 Philston Development Review Board for December 14th, 2021. I'm Kelly, Chair of the DRV. Welcome to the applicants and the public participants. Please sign in. If you're doing this by Zoom, please sign in renaming yourself on the participant toolbar so that we know who you are and if you're going to use the chat function, it helps facilitate that. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the police station meeting room and virtually on Zoom. All members of the Board of the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. All votes taken in the meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to January 11th, 2022. Let's start by taking a roll call attendance of DRV members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Present. Scott Riley. Present. David Saladino. He is not, I think he is away tonight. So he's not here. David Turner. OK, we have five. Present. So we do have a forum. Thank you. OK, next up, Emily, why don't you walk us through the Zoom instructions, please? Thank you. Oh, Simon. OK, everyone, welcome to this hybrid meeting. As the chair said, please take a moment to rename yourself. If you're on Zoom, you can do that using the by clicking the participant column on your toolbar and then clicking rename in the top corner. If you are here in the room with us and you are using a laptop or a mobile to stream the Zoom meeting, please make sure you keep the microphone, camera and speaker off to avoid any interference. For those of you on Zoom, the toolbar to Zoom has a number of features. In the bottom left corner is the mute button and that controls your mic. It allows you to mute or unmute yourself. You also have the stop video button. The video is optional. You can have it on or off. The center button is for chat. You can use that to message me. I'm Simon Miles. We have technical issues and I'll see whether I can help. We also have the reactions button that has a raise hand feature, which you can use here in public testimony to engage and you'd like to speak. Alternatively, you can just message me in the chat. You'd like to speak. And lastly, if you are on the telephone, you can use star 9 to raise your hand or star 6 to mute yourself. We will be using screen share this evening. It should default automatically to the side-by-side mode for you, which is what we recommend viewing. However, if it's not, you can access it by clicking the new option on the art sharing, clicking the side-by-side mode and then you can use the central slider there to adjust the size of the screen share in the video. And lastly, if you are having a bad internet connection, there's a number of things you can try. You can try turning off your video and try closing browser tabs, shutting down computer programs or closing phone apps or you can try using your telephone as a speaker. And you do that by clicking the small pop-out next to the new button, clicking most computer audio and then dialing in via Zoom using the meeting ID which you can obtain from our website. Thank you, Simon. OK, the sequence of events tonight is a little bit different. That's because the last time the DRV met, it was November 23rd and we did not deliberate that evening. We came back for a separate, separate deliberation session. So tonight we are going to read the motions and recommendations from that meeting. But before we do that, I would like a motion to approve the minutes of the November 23rd, 2021 meeting. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, John. Any further discussion? OK, yay or nay, please. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarten. Yay. The chair is a yay. Scott Riley. Yay. And Dave Turner, you can vote if you have watched the video of that hearing. Have you watched the video of that hearing? I did watch the video. OK, yay or nay? Yay. Thank you. Five in favor, none opposed. The meetings are approved. OK, next up. I would like a motion for DP 22-01, which is a pre-app for the Trinity Baptist Church. Is there a D.R.P. member who would like to read that motion? I'm happy to read it. OK, thank you. Let's see here. Bear with me. Bear with me one second. Do we have so it's so we have the changes up on the screen, correct? Yes, we do. No, you have that document that was circulated by email. Yeah, yeah. Or would you like to have a second to the motion? Well, I've got the document that came in my packet. Let's Pete, let's just cover it. Let's just cover this. Make sure we're I'm on the right page here. OK. The motions on the motions on page four of the of the document that I have. Actually, there's a modification to on page five. Are we reading both of them? Actually, Scott, there's the first motion is at the top of page three for 22-01, as opposed to 22-02. And I folks, I'm going to disadvantage the I never did get a packet. So I what you're looking at, I don't have. You're looking for you're looking for a motion on 22-01. Is that correct? I'm looking for a motion on 22-01. It's the it's the it should be consistent with the amendments that we made that were circulated to the D.R.B. OK, yeah. OK, I got it. All right. All right. Here we go. OK. All right. As authorized by WD six point six point three, I got Riley move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 23, 2021, except the recommendations for DP 22-01 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management. The we have struck discretionary permit review from that last sentence changes. The changes that have been made are on our screen. Do you want me to go through them? I do. Yes, please. OK. All right. Very good. Recommendations for the motion on number two, a provide the town and easement of 64 feet wide. Has been added to the right of way of the property line with Christ Memorial Church. Number four, adding these a sentence to the end that the traffic study shall include analysis of weekday morning and evening peak hours and a Sunday morning peak hour and shall include analysis of the site of the driveways and the Vermont to a forward slash industrial avenue forward slash Mountain View Road intersections at a minimum. Adding number seven, depending on the results of the legal opinion being sought by the town for calculating density, the applicant may be required to subdivide the commercial element of the development from the residential component for density calculation purposes and may be required to calculate density using the acreage of the residential parcel only. Number eight, the applicant shall give special consideration to the relocation of the soccer field to minimize adjacent property impacts. Adding number nine, depending on the results of the legal opinion being sought by the town on on the staff accessory housing units, these units may be required to obtain growth management allocation. Adding number 10, the applicant should provide a 20 foot easement for future bicycle forward slash pedestrian improvements along the frontage of Mountain View Road. And that is it. Right. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, John. Any further discussion? No. No, I'm good. OK, yeah, yeah, or nay, please. Paul Christensen. OK. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. The chair is a yeah, Scott Riley. Yeah. Dave Turner. Yeah. I have a favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for D P 22 dash zero two that's the pre app for the Trinity Baptist Church for the review of the proposed three law residential subdivision? Pete, I can I have a motion for that. OK, thank you, John. As authorized by WDB six point six point three, I, John Hemmelgarn moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations to the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 23rd, 2021, except as recommendations for D P 22 day zero two and authorize this application, move forward to growth management. We are going to make a couple of adjustments to the recommendations drafted by staff. We are going to strike in its entirety recommendation number two B and recommendation two D. And I believe that is that's it. That was simple. Great. OK. Thank you, John. Is there a second second? Thank you, Paul. Any discussion? No. So. OK, Paul Christensen. Yeah, your name. Yeah. John Hemmelgarn. Yeah. The chair is a yeah. Scott Riley. Hey. Dave Turner. Hey. Five in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Next up is the appeal 22 dash zero one. Is there a would it be a motion or. Or a just a reader, I'm assume. When you say, Paul, I'm assuming it's just someone to read it. I don't think it's a motion. Yeah, yeah, it is a motion. Is there a motion? Yeah, I their their motion for appeal 22 dash zero one. Yeah, I've got that. Pete. Thanks, John. Go ahead. As authorized by WDB five point four point six, I John Hemmelgarn moved that the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision, all of the accompanying materials and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 23rd, 2021, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for APP 22 day zero one and appeal of the issuance of a certificate of compliance and modify the decision of the administrator to issue CC 22 day zero nine. Specifically, the board reinstates the temporary certificate of compliance with a new expiration date of June 30th, 2022. The appellee shall submit a detailed landscaping plan drawn to scale by qualified landscape architect or designer covering the entire road frontage of the parcel to old stage road and including additional planting. This landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Development Review Board for approval. Staff shall verify proper installation of the landscaping for compliance with the approved landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a final certificate of compliance. To go along with that motion. The conclusions of law shall read number one. The revised landscaping plan submitted for AP 21 day zero one to zero does not meet the requirements of WDB 23.3. Number two, the zoning administrator did not issue CC 22 day zero nine in conformance with AP 21 day zero one to zero and DP 18 day zero eight conditions of approval and final plans. And lastly, the zoning administrator did not issue CC 22 day zero nine in conformance with the procedures of WDB chapter seven. Thank you, John. It's our second. I'll second it. Thank you, Scott. Is there a discussion? No, I'm good. OK. Paul Christensen, yeah, or nay, nay, John Hemmelgarn, yay. The chair is a yeah, Scott Riley, yay. Dave Turner, yay. Four in favor, one opposed motion carries. Thank you. I think they don't have a question. OK, go ahead. Hi. So I'm wondering if the DRB can provide me with a clear clear definition of what the type one landscape buffer is. But when I've gone to the zoning administrator, he had told me that I was within the definition. And so the DRB is saying I'm not within the definition. So I would appreciate some clarity from the DRB so that I can come up with an appropriate plan. For a landscape buffer composed primarily of existing woodland or forest that must be sufficient height density to provide effective visual buffer where this buffer is proposed. It should include photographic documentation of its effectiveness. The landscaping plant should also propose supplemental new plantings where existing vegetation is too thin to be an effective visual buffer. This type of buffer must be relatively wide to sustain its habitat value and to function as a woodland or forest that needs only minimal maintenance. Right. And so when I worked with the zoning administrator, he felt like I had met that. So I guess I'm I'm just confused. Like I want to be in compliance, but I thought I was, but it turns out that I'm not. So I'm not really sure what else what I need to do from here. I need some more guidance. Well, the guidance is to submit a is to submit a plan scale that goes along the entire front of the of the road. That would be a good start. Something on a napkin. And, you know, I would recommend that you use a, you know, somebody who is used to developing those those plans and has done that in the past. And I would also recommend that that you get out ahead of this and develop that plan and submit it early to the DRB. This is this is going to require not a lot of review on our part. So we we're going to be happy to fit that into the next meeting that we have after receipt of that plan and will provide you feedback that same that same evening. And so, you know, get ahead of this. What we didn't feel that what was there was was adequate. And and we also viewed the the quality and the professionalism of the plan and and that's not intended to be critical of whoever did it. It doesn't matter. We just didn't feel that that was met our expectations. And so we're looking for a scaled landscaping plan that meets the criteria that Emily just read. And again, we we we want to work with you. We don't want to make this process difficult, but we didn't feel that what you have done today was sufficient. OK, thank you. Anything else in the chat? No, just something about. Some Twitter comments here. Yeah, OK. Yeah. OK. All right. So now, again, we're going a bit out of order tonight. So before we go into the public hearings, as warned, we're going to do a public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone here in the room or participating by Zoom to comment on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. So the floor is yours. If you have a comment on anything that's not on the agenda. Anyone in the room? Ma'am, could you please state your name and address for the record, please? Yeah, I just had a question. I notice as I'm going to a maple tree parking lot, there's something that has mushrooms there. There's some equipment, maybe some supplies and something with a fence around it. And I'm wondering, did that have to get some sort of committing to be there or, you know, how does that work? It just it's pretty unsightly. And I'm just thinking of the people that are living in those apartments for years, they have to look out their back yard and look at that Vermont gas. Jump yard for years. And now they look at their front yard front window and they see this thing that has mushrooms over the last month or two. So I'm just wondering how that occurred. Did it have to be permitted? Is it allowable? Just some general information. Great, thank you. So that is a staging area for EW construction. I'm employed by EW construction, so I'm going to recuse myself from answering that and ask staff to answer please. So this is behind maple tree place housing. It's right in the parking lot. It's actually like, I don't know, inside of maybe the INS building. You know, it's in the parking lot of maple tree. You know, South Zephyr Road in maple tree place. This is the first I'm hearing of it, but I just want to confirm there was, is it near like on the southern maple tree place in the Vestar? No, it's behind. Emily, it's behind the where the deli was and the jewelry store. And it's right. It's right across the road from the from the houses. It's it's in the it's underneath the Velco right of way, as if that helps, too. I know exactly where that is. Thanks, Pete. You know, you refuse yourself from the conversation, but can you tell everybody what project that's related to? Sure, there's a trifle and she must be from Dirty Dog. So there's a there's a GSA. Project that's in the the office portion of the of the maple tree, the maple tree place buildings. So you know, the office buildings kind of wrap around the green. There's offices in there. And one of them, one of the tenants is the is the GSA and the GSA is is is renovating a space, EW construction is the contractor. And in that fencing area is a staging area for equipment and materials for that project. And it's away from the building to not take up more prime parking spaces. So that's and so that's why it's there is to avoid being next to the building and take up parking spaces. And the duration that it's going to be there is I don't know exactly, but I don't think it's more than another like three months. It's not it's not a big project. It's a renovation inside. So it's nothing like that requires sort of permitting from the town. Temporary staging area that impacts parking. Usually it's either included in whatever the permit is for the work or if it's relatively lighter. We think not to permit individually for that. It really it really depends. So I don't have access to my hard drive, but I think the GSA work is is not at the level where it's even required to permit from the town. So I don't think we have a record of this one. I just I'm just commenting, but it's pretty exciting. And, you know, the people there's housing right there and they're looking out at it. And I I don't think it's a very good representation for the town. And so I was just wondering if something like that does I didn't know that come before this board and then. No, it wouldn't come before the DRB. Typically, like I another maple tree place example is the bank conversion of the former men's warehouse site on the other side of the project. And, you know, we have we have a permit out that allows all those interior and exterior changes that that in that course of that project, there would also be some outdoor storage of stuff is just kind of assumed. So on a low level project, it may not even require a permit occupying some parking spaces and some temporary storage. If it dragged on for a long, long time, we might eventually ask the property manager to relocate something like that or gain a permit for it. But the other part is if somebody wanted to temporarily use a portion of the parking lot construction staging for work on site, we wouldn't. We wouldn't. So 70 14 does have some standards about the storage of temporary construction stuff that it not impede access that there be some security around it. So we could go take a look at it and make sure that the parking can still circulate for vehicles can still circulate around and that security is being that Russia. So you guys tell me when you want me to transition to the back, you're OK. I just don't want to overstep my balance. OK, any other public forum discussion or comments? OK, hearing done, we're now going to transition to agenda item number three, which is the public hearing. First up is D.P. Twenty two dash zero three Riley Cohen partnership LLC requesting a discretionary permit to establish an eight hundred square foot outdoor storage area at one fifty six Avenue B. Pete. Pete. Yes, sir. I am going to recuse myself from D.P. Twenty two dash zero three and I am going to recuse myself from D.P. Zero nine dash zero one point two four. I have a financial interest in both of these hearings. All right, so you are a member of the audience for the rest of the evening. I am a member. Yes, I will not be rejoining. But OK, thank you, Scott. So noted. OK, so from a. Forum perspective, then. That puts us at at four, so we still have a forum. OK, Andy, you're representing the applicant if you would introduce yourself and your address for the record place. Yes, I am. Excuse me, Andy. Roll member of Dickinson 14 Morris Drive Essex. OK, thank you, Andy. Is there anybody anyone else or you solely? My name is Mark Wayman from BBC Property Meetings. We occupy the space and right in your address, please. So it's the one fifty six. I mean, OK, great. And you're just Matthew, one of the owners of the property. Oh, right. OK. And your address. Well, we're dressed in a property. The address of the property. And we'll go with one fifty six out of the address. OK, staffs up first. Sorry about that. Riley Cohen Partnership, LSE requests a discretionary permit to establish an approximately eight hundred square foot outdoor storage area at one fifty six Avenue B located in the industrial zoning district West. The property is currently developed with multiple commercial industrial uses. Staffs recommending approving the discretionary permit application as proposed with findings and conditions of approval as drafted. This property has existed since at least the early 1980s and was part of the original Griswold Industrial Park. Recently, there's only been permits issued for changes in signage. Um, no advisory boards reviewed the project. The public works fire and police reviewed the project, the Department of Public Works and fire department submitted comments. And staff is recommending that the applicant communicate with those departments regarding compliance with their standards. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail out. The uses on the site include rental and leasing services, linen, uniform supply and property management services. All existing uses are allowed in this district. Industrial zoning district West. The existing site and the proposed structure comply with respect to dimensional standards, including the minimum lot furniture requirement, the maximum allowed building height and the minimum front yard setback. The minimum rear and side yard setbacks are controlled by the landscape buffer requirements of chapter 23. And the existing site is not in compliance with today's standards. Outdoor storage is permitted in the zoning district, but only within signage yards that are in compliance with today's standards. They are designated for that purpose on an approved site plan. Outdoor storage must be buffered from public ways and adjoining properties. The DRB can require a screening fence. The applicant is proposing outdoor storage for the property management tendency on the site. A 13 foot by 20 foot by 14 foot high tent structure is proposed for salt storage during winter months and mulch storage during summer months. The tent is proposed to be placed on concrete blocks. A 20 foot by 25 foot concrete block bunker is proposed for storage of landscape materials, both the tent and the outside storage will be located on the existing page surface outside of the proposed nine foot rear yard setback. Staff is recommending that the proposed outdoor storage complies and that because the proposed structures will be enclosed, no additional screening should be required. The subject parcel is non conforming with respect to landscape buffers and rear and rear and side yard setbacks. Per WDB 2.8, the DRB may require that non conformities be corrected as a condition of approval of a discretionary permit for additional development on the same lot. This power is limited to requiring work that is reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. The proposed project requires a discretionary permit because the subject property is an existing commercial industrial site. The applicant is proposing an accessory structure greater than 120 square feet and the proposed structure is not attached to an existing building. So the landscaping, you see this is existing landscaping is shown on the site plan. The subject parcel is adjacent to a public way and heavy commercial industrial parcels to the north, east and south. The property side and rear setbacks don't comply with the landscape buffer requirements. The DRB must decide if the scale of proposed development warrants the requirement to bring the landscaping into compliance with the standards. A nine foot type three buffer would be most feasible and could be reduced with a fence. The DRB should modify the draft conclusion of law and condition of approval for landscaping requirements according to whatever you decide. Per WDB 26.1.2, street trees are required along the existing road fringe of redevelopment projects. WDB 26.2.1.2 requires street trees and non-residential developments to be planted at least 40 feet long, every 40 feet along the road. The subject parcel has a few street trees that would need to be supplemented with additional trees to meet the current standards of WDB chapter should be 26. The DRB must decide if the scale of the proposed development warrants the requirement to bring the landscaping into compliance with current standards and the DRB should modify the draft conclusion of law and conditions of approval for street tree requirements accordingly. The development has two existing curb cuts on Avenue B. The proposed addition of an outdoor storage structure will not require changes to access parking on site infrastructure, outdoor lighting and or signage and no changes are proposed. The site is not within any conservation areas, watershed protection buffers or flood hazard areas. The proposed project will not involve disturbance of land and will not result in additional and pervious area. And chapters 27, 28 and 29 are not applicable to the proposed project. Impact fees may be assessed at the discretion of the zoning administrator. And that's all I have. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Andy, I'm going to start with a couple of financial questions. What's the engineers estimate for this project? And so in other words, what did you put on the, what would you put on the permit application or value of this project? That's question number one. Question number two is, have you done a financial projection of the landscaping cost if you were to put it in to compliance with the current bylaws? Where I'm going with this is I'm trying to understand if that request is reasonable from a financial perspective. So if you were, you know, doing $50,000 worth of work and had $20,000 worth of landscaping, that probably would be disproportionate. Well, we haven't done a cost estimate for this. I can tell you that I already have all the existing materials to build this fault tank and storage that it's transferred from another property. But I can tell you that the materials are about $800 worth of materials. It's just concrete blocks and a shelter logic tank with some plywood in it. Okay, that's helpful. The tank is about 500 we concrete blocks about 40 bucks a piece. Okay, that's helpful. It's not it's not permanently attached to the ground. Andy, the floor is yours for any other comments that you may have. Don't need to comment on number two. As far as the, but we haven't done a cost estimate on what the landscape would require. Okay, my question number. Yes. Yes. So just to describe what's there. It was previously gravel parking along the two sideyards that, you know, there's some vegetation coming in on the gravel, particularly along the north side. It's shared in common with the cell, a little more so on the cell side. And the existing edge of pavement basically runs along the real property line. So if there was any landscaping to be done, the first thing that would need to be improved would be the soil conditions, whether it was along the side yards, or in the back, you have to cut pavement, take both pavement and then gravel up and put a suitable soil medium down there in order for anything to grow in it. So it'd be a cost associated with first improving it, and then secondly, placing any kind of land material there. Okay, any other any other comments on the staff report or the proposed conditions? No, obviously, we'd like to find in favor of the applicant in terms of the landscaping and the street trees. I think Melinda noted in the staff report that 10 street trees would be required. There's six there now, in the mix of, I think there's one large pine tree and the rest are neighbors. Yes. Anything else to add on the proposed conditions? In fact, there's green in front of the building from the two things that actually happened. There are six and seven trees that have been there, right? There are some additional foundation planings, particularly around the front of the building in the south side. DRB members, questions please. The only question I had was I couldn't hear Andy if he said the pavement went all the way to the back of the boundary line. Yes, the existing edge of pavement roughly runs along the rear property line now. And there is some gravel area beyond that that's been used in the past, but the edge of the pavement is essentially the rear property line. And you use right up to the property line, I'm assuming, the client uses right up to the property line? Historically, yes. The two structures that are being proposed, the tent structure in the bunker would be placed in nine feet so that it complies with that nine foot setback or landscape buffer, even though there's not a landscape element there, it would still be setback from the property line. Okay, thank you. Questions? So I'm trying to look at the site plan that's just kind of a gray blob on my packet. I'm not totally sure exactly where the tent is being proposed to go. Simon, would you put the site plan up on the screen please? So the tent on top of the concrete blocks is due east of the south-east corner of the building, and then the bunker, which is U-shaped, is immediately north of that. All right. So it's behind the building from the road? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Was this plan in our packet? I'm sorry. I'm not finding it here. Oh, wait. Hold on. It's with a letter. All right. I think I just found the right paper. But all right. I apologize. And as you know, I do know how to read the plans. Now that I have this plan in front of me, I realize that that was a stupid question. So all right. Thank you. No problem, John. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none. Members of the audience, both here in the building or that are participating by Zoom, any questions? If you do have a question, please do use the raise hand feature or put an message in the chat if you'd like to ask something. Well, I'll need it. Paul, do you have a question? Yeah, the only question I would have is what would it cost to throw just throw a couple of trees in the front of the building? That's it. Well, I think I think we know. I think we know a couple of trees would cost. So we could talk about that and and deliberation. Nothing else. Nothing else points out on this. OK, thank you. OK, Donna has a question. OK, go ahead. Just a quick question. So this discretionary permit, is this a limited or is it indefinite? If it's granted, you know, this this this has no time limit on it. So the only question that the reason I have that is because in the attachment, it says here when in this garage, it says it's a temporary structure and not represented as a permanent structure. So I'm kind of wondering if this is intended as a temporary and you're giving a discretionary permit, that's indefinite kind of contradictory to me. You want me to get it? So the well, I don't want to speak in terms of the permit, but the permits approval would be permanent. The structure might get replaced after two or three years. But the materials may be replaced if the tent wears out or if there's damage to it or something like that. The permit approval would continue and the materials may just get replaced. But you could replace this with something else and you would have to come back to our discretionary. No, no, it has to be replaced in time. OK. Sorry. Yes. And so it's it's it's not really a whole lot different than a roof, which has a useful life. It's it's just that in the industry, these types of structures are deemed temporary, which is which is really symbolic of their useful life, which is which is not long. But the but the permit would would mean that the applicant would have the right to replace in kind the same the same structure without having to go back to the process. Any other questions? Any other questions from the public? No, I'm not saying anything. You do have a question. Just write it down right quickly. It's just Chris. OK. Last call for questions. Do you have any members? No, I'm good. Good. OK, Andy. Nothing. Any last questions from the public? OK, hearing none, I have seven fifty one. We're going to close the twenty two dash zero three. Thank you. Next up, we're going to open the zero nine dash zero one dot twenty four, which is the Snyder commercial properties, LLC and Riley properties, LLC. This is a request for a discretionary permit to construct a building F as in Frank and all in line. Who is representing the applicant, Andy? You are and yes, OK, Andy, if you would state your name and address for the record again. Please, Andy Rowland, Dickinson, 14 Morris Drive, Essex. Mr. Snyder, good evening. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Yeah, Chris Snyder with the Snyder F.C. commercial properties in address of four zero seven six, Shelburne Road, Suite Six, Shelburne. OK, thank you. First, first up is next up is staff. This is a request for discretionary permit to construct a three story senior living facility with seventy four units structure and service parking out for lighting and resident amenities at six sixty eight Zephyr Road. The seventy two units will be thirty nine two bedrooms and thirty five one bedrooms. Currently, this is an undeveloped parcel. It has frontage on town and private roads. It's a state that's town. It's located in the top corners of the district, where it is subject to design review, but not conservation commission review. Tonight, staff is recommending that the D.R.V. take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate and make a recommend and make an approval. As I review the staff report, I'm going to focus mainly on for the D.R.V. to discuss tonight, which is architectural design, the number of access points, landscaping, particularly, particularly along Collins Lane and at the market street corner, off street parking and the number and location of trash cans. The D.R.V. may choose to continue the hearing and request or a shared parking study to reduce the amount of service parking proposed and I'll go on in detail later. Project history is summarized here for the crossing began permitting in 2003. Most recently, the D.R.V. approved the Urban Park site plan and building H.R.S. strong site plan. The hack, the historic and architectural advisory committee did provide comment and their recommendations are included. Public works and fire also commented on this application and their recommendations are included. I will note that the fire department originally requested a drivable surface through that courtyard on the north side of the building. But they backed off the request after discussing the other fire safety measures that are within the building. No comment letters were received from the public at the time of mail out, which was December 9th. Nor have they received a letter to date. Follows is a summation of the pre-application recommendations made by the D.R.V. and the applicant's response. In general, they responded to the operational elements that must be provided in a senior living facility, such as on-site staffing, the commercial kitchen providing one meal a day, laundry linen surface service, and a variety of indoor and outdoor community spaces. The applicant on the right side, you can see their responses to the pre-app recommendations about architectural elements, the concrete foundation exposure, awnings over emergency exits, etc. the screening of mechanical equipment and the landscaping plan for the area and more. I will note that at CREAP, the D.R.V. did request a shared parking study. The applicant declined to provide one. I'll go into that further soon. Invested rights. I do note that the select board approved a bylaw revision that does apply to this application. Most importantly, that the new parking standards are being applied here. And we did include a copy of that chapter to the D.R.V. in the packet. Retirement homes without nursing care are considered a health care and social assistance use, which is allowed in the zoning district. And in general, we're finding that it complies by providing those on-site services like staffing in the kitchen, etc. It complies with the dimensional standards. I do know that there is the Velco easement that constrains where buildings can be located on the site. And development pattern in general, the application complies. The D.R.V. should review the hack recommendations about architectural elements. The standards in chapter 41 are very similar about a distinguished foundation base, a distinguished top and breaking up building maps. This building is approximately 46 feet and typically building height is limited to 36 feet. But there is an allowable increase where 30 percent for greater of the parking is provided in the structure. In this case, they are providing about 93 percent of their required parking underneath the building where they're permitted to have a height incentive. And this is to allow three or four story buildings. They are proposing three stories. Finny crossing overall complies with the five of nine criteria. And that's summarized here. In growth management is not included. Though senior living does have a residential appearance and function, it is a commercial use and not subject to growth management. Access connectivity and traffic studies. The D.R.V. should discuss the number and location of access points. There are two shared access points with the neighboring apartment building, one on Zephyr Road that highlighted here on the site plan and another one on Holland Lane, which is to the north, just outside of the photo. There is a third access point proposed onto Market Street and the D.R.V. should discuss this additional access point. It does provide circulation through the main entrance for co-share and just in service parking as well as how the proposed per cut lines up with the one at Unique Bay. I double checked with Public Works. Their specifications don't have anything about how driveways line up to one another, but teeing it off might be a better intersection. Off street parking and loading. I'll be brief here and if you guys have follow up questions, I can answer them. The D.R.V. can approve the 112 parking spaces using the increase allowed in chapter in the chapter. But the D.R.V. should discuss shared parking as an option to reduce service parking. So those 112 parking spaces, 69 are in the garage, 43 are surface. The bylaw requirement for senior housing independent living is one space per unit, which would require 74 spaces. Well, the applicant didn't provide a shared study because the building to the north building A3 is residential, and they both have peak parking demand times that coincide senior living and residential or similar abuses. They could do a shared parking study with other parking lots within 1000 feet, such as the healthy living building, the LLB building that's under construction or Unique Bay. And those are within planning process, so they are eligible for that shared parking analysis. The D.R.V. has two options tonight. One, approve the 112 spaces as proposed, and those increased options are a parking structure or solar canopy, forest pavement, providing spaces for alternative fuel and carpool, and additional accessible spaces. I won't go into detail there, but at final plan, they would need to show how those various parking spaces are being allocated, and which could get them to 112 spaces. Alternatively, there is the option to do documentation of additional parking demand, where the study using the methodology in the new parking chapter could determine if there is an opportunity for shared parking within this development. And that leaves me to option two, which would be to continue to hear and request that shared parking analysis. What that would reasonably result in is a reduction in the 43 service parking spaces on the site. Short-term bicycle parking does comply. Additional long-term bicycle storage must be provided, and end-of-trip facilities for the employees would be shared with building D, the adjacent LLB building. Final plans would need to specify these additional elements. Are there any questions about parking before I wrap up on the other sections? I think we're probably going to be going back to that, so continue. Okay. On-site infrastructure complies as proposed in terms of utilities and municipal water and sewer. Maintenance, final plans would need to show the specifications for on-site storage or removal. The DRB should discuss the number of trash receptacles. So there are trash receptacles shown near the primary entrance for the senior living facility as well as within their private patio area to the north. The DRB might consider additional receptacles near the street corners for people walking along the sidewalks. And solid waste complies as proposed, the trash and recycled dumpsters are within the parking structure. Final plans must specify how rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical will be screened and shielded with a parapet so it's not visible from public roads on your right. And design review. The HAC review this application on November 16th and they have four primary comments. Number one, enhancing the roof line. The fascia board proposed that the white pitched roof a recommendation that that gets strengthened and continued where highlighted a lot though the white mass in the building as well as a stronger cornice where highlighted on the gray part of the building. In general, they found that the building masses are too minimalist and too small and provide a cornice that has interest but is not overwhelming. Number two, the HAC recommended a variety of shrubs and perennials between the street trees along Holland Lane and Market Street to enhance the pedestrian experience. So walking down that sidewalk it's a very long building frontage and they felt more plantings would provide some visual interest between the trees. Number three, they discussed the Holland Lane and Market Street corner where additional landscaping and benches would be able to complement the urban park across the street. Currently there is a utility box that's shown in that vicinity. You can see it on the site plan to the right. It's not shown in the architectural to the left because the architectural renderings are focused on the building and not the site plan elements. So moving that utility to box to the north away from the street corner if possible and then enhancing this area making it a comfortable public park. Lastly, the HAC made a recommendation about the resident area to the north of the building. This is in essence their backyard. They requested more clustered seating benches in Paris facing each other. You can see here that there are community gardens with a hose but that proposed. There is a covered patio and an open air patio that will have residential gardens seating some brilliant stations, et cetera. The HAC would just like to see more benches where people can socialize afterwards. Landscaping and street trees. I just reiterate what the HAC said about the type of plantings along Collins Lane and Market Street and that you can choose to amend that HAC recommendation. In general what they provide, they recommended would make the street tree standard something more like a type three or type four buffer where a variety of major trees, ornamental trees and some shrubbery. And these types of buffers are appropriate along public ways. And again, that highlighted where the skatebeds could go. Outdoor lighting, our compliance is anticipated and at final plans they were just to provide a couple additional specs on the lighting of the backyard and courtyard areas as well as dimming of the surface parking lot during overnight hours. Motion sensor lighting is encouraged and should be noted on final plans. I will note that the maximum point of illumination is below the 5.0 foot pamphlet threshold. No signs or public art are proposed and impact these. Non-residential projects are exempt from school and recreation impact fees. This application would be eligible or would have to pay transportation impact fees but because Finney Crossing built Zephyr Road, they still have about a million dollars of income credit between the cost of construction, constructing the road and all of the impact fees that would have been assessed for every residential unit and commercial unit in Finney Crossing. So they have about $1,000 of buffer there. What follows is findings of fact, conditions of approval for the DRV's consideration. Thank you. Right, thank you, Emily. Andi and Chris, the floor is yours. Perfect, thank you very much. I appreciate that, Emily, in walking through. And as we have said all along, we do appreciate all the time and effort that the DRV puts into our applications for these projects. And so we do appreciate, again, your time and focus as we do feel like we do improve our buildings and the overall project by going through the process. We did listen and have stayed focused on the feedback received over the last couple of months. And I think that this discretionary permit application incorporates a lot of those items. As you all know, there's 74 apartments as proposed. We have aesthetically, I think we've really been focused on the roof lines and the architectural components of the roof lines and so that we can make sure that they are representative of what people wanna see on this new building. We do have a mix of pitched and flat roofs and we have highlighted the pitched roofs more than we have the flat roofs. And in some of the discussion that has been brought up during the hack and some of the comments earlier, we're trying to highlight the pitched versus the flat roofs. And so there is a little bit more focus on that as we take a look at this. I would say we would be more than willing to walk through the staff report and go over any questions that people have in terms of, I think the biggest component is in the parking. And it is our desire to maintain the current number of parking spaces on the property. We understand the rules have changed. Of course they changed within like seven days of when we were, had submitted. And I think we didn't realize that that was gonna be of impact. But for us, in this particular instance, we do feel like we need to maintain the number of parking spaces. It is lower than what we've had in our other apartment buildings. And it's somewhat in between what is outlined and what we would like to have. Do you understand that this is a age restricted senior housing, we are gonna be providing services. However, we do envision that, well, I'm not that far from 55 and I could be living here. And my wife and I would both have a car and have probably both work. So I think what we're envisioning is that there's a mix of residents and that there would be potentially two cars with some of the unit types that we will be offering. So I think parking is important. I think aesthetics are important. I think we can certainly walk through the other staff notes and go from there, unless Andy, do you have anything else? Not before we go to the specific items. Okay. I think what I'd like to do is have Simon put the site plan on the screen. And Andy, if you could walk us through the site plan and the current methodology that was used for the parking address that utility box and what might be in that utility box and how realistic it might be to relocate that if that is a possibility or the challenges might be with relocating that but also address the intersection that doesn't line up directly with the healthy livings, healthy living, I guess it would be the bank, right? Yes, Union Bank. That would be the Union Bank exit. And what you could do to get those lined up and what would be from a civil engineers perspective, the advantages and disadvantages of that. So why don't you start with those as a kind of kickoff this discussion? And you can, I don't know if you've got a pointer or if you wanna just go to the screen or it's your call. One time I didn't bring a pointer right there. I think you annotate on the screen. I can also help you, Andy, along here if we wanna talk about some of, I think I have some information too. But so between the two of us, we can do this. Right. So let's start at the access off Market Street. That's actually an existing curb cut and the layout for this property look much different with the prior master plan or project plan at least for this area. And there was previously a couple of parking areas here. One which was parallel with Jeffer Road and then a second one which was a little further to the West and just the way that laid out with the buildings that were originally envisioned for this area. The curb cut that in the line with the curb cut to buildings A and B directly across Market Street. So one of the things that we had done between the board's pre-application review with this one was try to pull that parking and the access drive to the board to share for building F. Back together and further away from Jeffer Road, the pre-application plans had that curb cut being moved closer to Jeffer Road. We were trying to keep it further away and utilize the existing curb cut that is there. You know, having an aligned would be ideal. The layout that we have there now is utilizing that curb cut as it exists. I believe the sidewalk, actually the sidewalk isn't there. It's built on the other side, the curb cuts for the sidewalk in the curb right there, the impressions in the curb right there, but nothing other than that from Jeffer Road into this curb cut. But again, the curb cut itself is there. I guess just one note that might not be clear from this plan, but the access to the board to share is one way from North to South. So people would come in off Zephyr Road or come in off Holland Lane. They couldn't come in off Market Street and circulate through that proposed parking area as well. But after they're dropping off on the passenger side, they would need to come back into that parking area closest to Zephyr Road between me and the building F and Zephyr Road. But can take questions or we can kind of continue around the building? I continue around the building. I actually have a question on that. I'm sorry. Andy, did you just say that if you dropped somebody off at the park to share that you would have to go back to the proposed parking area? Or if you had taken your dad out to lunch and you'd wanted to drop him off and then we're going home, couldn't you leave onto Market Street? Yes, yes. If you were dropping somebody off and then entering the building, you could go into the parking lot, but right, if you were just dropping somebody off and then leaving, there's no reason you couldn't leave. Okay, all right, all right, all right. So that is a two-way, that's intended to be a two-way driveway there. Yes, it's a two-way driveway. The only thing that would be one way would be from where the marks are being made now back to the park and stuff. Yeah, perfect. Okay, I understand. And is there any reason why that wouldn't want to, why you couldn't, other than the fact that it already exists, that that couldn't be made to line up with the driveway across the street? Is there any internal to site F reason to keep it further south? No, I mean, there may be a streetlight that might need to get relocated, although I think it may be to the south, or excuse me, to the east along Market Street. Okay. The whole curve cut could be shifted to the west. Okay. Your crystal ball just failed you from earlier, huh? Correct, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. What about the utility, while I'm thinking of the utility box that was pointed out, go ahead. So that was a good comment that we got from the hack, not only on the utility box, but providing a little bit of seating on that corner, not to be a park necessarily, but to compliment the park, that's to the south across Market Street, as well as the larger park to the west across Hollow Lane. And I believe Chris has been, well, let me first, that's a transformer. This building was originally intended to be served from the transformer on the south side of Market Street that is being installed to serve building E. However, if this building is served on that transformer, there's no future capacity. There wouldn't be any capacity to add vehicle charging stations, for example. There wouldn't be any excess capacity whatsoever. So Green Mountain Power is looking for that additional transformer on this side of the street to serve building F. Chris has been talking with Green Mountain Power and I think they are okay with moving it north along Hollow Lane. There's probably a happy medium there, not going too far, moving it so close that that entryway, even though it is just to a stairwell, that it attracts from that, but certainly moving it further away from the intersection of Hollow Lane and Market Street, so that some lanes can be done there to improve the appearance of that intersection and get the transformer a little further up. It's probably halfway between where it is now and the stairway entrance, where the green space battens out there a little bit, is probably its idea of location with some screening around it. And sort of I'll add to that in Scott and I and one of our contractors was looking at this today and after more discussion about it, it looks like we are gonna be able to take that up to about where the hand is right now and get it out of the corner. It just means it'll be close to be 10 feet away from the building or so, somewhere around in that location. So it can be relocated to that area. Right. Right. Okay, continue, Andy. Do we wanna talk about architectural design or parking next? Let's go right into the parking. Okay. You wanna start on that one, Chris or do you want me? Go for it. Okay. I guess just to summarize what's in the staff report, 112 spaces are being proposed, which works out to one and a half spaces per unit. The bylaw provides for one space per unit for independent senior living or comparison. It used to be 1.75 for mobility family. It's up to two now with sort of an automatic 20% discount. So it went up, but it perhaps didn't really go up. But just for comparison, so one space per unit for independent senior living, 1.8 to two for mobility family. Of those 112 spaces that are being proposed, 43 are, let me make sure I'm right here, 43 are on the surface, 69 being located in the parking garage. And I think we're talking about 38 spaces being over. So either the need to convince the board that 1.5 is appropriate or using the tools that are available in the bylaw to increase the parking by having additional accessible spaces, carpool or van spaces or the third option. Forest pavement, but I think the third one that we've been looking at is alternative to fuel spaces and having chargers. And using that is one tool in order to get to the 38 that would be needed. Okay, so at this point, and he had just asked you to pause for a moment. And Emily, if you could walk the DRV through kind of how that works. Yeah. Okay. So if you look at figure one on page eight of the staff report, at one space per unit, at 74 units, they get 74 parking spaces because they have structured parking in the garage underneath, they can increase 25%. So 74 times 25% gets 19 parking spaces. Forest pavement is a 15% increase. So 74 times 15, they can get zero to 12 additional parking spaces. And I have that footnote because sometimes forest pavement is challenging Vermont and they don't have to do forest pavement as an option and they can supplement by then doing the alternative fuel spaces or the accessible parking spaces. Both alternative fuel and accessible parking spaces, there's no percent limit in the bylaw. The same way structured parking, you can increase 25% or forest pavement, you can increase the places. So that you can do between two 10, 14 alternative fuel spaces in between five and 17 accessible spaces. Now our bylaw requires five ADA spaces. They proposed 10 ADA spaces. So they're already getting that additional five. So even at 74 plus 19 say you do your 10 ADA, 74 plus 19 plus 10 ADA, that's 103. And then if they did say nine alternative fuel spaces, that would bring them to 112. But because there's different thresholds, they can provide a combination of forest alternative fuel accessible that would get to that 112. And that can be worked out at final plans. But it is possible to get to 112 without a shared parking analysis, just looking at those other increased options. And alternative fuel would be an electric car would be an alternative fuel. I understand that. I have a question, Pete. Yeah, I was gonna, before you ask the question, John. So DRV members, is there anyone on the DRV that has a question for animals? That has a question for Emily on that table and her calculations? Yes, Pete, I have a question on that. Okay. I didn't know if it was related to the table. No, it's okay. It's all good. So on the 14.2.4.4, which says shared parking, additional demand. Are those, clearly I understood that to say that, with a shared parking study, you could show that there were additional parking spaces in the vicinity that could be used to increase the number of parking spaces. What is the thing where it says additional demand? Explain that to me or correct me on the shared parking assumption. Right, so the quotation in number 1D above is directly from the bylaw. Documentation of additional parking demand. The DRV may consider a study using the shared parking methodology in Appendix J, showing that the existing shared parking resources cannot serve the demand created by the new development. So what that statement is, looking at those existing commercial parking lots, they don't have the capacity to handle a senior living facility. The additional demand that this new development is created. So what is the industry? What does the industry say for senior housing, time of day, vehicle usage? So if it were a residential property where it was more of a traditional people go to work, Monday through Friday, they've done that. I'm not talking about a COVID world. And then there's a retail establishment and that's busier during the day. A shared parking is a good fit for that environment. Now you've got senior living. And senior living, the activity of a senior living resident probably follows a different rhythm than that of someone who is in the traditional workplace. What can Crest, can you speak to that or Andy, can you give any insight on what the industry provides for data on that? Not in terms of demand necessarily, but in terms of peak demand. A multifamily building, for example, people are generally leaving for work during that peak hour time, whether it might be before, during or after. We know from the peak hour trip generation, which is much lower for senior living than it is for a multifamily without a restriction, but you don't have that peak hour in the morning. So the activity in the senior living is happening in a later time in the morning, not during the peak hour. And also in a sooner time in the evening, it's happening, the centroid is closer to that midday than at the two ends. So that's what historic data would suggest. It starts a little later and ends a little earlier. Correct. Yeah, that's intuitive, yeah, okay. And I would also say that this is a 55 plus. It's not, this is not a full care facility with lots of age groups. We're envisioning that there's a lot of people who, as I said earlier, are still working. Okay, I'd like to open up discussion from the DRVM parking at this point because we're kind of in the middle of the parking discussion. Paul, do you have any questions or comments on parking? I think 112 is a good number. And I think it's because if you sat there and said everybody had two cars in the units and there were visitors for like, say, a holiday event, they'll use all 112 spaces, plus some more. So I'm good with 112. John, thoughts? Yeah, well, again, I think that the question, as I understand it, is not so much the 112, whether that's the right number or not. I mean, I can, I mean, right off the bylaw states that one per unit, which is, I find to be astoundingly low for today's world and the independence that I think our older citizens exhibit. Not to mention, as Chris was saying, 55 is, God, I hope it's not very old. I think the majority of the board would find themselves on the above that, north of that line. But the question in my mind is here that Emily has brought up is whether we should require this shared parking study for the other parking lots that are within the distance that the bylaw suggests is close enough. And that's a harder one, because I guess I would, I'm conflicted here because 1,000 feet is still pretty far, especially if you're going to visit someone in this facility or if you live there and that's a spot where you're gonna put your second car. I'm not sure that that's entirely appropriate, but I need to, I'm open to discussion on that and I think we'll have to thrice through it in my mind. Yeah, I agree with all you just said, John. Dick Turner. I agree too on the 112. I think we definitely should look at some alternative energy parking spaces to get there and stuff because of the way of the future and the requirements that are being put on a lot of places. So if we can incorporate those into the parking, I think that would be a wise thing to do. So as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, Emily, but as I understand it is if the DRP were to accept the 112, then it would be incumbent upon the applicant and final plans to satisfy the, I'm gonna call them the bonuses that the bylaws allow. Do I understand that correctly? Okay. And if we were to, and forest pavement from my perspective, it's not an option really in our environment. I agree. I don't think it is, but so would you be worried would the applicant be embracing that methodology? I mean, you have to be charging stations and you have to be following the roadmap that Emily has laid out. Yeah, we feel that we can accomplish the parking spaces and still meet the path that is being built and been created here. Okay. Yeah, that was my question. DRP members, are there Paul, John or Dave? Do any of you support the path of a shared parking study? Because at the end of the day, we kind of need to decide that in the public setting because I can't close the hearing if there's support for that. I think so. As I understand the chart or Emily's roadmap, one of the tools in that toolbox is indeed a shared parking study. Correct? Well, there's two options. One's a shared parking study. The second is the roadmap. Right, but within the roadmap, I believe that number four there is a shared parking component that you could use to say that some of these parking spots are going to be that we're asking for and looking for are actually going to be located in a shared location further away. That's an option. It's out of the car, so they don't have to take that. They don't have to, but they could. So what I'm hearing right now is the question in front of us is whether we're going to require that. And therefore, not close the hearing, but continue it. I'm in favor of not continuing the hearing and leaving the shared parking component in the roadmap in the toolbox, I think is a better analogy that the applicant can use if they decide that is the best path forward for legitimizing the number of parking spots or getting it to an approvable state. So I don't think I would, I'm not ready to continue the hearing to require this shared parking study. Okay. You had something. Thank you all. You had something to say. So it is a subsection of one of their options to increase, but the reason I didn't just turn that off to final plans is because my expectation is that if a shared parking were to be done that there would be adequate parking within those other parking lots and then the site would have to get reconfigured to reduce the circuit parking because there's stuff available across the street. So that's why, yes, it is one of their increases, but I don't think a shared parking study is appropriate at final plans. It's something that should be approved as part of the discretionary approach. Okay. So that's a twist on this, John. It is a twist on this. A situation where it would be okay is, okay, say it's a restaurant and a restaurant is going in right next to it and it wants to have its own lot and say, well, you should share with that other lot. Most likely that shared parking study is going to say, these restaurants have the same peak hours of demand and there's not going to be enough parking so that restaurant, other than the new restaurant should be able to build new parking, but because there's senior living with retail and the bank, there's I think ample opportunity for that share where the additional, the space that they want above 74 could be offset with those existing spaces at LOB, but I think that should happen in the open if that hearing is not at final plans. I have a question if, I don't know. In terms of shared parking, when I'm looking and thinking about shared parking, I'm thinking about adjacencies and direct adjacencies and also like how do parking lots overlap with different use products. Typically in my mind, when I'm looking at the parking and thinking, well, I can cross the street and go to that parking lot over there. I'm usually not thinking about that as a source of a shared parking program that if you look at this parking lot for AB3 and the proposed senior living facility, essentially the parking lot that is between them are, I mean, are we gonna see some people from AB3, parking in some of the parking spots of building F? Yeah, that's really a shared parking. We're gonna have, they're gonna intermingle with that overall parking space because they're directly connected. And if you slide west to where we propose building H and AB A2, you're gonna see if you scroll up Simon, yeah, up there to the proposed restaurant and the parking lot there, if you think about that, again, if they're an interconnected parking, and so I think shared parking works in that scenario and really works in that scenario when you have two different uses utilizing the same spaces. And so as we've noted and other people have commented on, what we're proposing is to have utilization of one and a half parking spots for the senior housing building. And I think we have 1.75 for the apartments and, but they're all gonna be there at the exact same time. If it was an office use, I think that would be a different scenario. And so we do need to plan for and understand that people are gonna have cars and as much as we all don't want people to have cars, they still do. So that's my perspective on shared parking. I think when you start crossing roads for a parking access, that is a little bit of a, maybe it's a cumulative shared parking on the overall site, but in this particular location, it's like, hey, if they're connected. So that's just my perspective on the shared parking piece. I don't know if that helps or hurts. I don't know. I think that's a practical view of how it would actually be used, which is helpful from my perspective. So the 140, I'm sorry, 112 spaces, which is 1.5 per unit. That's essentially one space per unit plus another, what, 38 for visitors and staff. Is that right? That's correct. Where is staff parking? In that 38. And how many staff are in this building? They'll probably be, well, there's at least one full-time person. And then there'll be people rotating in and out. There'll be kitchen help during, while the meal is being served. I think there's gonna be a minimum of one person there 24 hours a day. Then you have the meal, and so you're gonna have an influx at a certain period of time with whatever meal that is. And then you're also gonna have these other service providers. So I mean, will those rotate? Yeah, but so maybe it's a three or four or five parking spaces during certain periods of time over a period of time that are used by staff. And then there's gonna be visitors, you know? And just like there are with any apartment building. And so the visitors, I see it as visitors and staff that are gonna likely want to use the shared parking potentially or could if it's full. But in reality, those people should be using that parking lot in front of the building. And if that parking lot's not there, they would be forced across the street. That's correct. As well, if that parking lot weren't there, you would also have the second vehicle for any of the residents across the street. That's correct. And let's be honest, you know, the best news would be is, well, I think we have a great tenant in LL Bean and we have some other future tenants that we're talking to right now. You know, the best news for everybody in the town of Wilson is that LL Bean is wildly successful in that they have lots of people who are coming to visit to the town to utilize that store. And, you know, the one thing we don't want to do is take up 30 parking spots or 20 parking spots because of, you know, because of shared parking analysis from the adjacent senior apartment building when, let's be honest, underneath the Velco easement, the only thing that really can get done underneath that is parking. So it's like, it's not the best thing in the world, you know, to have the easement there, but at the same time, let's utilize the land as efficiently as we can rather than letting it just sort of sit there. Because you don't want to put a park underneath it, you know, from my perspective, you don't want to, you can't put trees underneath it. You know, you have to be, or well, they can be trees, but they, you know, they're like four feet tall. It's shrubbery. So, you know, it's a usable space from a parking perspective, and we ought to utilize that for that. Yep. Reid. I don't disagree, Pete. I don't disagree with Chris a bit. I think, I don't think we're going to land anywhere different with a shared parking study. I think there'll still be some sharing going on here, regardless, people will find the most convenient spots, but I think for visitors that aren't familiar with this site, you're going to want that parking close to the front door. It's kind of site design 101. Yep. Nobody wants to walk. Okay, so you're not in favor of a shared parking study, John, Hamilton, I'm not either. Dave Turner? No, not in favor of it. Oh, Christensen? Definitely not in favor of it. Okay. All right, so we can move off from that. We've reached consensus. Thank you. Other items that we need to talk about? Actually, Pete, I do have one more question on the parking. If you do do alternative fuel parking, I think the preference would, and I don't know how we could say this, but I would much rather see it in the parking lots instead of under the building, so that it could be used by tenants or guests. So I think there'll probably be a mix of both because the tenants will want it, so they want it because they're living there and they're charging their vehicles for longer periods. And then- That would be a yes. Yeah, and so we may end up putting one or two outside that actually can serve two or four cars and then you can put the others in the garage. The only problem with the ones in the garage, they won't be able to use by guest or somebody else visiting them, so that's why I'd prefer to see some in the parking lot. But based on what we're all hearing about in terms of electric vehicles and being sort of more mass produced, we're assuming that that's gonna be a necessary component to occupancy. And what's gonna be really tricky is that there's probably gonna be more requests for it than there is gonna be service for it. And then those people are gonna use those and they're gonna suck up all the time in those parking spaces when somebody else- So you're gonna have lots of electric vehicles, yes, soon coming and soon. Yes. So you'll have to find an equitable way to share those spaces. Yes, that is not gonna be an easy discussion. And the problem is, is the electric grid, right, is, as Andy mentioned, we're gonna have plenty of power now with this additional transformer we're putting in. But I can tell you that the more charging stations that are out there, the electrical grid is gonna need to be improved to be able to manage that because it sucks up a lot of energy. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I suggest we segue to the PAC recommendations which on the proposed conditions of approval are the items in condition number three, A, B, C and D. If the applicant would address those, please. Yeah. So the first one, in terms of the FACHA board, I think we could continue the white board across the white built flat portion of the building if desired, but our goal really here was to augment and highlight those differences. And if we show, if we add weight in cornice or some detail to the top of those roofs or top of those flat roofs, boy, I think it's gonna highlight the flat roof which everybody said they wanted us to focus more on the pitched roof. So I guess I'd also lean on, you have a resident architect on your DRB who might have a perspective on this, but my eye tends, I wanna de-emphasize rather than emphasize the flat roof. Resident architect, let's say. I'm thinking that Chris is a nice poker player here. He just went all in on this because my opinion now could make a break it. No. That's okay. No, no, no. Chris, you know that sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, but this is venturing very close, Mr. Chair, into the DRB designing projects. I don't, as you know, I'm uncomfortable with. On the other hand, it is something that the bylaw does say is that it wants this stronger element at the roof line. I will start by saying that this is a really good solution compared to a lot of what we see in terms of breaking up a large facade, making a large building look like it's not quite so big because of these different elevations of the building. I'd like, I really think it's a clever way of putting these pitch roots on the building the way they turn and go 90 degrees and then address, put a gable on both corners or both sides of the corner. I like that. I think it's getting a lot of, you're getting a lot of value out of those elements. I like that the white portions of the building are taller than some of the others than the flat roof portions. I can see the hacks concern that the flat roof building just kind of goes up and stops and there's not a lot of definition there. But again, I come from a perspective of, I don't automatically say that a flat roof is a bad idea. I do think that there's plenty of examples out there where you can put at least a little bit of accentuation or a little bit of a heavier line at that spot. But I do think it wants to change when it goes from the white part of the building to the brown, to the gray. Chris, you'll not be surprised that I've been sitting here sketching on your elevation while we've been talking. But it's not really my design. But I mean, I wonder whether, I mean, I see this really wide band above the windows on the white portion of the building. But I think you can accentuate the fact that that building is taller than the others by if the horizontal line kind of started at the where the flat roof of the gray part was or the brown and went up. And then whatever you did, and it doesn't have to be very much, I think. But I would tend to agree with the hack that the bylaw says that you need to do something at the top of that flat roof building. I don't think it needs to be a lot. I don't think it needs to be garish. But I think you're really close. I think they're really close to having something that would be that's really quite attractive. I like the balconies. I like the pitch roofs. I like the change in materials. I like the proportions of the vertical in that, that each of those individual pieces is now a vertical element. And not as opposed to one big long horizontal. And I think, I don't know, is there a way to make that grace, the gray portions with the vertical ribs, you know, a little bit lower so that you get three different heights in here? I'm just throwing that out. I mean, I just think, I think you could make a little bit of a different piece to kind of give those the tops where the flat roof meets the sky. It just wants to have something a little more, I think is what the bylaw is talking about. Actually, the dark gray one is taller, isn't it? Yeah, it is. Huh. Oh, I see, because it's back further. So never mind that. You've already got it. That's, I don't mind that piece not having any of the cornice treatment just because it's kind of the in-between. So. Okay, so really the question at hand is, is really was looking for you, John, as the person most qualified to make a statement as to whether or not 3A should remain as a condition of approval. That was really where we were going. I know. And I couldn't help myself. And you answered it that yes, it should. And Chris, I think you understand now you have guidance from us that, because we're all gonna defer, John, because no, he is the most qualified here. And so you now have guidance that we are looking for something but not something of great mass. So I just want to clarify what I heard is that on the white portion, we continue with some component, but that on the lower gray, as shown on the current rendering in the staff notes that the gray line above, are we also adding a cornice or cap to that? Because there is a cap piece. It's just not, it's not proud of the wall. And I guess I just want to understand what the, and I know you're not designing, but. I know it's really hard. I mean, I'd love to have sit down and have lunch with you and just kind of talk with your designer because it'd be fun. But I think that it just wants to be something that's a little bit wider of a horizontal band that you see on the rest of the building to kind of say, you know, this is where the motion of your eyeball stops right there and it creates an edge. It doesn't kind of slide off into the sky beyond. I mean, I don't think it needs to be more than a foot high. And again, if you could make the band that's on the white portion a different elevation than what's on the, you know, so that they don't overlap, right? So that the white piece is up higher. Maybe it's a little thicker. So it's a little more pronounced on the white portion of the building. I keep thinking back all the row houses that I looked at over and over again in school in Cincinnati and they just, you know, there's a cornice at the top of all those flat roof buildings. And, you know, they just, they all start to look alike eventually, but they all serve the same purpose, which is to actually end the building at the top. And that's what the bylaw is looking to do. They're not trying to make it the nicest piece or the fanciest piece, but they're just trying to make it so that a building has a top, a middle, and a bottom. And, you know, it's interesting that the hack doesn't focus more on the base component here, but... Okay. So, again, I think you're really, really close on this. I don't think it's a lot there. Okay. So hack, hack item B, a variety of shrubs and perennials. I'm assuming Chris and Andy, you have no issue with that. Correct. Okay. See. Enhance the corner with benches landscaping. No, Jeff. So, can we go back to B? Here's a question that I have. Now, all of a sudden, you know, we've got these other apartment buildings within the neighborhood, and we've got a pedestrian feel that we've already sort of created. And now, all of a sudden, we're going to have this different built, we're going to have another building with a different feel to it. And are we, you know, we don't have consistency. And is that okay? Or... Fine. You know, by adding more planting beds, and shrubbery along there, does it, you know, I don't know. I just was wondering if it, it just feels a little bit odd. Like all of a sudden now we're doing more landscaping in between the building and the, in the sidewalks versus lawn or something like that. That's just me. No, I'm glad, I'm, I'm glad you went back. You know, I was, I was actually surprised that you didn't push back right away. Yeah. The, I guess my question is for staff and that this is the, this kind of builds on what Chris was saying and that it's not consistent. Necessarily. I'm wondering where in the, where in the bylaws it talks about the, the fact that the, that the. That we, we have the authority to require additional planting along the street trees or with the street trees. Yes. So chapter 23 landscaping has type three informal. Plantings and type four formal planting buffers. Which the informal plantings can be used in many circumstances. And then the formal plantings buffer is most appropriate. Along public ways. So this includes a ground cover of turf and major trees. It may also include ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers, and planters. Sorry. Did you guys hear me okay with the mask? Yes. Yeah. The minimum density per 100 feet shall be a full. Ground cover of turf and three major trees. So there's the. There's a tree street tree standard. And then there's enhancing that with the landscape buffers along public ways. Beyond one tree every 40 feet to include some. Planting trees above and shrubs. I don't think it needs to be every single one of these spots that are highlighted in the photo. It could be only a couple of them, but just to provide additional plantings. So why doesn't this conversation come up every time we require street tree? That's what I don't understand is that the, you know, I'm not sure that there is. The buffers. Don't don't apply it along the street. Over. That's what I'm not understanding is why. Why this is even coming up. It's probably been an oversight on all the other hearings we've had. Well, I disagree. Yeah, I've worked in the town for. 20 years. And if we provided the street trees along a public road, that was what the requirement was. Landscaping was required around this specific area. And that's what we've shown on our plans, but not necessarily in the, within the right away or on the edge of the right away. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that it's not consistent with what we've done through the rest of the place. I mean, as people walk, you want them to be able to see and feel different things. So, you know, some plantings and stuff in that, in areas like that. It would be beneficial, I think. Maybe not like that, like they have there with every one, every one filled in. But I would think some of them could be. Filled in with plants. You know, I think if we wanted to, you know, highlight an entrance or an extra exit point, you know, where the walkway is, you know, that would be, you know, I mean, I think that we could, you know, say, Hey, here you go, here's an entry point and here's a connection. We have that both on Holland Lane and on market. And, you know, so we could certainly do that. And that to me kind of makes sense to say, Hey, here you go. This is where we're coming in. Right. So, you know, those sorts of things. I would agree. We could certainly augment to there. If that's an easier, if there's a rationale for why we're doing plantings, rather than us just picking some random spot to put some. Bushes and some. It's like an entry point. It's the corner, you know, we could highlight those three. You know, focus on those, those areas. Okay. I'd like to move on. I know that. I hear you. We will. We don't have a discussion about that crest. See. Enhance Holland Lane, market street corner with benches and landscaping. Consider moving the utility box. So you, you had already mentioned that you were going to. Move the location of the utility box. What's your position on the. On the benches. So I'm, I think we're fine. Adding benches at that. At that corner. Maybe there's two benches that we add. And one on each, one on the Holland side and one on the market street side. And then it sort of goes along with what we were just talking about and highlighting, you know, maybe some landscaping on that corner. Okay. Thank you. And then. The last hack. Recommendation D provide more benches a lot. Backyard area pathways. I mean, I think. I think that's, we can add certainly more. I think we have two. Bench areas right now. We do have a large patio area as well. So, you know, that's going to get used. There's going to be some tables out there. You know, we certainly can put a couple of more. If we said that we were going to add two more benches out into the. That area, I think that would be. I think that would be a good idea. I think we can add two more benches out into the, that area. I think that would be. Fair. Right. Okay. Other questions. That concludes the hack recommendations. Other questions by the DRV. Pete, there was a question that I think had come up at one point about some additional trash cans. Yes. Along the street. I would ask Chris and Andy. Yeah. I believe there are a few trash cans along the streets now that you put into Finney crossing already. Is that right? Do those get used? They get abused. I. I don't actually know. I haven't heard a complaint about it, which means that I don't, it's not good or bad. I mean, I would worry if we put, start to put too many of them, the people are going to start bringing their trash and dumping them in there and using it as a free place to get rid of their garbage. So I think what's happening is we do have dog trash. That gets in there, you know, but I. So if we don't have, you know, so you have that. And then the other pieces. We have. You know, it's been a little bit more of an active construction site and some in a lot of ways. And there's pretty easy ways for people to get rid of their trash right now if they want to come to the neighbor. They just go to the dumpster and throw it in there. So I think as we get rid of some of that construction, debris, you know, collection systems, you know, we'll find that that may be more of an issue. All right. So we certainly can add another trash can or two. I mean, we're already maintaining them now. Mm hmm. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there, is there a condition. Bad trash receptacles or is that just been a narrative to consider? Number 15. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Other questions. I just have one around the concrete foundation. I'm read in there that no more than a foot of it would be showing around the building because one of the, one of the. Guides was either stone on that concrete so that it would just didn't see bear concrete. And when I look at some of the perspectives, it looks like some of the places are. It's hard to say because it's not drawn to scale. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, it's like two or three feet of concrete showing around the building in places. Yeah. So we understand that we're going to try to hide that. And we're going to add some fill in some. Modify some grade changes to, you know, try to get within that foot. I mean, I love to have say that it was 18 inches. You know, we have to have a minimum of eight inches from the top of foundation wall to grade. For slopes. And so I guess our perfect perspective is, hey, if we could get 18 inches approved, that would be better than a foot. But that we realize that we're going to have to bring in fill and material to get it up higher. Or add stone. Or add stone in certain places. To get it down lower. Other questions. Actually, I have one more looking at the base drawing. I'm going to feel like Dave Saladino now when I did one more. When I look at the base drawing, the basement drawing. And I know this is probably. Something is not a really big deal. But is there just one elevator group in the building? No, there's two. There's two elevators, but they are grouped together. They are in the center of the building in the, in the L shaped portion of it. But there are two elevators in there, two full size elevators. So how far roughly is it from like parking space, 33 to the elevator. Or an elderly person. It's like a 200 and some odd feet. Yeah. That's all done by code, Dave. Yeah. No, I realized that I was just asking the question because. Yeah. It seems to that. It seems like I recall one of the. Once we did the fire department was concerned about that, but since they've reviewed it already, I'm sure there's no concern. But it just made sure they did look at that. We did talk to them about that. And I think. Everybody was in agreement doing the dual elevator was an overwhelming. Better scenario than just having a single elevator, which is technically allowed a single elevator could service this building. But we did add the second as a safety mechanism. Okay. Okay. Other questions. Okay. Members of the public. Either president in the room or. Participating by zoom. Any questions if you do, please. Raise your hand. I'm sorry. There's no members of the public. There's no members of the public. Okay. Yeah. That's great. Okay. Any final remarks, questions. Andy, Chris. The RV members. Okay. Just thank you for your time. Appreciate your consideration. As I have said, you know, we do get better projects going through these. And. So appreciate your time. Okay. I'm going to close. Close the hearing. Dp. Zero nine dash zero one dot 24. At nine 12. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go into deliberative session now. Andy, take your time. Don't. Don't. Put your stuff together here. You're fine. Welcome. Back to the town of Williston Development Review Board. For Tuesday, December 14th. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go into deliberative session now. For Tuesday, December 14th. 2021. We are out of deliberative session. Is there a motion for Dp 22 dash zero three. Yes. If, if Simon can actually put it up for me to read from there, because I didn't mark them up on mine. Thinking we were going to have them again. Okay. Alright. Thank you. The report is memorized by WDB six point six point three. I, David Turner, moved at the Williston Development Review Board. Having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required. Comment on this application, click application. By the Williston Development by-law and having. hearing of December 14th, 2021, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 22-03 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. And we had a couple of changes. Number two, we'll change it to read, the subject property is non-conforming with respect to the landscape buffer requirements under WDB chapter 23. The correction of this non-conforming is not reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. We'll change number three. Dave, please clarify that that's item number two under conclusions of law. Oh, yes. So the change will be the item number two under conclusions of law and I'll read it again. The subject property is non-conforming with respect to the landscape buffer requirements under WDB chapter 23. The correction of the non-conformity is not reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. And then under conclusions of law number three, we'll read, the subject property is non-conforming with respect to the street trees requirements under WDB chapter 26. The correction of this non-conformity is reasonably proportioned to the scale of the proposed development. And then we will change number seven under, is that the condition? Yes. Yeah. Number seven under conditions of approval, we'll read, street trees on Avenue B shall be brought into compliance with the standards of WDB chapter 23 and 26. Okay, thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Paul. Any discussion? Nope. No. Please indicate yay or nay, please. Paul. Yay. John. Yay. Chair is a yay, Dave Turner. Yay. Four in favor, non-opposed, motion carries. Is there a motion for DP09-01.24? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, John Hemmelgarn move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of, that state is not correct. Is it? It's a public hearing of December 14th, 2021, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP09-01.24 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We are going to modify a couple of conditions here of approval, specifically number 3B is going to read, consider providing a variety of shrubs and perennial planting beds between the street trees along Holland Lane and Marcus Street at building entrances and or focal points to enhance the pedestrian experience along the sidewalks and break up the long green strip. We'll also modify 3D to read, providing minimum of two more benches along backyard area pathways set to the side of the main sidewalk. Clustered seating, benches and pairs facing each other is encouraged. We're also going to modify condition number 15 to read, final plans must specify snow storage, trash and recycling bins for litter collection. This shall include at least one additional trash and recycling bin at the Zephyr Road Market Street intersection. And then we're going to add three additional conditions, number 22, the curb cut onto Market Street shall align with the Union Bank curb cut across Market Street. Number 23, the crosswalks on Market Street shall align with the sidewalks from the building exits. And number 24, the DRB recommends that some alternative fuel slash EV charged spaces be publicly accessible for visitors in the surface parking lot. Recognizing this is not a requirement of 14.2.4.3 of the Wilson Development Bylaw. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Dave. Any discussion? No. Yay or nay, Paul? Yay. John Hemmelgarner? Yay. The chair is the yay, Dave Turner. Yay. Foreign favor, not opposed, motion carries. Is there any other business to bring forth before we adjourn? Nope. Actually, I do have one question of concern. What? Is the video froze? Doesn't look like it's working. No, we're all listening intently to you. Okay. Pete was frozen on my screen. That's what was going on. So I have a question around signage on residential property. That's kind of other business, I guess, but it... And where I'm coming from here, actually, I'm gonna drop it. I'll just take it off record later. I don't want it to be on record. Okay. Anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn? Don't move. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thanks for your service. Have a great holiday. You too. See you next year.