aware it is public knowledge that the University of Vermont Medical Center has filed for a certificate of need to purchase two buildings in the subdivision currently 62 and 192 tillie drive so it is for your edification and it's the client for this right the hospital the client for this one I'm going to reiterate it's just a massive piece of hardscape that parking lot and anything you can do to break it up ameliorate it is there more land available well it's pretty tight to be honest with you I mean 15.07 acres but I'd say over half of it is wetland and wetland buffer to class 2 wetlands so we're doing our best to stay out of that I think it'll certainly look better when we put in the landscaping plan we incorporate that there's obviously a substantial amount of landscaping that will be going in to this site because it's an expensive building but it's a relative term right if you just look at the sheer I've said it already you got that point will any of it be bio soils to handle storm water runoff and all that yes now currently there are two ponds on site could you go to the cover page there you are I don't know if you can see the two ponds north and south these were sized to accommodate these two sites so they're currently serving storm water for this and they would be serving for storm water here they may have to be adjusted so I want to correct myself we are proposing that these ponds would accommodate storm water there would not be any additional bioretention areas ideally but we have to submit our soil findings to the state I'm not sure if you're aware the storm water regulations have really changed and they don't want these kinds of ponds anymore they want infiltration so the bioretention area comes into play so if they deem that the soils could accommodate infiltration that's what you're going to see us do if they deem that the soils do not and cannot accommodate the infiltration we're going to be utilizing the ponds I know it's early to talk about this kind of stuff but since you're adding all that in pervious surface is there an opportunity for rainwater reclamation and using that in the that is being discussed through the lead certification process we might be considering that tanks, pumps it's expensive but we're looking at it the lead process has really changed recently went from a 30-point minimum to a 40-point minimum to achieve certification and what once was maybe you'd consider photovoltaic system now it's almost mandatory I realize that I'm gathering to the left of the parking lot the sort of the blueish-gray shape is a rough representation of the building is that the idea that's an existing building that's the 192 that's 192 where's the building going? to the right stick figure you probably realize that the zoning regulations changed where now we have to adhere to the current regulations which dictate that all of the parking goes behind the building when 192 was developed some of the parking could be put in the front and that's ideally what I would have come to you with was the building in the middle of the site with the parking shared all around it but I can't do that now with the current zoning regs so all the parking has to be in the rear so that's why it looks like you've got that massive parking because we're trying to hide all the parking behind the building this plan was an alternate to this plan was previously approved by the development review board fully which was identical to the building on the left just reversed but those permits have expired and this is we have to deal with the current regulations as they exist it becomes like an island rather than like a two separate driveway just by the way it's got 200 parking comments good or bad about that it's an observation and obviously that's going to be an area where we can put a fair amount of landscaping right there too Bob I assume the quality of the building is going to be similar to all the other it will be brick and glass and stone just to share this thank you so a little bit different from the other buildings the ends of the buildings are going to have more storefront with a spandrel glass coming down I think it's a nice feature operable windows this time around the other buildings are all fixed matter of fact 1, 2, 3, 4 of the 5 buildings all have fixed windows these will have operable windows which will be nice I think a similar brick color granite that will be about the same 28 feet tall a little bit change probably the mechanical equipment on the roof this time around that's where we are there's going to be a pretty sizable porch co-share at the entrance of the building so that the tenant has the opportunity to drive underneath under cover to drop patients off much like 192 tilley drive you know I'm looking at the table with the checked off compliances on lot sizes down at the bottom it says height require 35 feet and then you've expressed proposed as stories instead of feet are you within the 35 feet? 28 feet Frank the building is 28 feet tall John you had a comment but I think you just made it my biggest comment is one about parking and the fact that planning's regulation of putting them all behind the buildings doesn't make sense in many conditions and we should have the ability to override this is one of the this would be a better looking building and a better looking parking lot if we had the ability to not stick them all in the back the requirement is actually on the side or rear not in the front so it's all side thanks I mean in order to get to this you have to you take a right and you curl around what is the front? you know if you wanted to argue hard enough about it you've got the highway looking at the other side of it is that the front? I think this is a perfect example of something where a mirrored building would have looked great and they're having to take a step back in order to fit a regulation that doesn't make sense that's my take so in our ongoing conversation with the Planning Commission about changes to LDRs is this something that clearly John feels strongly about it do other board members feel strongly about this should we and of course obviously we should get Mark well is this something we should put on the list? this is awkward because on this particular project I completely agree with John which is rare enough in itself but but I am hesitant to use that as a wedge to have a general rule that gives us more latitude it's screaming what John's point is screamingly obvious same thing on CVS we had three sides that were front and the parking could have been better if we had had flexibility well do we have some latitude in this case too can we collaborate on defining a front are you open to changing this you just want to get it one side of it can't have parking whichever side is the front and in order to get close to what looking like what the other one does you would at least have to have a drive on the front and whatever the front is and you've got a wetlands issue it's a tough one setting that aside getting back to the matter of hand I think we should if you would remember during a planning commission meeting if we could bring that up and certainly it's an internal discussion as well Matt you had a comment I'm sorry no my only comment it's sort of off topic but if we were talking to the planning commission what would be the criteria that would allow if we had the way what are the established criteria in order to allow us to wave the condition that the parking would be in the rear which is why I'd rather redefine the front if there's some way to redesign this particular project my concern is the particular project not the general probe issue so the second staff comment was the campus field open space amenities so you kind of addressed that before is there more that we want to hear about the campus field open space amenities picnic benches and walking paths and Japanese gardens and so on I think it's really all tied together and I think that Frank has made pretty much the point that we were making which is that it just feels like a lot of unbroken up payment yep it is yeah so when you come back there's also a criterion for trees a number of trees isn't there in parking one per five one tree per five spaces so many inside the parking area right exactly yeah I'm looking at this supplemental it says parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible and then one says parking requirements may be modified depending to the extent of shared parking the presence of sidewalks and recreation don't we get some wiggle room out of this there is some but the exceptions I don't believe this property meets all the exceptions we can read you what the exceptions are well I'm just reading not exceptions but just interpreting the requirement one two three four specifically focus on if possible right well one says may be modified depending on the extent of shared parking the presence of sidewalks and recreation plans well but in this case that would be reducing the number of parking spaces which is not something that she doesn't want to do well I assume you don't really want to tie one property to the other you want them to be separate parcels but you know in design for efficient internal circulation would you say that you have better internal circulation fire department would be much happier if it went all the way around all the way around the building sure that's pretty good though right now they got access to three sides so would that fit the definition of better internal circulation efficient internal circulation I agree with you but let Ray tell us what the exceptions are there are very specific exceptions he has to meet these in order to be able to give him some parking in the front of the building the development review board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met the board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below one the parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act two the parking area will serve a single or two family three the lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking but not a building to be located adjacent to the public street four the lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be reused and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing buildings five six whatever the principal use of the lot is for public recreation or lastly the lot is located within the mixed industrial commercial zoning district which is not and meets the following criteria mind putting a two family home off the front of it so obviously we spent a fair amount of time working with Ray Marla and Paul about this issue we actually brought the original plan and that was previously approved don't four years ago right there about some you remember this oh yes remember that and but we have to work under what current guidelines are current regs are where we are I don't know if this is splitting hairs or even relevant but if the hospital gets okay to purchase one ninety two and this is one ninety four is that technically a public street still or could it be made what's your the one that goes between the two buildings no separate drive comes in they would have a right of way over that drive other buildings the street is here so this would be deemed the front the space building and the street that drive actually is all on this lot they would have a right of way over the drive so is it considered public street there's the driveway right now and under the proposed condition so which part of the buildings are front the short piece that's the space between here and here that whole area that's the front of the building between this well then how about off to the right I could put I believe they could park parking in here that's a wetland looks like on the other page there's some limited space I mean I don't know Bob if there's other reasons but there's a little bit of limited space if you go to the second page between the wetland buffer I don't know if you can see can you see it yeah so that's impossible yeah you're fucked up guess what well it's out the buffer right there happens we do have some grating well that's possible a wing of it around you know what we could do potentially is relocate the dumpster bring a wing of the parking around here and that's more island it sounds like it also sounds like looking at the exceptions I don't know what the handicapped space requirement is for something that big but in the exceptions it sounded like you had an exception for handicapped spaces yes first one the entrance is where the handicapped spaces need to be so you can't put the handicapped spaces on the front no no that's what I'm saying you can put what he was saying where you got an exception he could pick up some space in the back by moving the handicapped spaces they just got to have anyway to the front because that's within the exception if the handicapped spaces are on the front the entrance is on the back then the handicapped spaces are in the wrong place won't there be an entrance on the front right here there'll probably be a fire exit how can the front not be where the entrance that's crazy it's like the front door that you don't use in your house we're at a good point Matt if you look at our building at 462 Shemberone there's the perfect example so if there are no more comments on parking I think that would be a nice solution to move some things around we'll look at that sure we've got room to get to probably not a double isle but a single isle in there almost a little bit of satellite parking that would allow us to certainly put in some more landscaped islands obviously we need to meet that 10% rule at the very least it would certainly help to break things up a bit even if you pivoted the building a little bit that would give you even more room out back that impacts everything so it impacts every row of parking happy to look at it though so the last thing I want to make sure we didn't leave unconsidered were there more things we'd be looking for from a campus field standpoint or have we discussed that with the picnic benches open space that's usable I think has been covered and wetlands does not so the wetland buffer is usable but not the wetlands themselves so the planning commission is working on some amendments which would apply some of the form based code type open space requirements to all districts so just for the board's information that things are heading that direction having usable open space as opposed to the leftover spaces between the areas that are otherwise usable for development I would kind of tend again these words don't come easily to me but I would kind of tend having seen an example of the medical building they did down the street for me I would kind of tend to trust them on amenities on those kind of amenities you ought to come over and look at that they did this little I can't get over that they did this little took one end of this parking lot the medical building Hadley Road and Shelburne Road and they took the the east end of it and somebody just designed this beautiful I wouldn't even call it a pocket park I don't know what to call it but you know whoever did that take them over there and see what they can do well right Frank the walk right now that connects the two buildings I think we can certainly look to dress that up and I think that's kind of really the objective maybe with some rock walls and some obviously we've got a healthy landscaping budget so that gives us an opportunity to use something on rock walls and planting in that area so what do you allow to do in the buffer in that regard can't put tables back there or anything like that you can put unfilled walking paths you can mow but you can't put gravel or anything we were always told the state had always told us we cannot groom we cannot mow buffers my discussion was with them about the creation of a park so it might be a different conversation you might be getting a different answer I was talking to them about which is totally reasonable good other comments questions from the board as a matter of fact I think the state should require that we put a fencing up to delineate the edge of the buffer Matt last hearing had a beautiful suggestion about providing maybe some landscape boulders instead of a fence that was you've seen them what we put up that split rail, see the split rail fence on there that was a state condition how to be too bad on this site because anything that even tends to close it in anymore back there is more comments, questions from the board staff from the public we will move forward thank you very much, good to see you see you next up on agenda minutes from March 6 is that the name one of my names was at the 20 I'm sorry, which name was which one of my name was off March 20 the next one so March 20 minutes at the bottom of page 2 Mr. Kot Mr. Kova otherwise anyone have any comments or questions on the minutes I just have a question, I see we're going from the narrative version to the legal minimum necessary that is the audio tape is fairly audio I don't think it's bad to tell you the truth and I think you were actually called Mr. Kot that night yeah I might have I move we approve minutes you should have been called Mr. Kot March 6 and March 20 that's amended second, we approve these minutes I'll never say aye, opposed and that is the other business I will not be here for the next meeting anyone else yes one piece of other business I've been thinking over what Ray said in a different context the last time I was here I'm sorry I missed the last one I made a somewhat snarky remark that when we go illegal as in having to close the liberation we go illegal all the way and Ray's response was well, you know don't you like your clients to follow your advice and that stopped me for a minute but here's my considered response which is that there was a different relationship between and I understand staff feeling bound at least in their recommendations by what council recommends we are distinctly not bound by what council recommends I wouldn't ignore it ever but not only do we have the right we have the duty to make our own determinations and that's what we should be doing in questionable cases and whenever anybody such as myself raises a serious issue if an error is suggested in council recommendation I think is this board's duty to consider that that's my other business comment thank you you all look at that may I add one more thing which has nothing to do with that but I think we all should thank the late Pat Noak for her service she's been a long time supporter of the city and a good friend to me and she'll be missed and that should make it into the minutes thank you very much John so that's the end of the review board meeting 8.30 thanks very much everyone take care sit down Frank we have