 We have to take it off, so that's when he just died and he did the fix it. See what this says? Channel 5 doesn't work. Huh? See if he was still alive, he would have fixed this. So I've only got seven channels instead of... So he's sort of in this... How did I design it? Well... He fix it. He is. He was. And I was well into cancer by then. And he could fix things. He was unbelievable. And he collected a lot of electronics and fixed it and recycled it. Deliberative. It's pretty typical. Very scared. Or they said it's the same as meeting about 30 years ago. One item. Well, in those days it was called the Planet Commision because there was a number one. Testing one, two, three. Testing one, two, three. Hello and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for April 2nd, 2019. First item on the agenda, directions to emergency evacuation procedures. We have four exit points in this room. Two there, two there. If there's ever an emergency, beat it in the South parking lot. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes to the agenda items? Any comments or questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Okay. Any announcements from the board? Item number five, conditional use application CU 1901 of Snyder Brayroom and Development Co LLC. It's indicated that the applicant wants to continue this item for May 7th, which they can do if they have a $50 application fee. Is there someone to make that motion with a condition that they have to pay the fee in order to continue this for May 7th? What's the date? May 7th? Yes. Okay. Conditional use application CU 1901 for Snyder Brayroom and Development Co LLC. to May 7th. All in favor, sign. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Opposed? I know. Okay. Item number six, sketch plan application. Oh, yes. Did you use that already? Yes. No, I didn't. On the phone is Mark Bear with the Development Review Board. Thank you. You're welcome. Item number six, sketch plan application SD 1910 of Snyder Brayroom and Development Co LLC. Similarly, this applicant has requested this item be continued for May 7th, which they can do on the condition of paying the $50 fee. Is there a motion? We continue SD 1910 of Snyder Brayroom and Development Company to May 7th. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? I know. Okay. Let's continue to May 7th. Item number seven, preliminary final application SD 1909 of Antonio B. Parmaloo LLC and Blue Dragonfly LLC to resubdivide three lots, 1519 and 1525 Shelburne Road and five Bartlett Bay Road. Who is here for the applicant? Come on up. Identify yourself. Steve Plozier, construction manager for Parmaloo Real Estate. And Chris Gallipoli, civil engineer and associates. Steve and Chris, this is a preliminary final plaque. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the whole truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. Tell us a little bit about what you have here with the preliminary and final application. Yeah, so essentially, I don't know if you want to switch to the site plan, but essentially, I think this is maybe Mark's five or six times in front of you guys. We're in here a year or so ago. And essentially, there's three different parcels. It's essentially the same owner, although the deeds indicate it's Antonio Parmaloo LLC and then Blue Dragon LLC. Essentially, this was a PUD many years ago. It was taken out of the PUD due to some sign regulations and different regulations that hindered the lot as part of a PUD. And essentially, because they're all owned by the same owner, Parmaloo would like to make some modifications to lot three, but we exceed the lot coverage. So a year or so ago, we were in here for a fairly large project, which included a whole parking lot expansion, reconfiguration, and improvements to both lots two and three. That project was put on hold given the size of it and the mylar was not ordered within the necessary time frame. So now we're back in front of you. This project only involves a subdivision. So there's no site plan or site work associated with this project. We will be coming back with future applications at some undetermined time for improvements. But essentially, it's just a boundary line adjustment for the three parcels. Even Chris, did you read the draft decision? We did. Questions or comments? So we have no problems. The only question we have, and it's not a big deal. I left, I played phone tag with Marla earlier, is item six, it talks about attaining site plan approval, which we have no problem with. But the reference to section A on the first page talks about needing to go back to DRB to amend site plans. Understanding back when they was reviewing it was that the last approval we did have to go back for site plan approval through you guys. We actually did it concurrently, but it was because of the amount of disturbance in the additional impervious area. Since we're not developing anything as part of this project, we believe it could be done administratively, but we're happy to. I mean, it's not a big deal of the way. We just thought those would be done administratively because it's less than 5,000 square feet of impervious or 3%. Staff's position is that if a waiver is required, which it will be because the existing properties and the properties as adjusted will be over the maximum allowable coverage and the maximum coverage that those will have to be seen by the DRB because the DRB has to grant a waiver of those standards. How do you know it will be over? I mean, it's going to go over the coverage simply by allowing the subdivision. In other words, will one of the lots be automatically over the coverage limit? On the table on the top of page 2 of the draft decision, it shows what those coverages will be. The maximum coverage, the maximum front setback coverage will not be increasing. The degree of non-compliance will be not increasing for any of the lots. It will be decreasing for all of the lots, but it will still be in non-compliance with the regulations. They're going to need a waiver even to adjust their approved site plan because they're already over, but the waiver that they'll be requesting will be a smaller waiver than they have today. Does that make sense? It does. I mean, I think there's still a little confusion. I mean, I don't think the conditions will be due to the waiver. We just come back to you guys for a site plan approval. I just, I think we were just, the applicant was, we've submitted site plan applications before and it's been approved administratively. So we were just unclear why. I don't think the staff has authority to grant waivers, doesn't it? Yeah, sure. Yeah. That's simple. Well, once we've been made aware of this. Well, we made you aware of it when we did the previous approval for this subdivision. When we were doing a parking lot. We were putting in 28 more parking stalls and enlarging and now we're not doing any of that. Right. So the reason the minor site plan amendments that you've done with Delilah recently could go through is because it doesn't, those approvals didn't change these nonconformities. So if you look at this table that Delilah has up, you're changing the 15, 25 Shelburne Road from the degree of nonconformity is changing. So that has to be administrative. Sorry, it has to be. That's something we can approve while they're sitting here. They haven't applied for it. So previously you did them both at the same time. That could have been done here, but it wasn't. Yeah. I mean, we would have been happy to submit it. We didn't know that. So I guess if there's no options and we have to come back, we'll just submit an application tomorrow and we'll be back in four weeks for no construction. But so we're just submitting the site plan just for the revised red reduction to make it more nonconform. Essentially, less, less, more conforming. If that's what we have to do this, we do questions on the board. No, I don't do this. Any questions in the public? I don't intend to motion to close. I think as far as I'm concerned, it's fine. Would you like me to do it the right way? Everything the other way? If we close preliminary and final plaid application SD 1909 of Antonio B. Pomerola with LLC and Blue Dragon LLC. All in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Item number eight, preliminary and final plan application SD 1908 of CCOM Federal Credit Union to amend a previous PUD for a four-story, 3,500 square foot financial institution with three drive-through lanes and 20 parking spaces on one acre at 16, the Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? Jeff Velaske with Cadmountain Consulting Engineers, the civil engineer for the project. Joe Ballester, PW Campbell, we're the design builder. Jeff and Joe, this is preliminary and final plaid. Could I have you raise your right hand? You swear to tell the show with under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you very much. Tell us a little bit about the Federal Credit Union. One second. Oh, sorry. Just for clarity. Disclosures. Well, that's not what it was going for, but the application header says sketch a plan. Oh, thank you. I know. Yeah. And I have done business with the pits again. We don't today, but we used to manage the building that's behind them. So I'm disclosing, but I don't think there's any. If you have a problem, I'll step aside. Okay. Thank you. Can you please? This is a sketch plan. No, this is a preliminary and final plaid. The header on the larger one. Yeah. But it is a preliminary and final plaid. Please describe the project if you would. Jeff and Joe. Yeah. So we were actually wearing sketch for sketch plan about a month or two ago. Wearing? Yep. Sorry. That's ours. Somewhere else. We were in for sketch plan a month or two ago and I think the generally speaking, the overall site plan layout has not changed significantly from that time. There was certainly some that was very preliminary. The plans that were presented that time, we provided those plans to staff have received comments back. I think addressed the majority of them with regard to some requests for some supplemental information on building profiles, glazing percentages, some landscaping, more detailed landscaping plans. I'm happy to go through them now. And maybe we could get to the one of the proposed site plans. I could start highlighting a few of the changes from the original sketch application unless there's a request to go over the project as a whole. Let's start with staff notes number one that the applicant must remove all signs from the plans, including call outs of sign location or may not approve signs or sign locations as part of the current application. Staff recommends the board include a condition to this effect. Item number two is the board discussed whether to require dimension building elevations to support glazing requirements. Those profiles have been provided. Unfortunately, they were just in the last couple of days here, but we do have them available for presentation tonight. And I'm sure Joe here is happy to do this. Is there a supplemental? Not in your supplemental. I don't like the supplemental. So dimensional elevations. So I didn't quite get all the way through reviewing these. So what came to us originally was sort of this weird hybrid of an elevation and a rendering. It was like, and that was what was in your packet. The architect has sent us true elevations and a couple of renderings. I ran out of time today to thoroughly look at these elevations. The one criteria that's relevant is the glazing. There has to be 40% glazing facing Shelburne Road. I didn't get a chance to check the math on that. But if they feel confident in the math, we have the information and I'm comfortable checking that math. It's not like we're accepting new information afterwards. Sure looks like it's well glazed. I think that that elevation, the lower one would be the one to Shelburne Road elevation, essentially that we're concerned with. The only thing that's a little funny about it is that that Please switch the plan view for a second. Sure. Yep. Go to a different page. Any plan is fine. So that corner is diagonal. It looks like from the elevation that they didn't count most of the corner in their 40%. They excluded it from both the calculation of the size of the facade and the calculation of the glazing. At a glance, this seemed appropriate to us. I don't know how the board feels about it. Mark, can you see the elevations earlier? No, I did. I took a look at it and I'm definitely comfortable that they are at their eighth foot mark. That's that's being very apparent even without seeing the dimension elevations just from the rendering and the scale of the seven foot door. Everything is taller than that. If they're presenting the 80% of the glazing, you know, they're testifying to that. So I take them at their word on that and basically if the calculations don't pan out, they'll have to revise it. But you know, it looks more than adequate. If you page down to the table in the bottom left, there is might be on the next sheet. There is a calculation table there and we exceed the 40%. We weren't quite sure how to illustrate the with the angled the 45 degree entry. But I mean to we would certainly be willing to make this a condition of the approval that we would work this out with the staff to satisfy the 40%. So we can't make we can't make changes to the plans. But if you're confident that it meets and the board is comfortable with the first of all the way you presented it with the color and the not great. It's just not me actually having the spare moment to check it. So if the board is comfortable with the way they've shown in color what they're counting as the facade and in gray. What they're key flip to the one that I'm talking about. It's the page second one on page two. So in gray is the diagonal portion. So they've counted the flat portion as towards their 40%. And the diagonal is not none of the diagonal. The diagonal is is in the totals and we just took each plane. So you know north southeast and then southeast. I think the other thing to keep in mind is that that diagonal section is very glazed if unless I'm mistaken. It is. So if we were include that in both the total square of each and the glazing. If it can probably increase the overall. Yeah. I'm comfortable with it. And I'm comfortable that as presented and fine putting just as a condition that they testify that they need it. But you know and even have a calculation. Yeah. And I can check the calc between now and deliberations. That's totally fine. Okay. I remember four. Ask the applicant whether there are any rooftop elements proposed beyond the architectural feature at the front of the building rooftop elements include mechanical equipment in excess of one foot in height. There are no mechanical equipment. There are just typical pipe chases and roof vents and exhaust vents things like that. And the maximum height is 25 feet. So rooftop elements do need to be screened. I don't know if you want to read the section 8.06 G. If they're over one foot in height. Is that there would be nothing over one foot in height. I just want it read because I don't remember exactly what it says. So 8.06 G is in the LDR. I didn't know. I'm sorry. Delilah 8.06 G is about the height of features, but then the screening of rooftop features that also 8.06 G. G1 shall be enclosed. Yeah, concealed. Such rooftop mechanical equipment is used in operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of subject structure. Such features in excess of one foot shall be enclosed by outer building walls or parapets grouped or screened or themselves designed so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the buildings. Such rooftop devices shall not be counted as a story. Do we put a condition that says, do the things that it says in 8.06 G1? Yeah. That's what you're saying. There's no penetration or no. Nothing over a foot. I'm willing to testify that there will be no mechanicals over one foot. Are you talking about the roof line or above the plane of the roof, the rake of the roof? Is it the peak or the rake? It says one foot in height. So the mechanicals not over one foot in height. From where? From the penetration. That's fine. So the mechanicals over one foot needs to be screened. Vent stacks, yeah. Vent stacks, exhaust hoods, things like that. All the mechanicals are on a pad on the north end of the building. That's the square on the north side. Correct. Got it. The board require the criteria 8.06 G. Is that what we just read? No. That's different. Front agricultural feature, architectural feature. That's slightly different. Front architectural features prior to the closing of the hearing. 8.06 G. So that's no higher than 14 feet above the maximum height of the building. And so you just said that it was 25 feet. 25 feet? Max height? Yes. From the finish floor elevation. Right. And the max height in the district is 35. So you're well under the max height. Right. The requirements of the board require the applicant to update the EPSC notes to require a seat and multi erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading. Staff concerns this can be an improvement of approvals. 7. Staff does not have concerns about the aesthetics of the building itself provided urban design overlay criteria are demonstrated to be met as discussed above. The recommends the board consider whether to require additional views showing whether the proposed landscaping will be positioned to screen the parking area from Shelburne Road and showing the aesthetics of the building as viewed from the north. The applicant has in their cover letter indicated the landscaping is designed to provide screening to the residential apartment building to the east. So the concern here is the building is viewed from the north. So I'm trying to visualize it in my head here. So they sent us a couple of extra renderings. This is actually being viewed from the. That's from the south. That's from the south. And this is sort of from the south. Sort of from the southeast. I work with the channel. Because you like. Right. Yeah, I mean it's difficult actually to. You live a hard time seeing that as you come from the north initially because because Willie Racine's blocks part of the view and there's and it's also if you're if you're on Shelburne Road it's going to be raised. It's going to be your it's going to be above the natural site line. It's an uphill grade to get to the building. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. See the curves. Yeah, I see. I see the topography lines. There's quite a crop there. What is that? I think it says. Yeah. Someone that that arranged the the sidewalk from the building entrance down to Shelburne Road is will have be a staircase of sorts. Where's the. In the back. Yeah. That's actually the vehicles. On the left or continue to right. And loop into counterclockwise fashion. To queue with the four drive-through lanes. You know, and then exiting back out. The south side of the property is the jeep dealership. No. So actually it's an open field for part of the coming over to the drive. Well it's actually as you can see where right up against the property line with a proposed double-stack There's actually immediately after that is the infiltration basin that treats the storm water for the entire property And then there's well, yeah Then there's the driveway to the comp you know the shared driveway to Bartlett Brook apartments And then the ravine down at the Bartlett Brook and woods. Yeah You're coming up from the south what you see is trees. So you're good with the screening But I myself a note when we were talking about the elevations There's a call-out on the elevations that I wanted to ask about On the elevations so on The window down here if you can zoom into that one Way in so note 3 Yeah, just zoom down a little bit and see note 3 goes to the middle of that window pane and note 3 is ground face CMU veneer not being an architect. I just wanted to confirm that that's actually a window Yes, that is a window. It's spandrel glass that that lower section from that lowest mullion down to the Where the block is correct John that that's you should not be that's a typo Left the notes as pre stone veneer water table. That's also intended I think Three should be slid over to the block and then the the precast cap is The transition from the block to the brick. Okay We've gotten we've gotten caught in that trap before when there's a little tiny call-out and it's come back to bite us So I want to be sure You can move your arrow Thank you Night number eight fire chief reviewed the plans on 327 requested the applicant make modifications to the eastern two parking lot bump-outs Staffer lady's comments to the applicant the anticipates the applicant Ultimately what he was requesting was if you're looking at the double loaded parking area The far east side of that the right side as you look at the plan here the two grass medians curb medians that on either side of that Parking lot he wanted those to be mountable curves essentially so that he could do a three-point turn with the fire truck Provide a little more space there We had made a request to him as an alternative to that solution if we could maybe just pull both of those bump-outs medians Pull them back out a couple feet on either side and stick with standard curbing Just because the reasoning being we're a little concerned with plows jumping the curb with with mountable curbing as opposed and To standard traditional curbing so we'd accomplish this thing that way personally heard back Marilla sounded like she had had a conversation with him about that today and that he was fine with that alternative But I haven't gotten confirmation on that But either way regardless of what we need to do will satisfy chief Francis's concerns The preference would be to pull the curbs in a little a couple feet But if we need to do mountable we can do that as well So I met with the chief today and he we took a look at it And he agreed that if Jeff were to pull it back five feet for both of them and then the other part of the comment was that the trees In the in those islands should be pulled back to be at the front of the space for it So the north one goes north and the south one goes south so that there is a space on that It's for the fire truck because when the trees mature those branches will be you know much bigger than the yeah So that's acceptable to us as well then as a solution Number nine Staff recommends the board include the stormwater sections common as a condition of approval Jeff Joe you're okay with that Turn staff considers this criteria generally met And recommends the board review the landscaping plan and architectural renderings to confirm talking about the relationship of post structures to the site So go to the either the renderings or the elevations Yeah, probably the rendering or feel comfortable with making sure that this is a Desirable transition from structure to site from structure to structure and provide adequate planning safe pedestrian movement and adequate parking areas yes, okay, and item number 11 Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide for tree protection on the applicable site plans Yeah, not a problem. We're talking about the existing trees to remain. I'm assuming Yeah retain the existing trees. There's only a few on the north side and we can certainly add some notes to her You know install construction fence during construction or something those trees. Yep Number 12 for all the building percent acquired short-term bike parking space Your two spaces in one closed locker Staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate how will they they will comply with the long-term bike storage and locker requirements, how are we going to do it? We're Not sure what long-term bike storage means Okay, long-term bike storage is described in 13.14 of the LDRs It involves protection of all elements of the bicycle and secure locking In an upright position. I don't know if you want to read it. You were right on the right page there Right where your fingers Yes Not where your finger was So this one Oh for non-residential To all it Secure storage and bicycle locker bike storage room or enclosure that protects entire bicycle Including components and accessories against theft and weather allow secure locking of the frame and wheel and supports a bicycle upright Where indicated in table 1311 closed lockers shall be lockable with following minimum dimensions 12 inches wide 18 inches deep 36 inches high lockers do not need to be in the same place as bicycle storage Secure office-based private offices may account for up to 50% of the required indoor parking areas and lockers provided they located on the ground floor the building accessible and of supplies Shower changing facilities depending on the number of bicycles required stored as indicated in table 1310 and for Retail restaurant office and all others its One per 5,000 square foot Short-term so long-term 50% of required short-term bicycle parking spaces. We need space for four bikes Two of them have to be long long term. They need for short term and 50% of that in long term So for short term which they have and then to long term The two long term and enough to confirm with the credit union, but there's a mechanical room Designed in this where we horizontally mount the furnaces. So there'll be more than enough storage in there for the bike storage So it'll be under lock key and and out of the weather the lockers That's part of the credit unions. I stand and put lockers in their employee lounge and Today is designed to full stand-up height lockers and then three over three So they and they are exactly 12 by 18 by 36 So we'll be able to meet that no problem in the changing room the conference room is set up to be a dual-purpose room in addition to meeting the Pardon my that if I use the term incorrectly, but the a mothering room a lactating room so there's a Full privacy there so that could be utilized as a changing room as well You're not actually required to have a changing room. That's for a larger projects Okay Any other questions about the board about this project anyone here from the public that would like to speak about this project Yes, go ahead and identify yourself please And Thank You Dave kind of got caught up in our transition here There's only two of us that have been signed by the board to take a look at plans Concerned with the two large trees that are existing that are seem to be Not savable if we're guessing right because of the difference of elevation that they're having to take care of is that Correct statement. Yeah, I believe we discussed this at length at the sketch review With regards to the existing vegetation out front because we were looking for some direction on that and If memory serves as far as there's two large deciduous trees primarily, I think we're talking about that can be seen on north of photo now One it would be located as Yep, we can scroll a little bit. You should be able to see it on that plan Yeah, there's that tree there and then there's a one south the upper one because the requirement to have the building Up against the frontage That tree kind of falls right within the front entrance of the building and also understanding that's five or six feet above Existing grade and then the the southern one has a similar challenge where that parking lot in order to get a compliance Access into the front of the building that parking lots raised as well So we had the same challenges there as far as the elevation change and so We requested that those trees be removed as part of the sketch review With the offset being that we were going to maintain and manage the trees along the northern property line and I Understand there's nothing formal about that the review of sketch review But we operated and went forward with the design based on that assumption Any other comments if not out there 10 motion to close Preliminary and final SD-1908 Get them up. Excuse me. It's got a property. So If she comes he come federal credit, yeah, but Yes, it's you're right. Yes, it's it's formally on the on the You got the number, right? Second by Jennifer all in favor say aye. I was opposed. Okay. Thank you, John. Thank you Okay, now we're going to do continued site plan application SB 1902 of Champlain housing truck This is to amend a previously approved site plan for a hundred and four unit multi building residential complex This amendment is for approval to revise the landscape plan by removing trees at 435 Dorset Street Who is here for the applicant? Charles Patel oh, hi Charles. How are you good? Right since I plan to have you raise your right hand Charles And I swear to hold it tell the whole truth under penalty of perjury. Yes. Thank you very much Tell us a little bit about what we're gonna look at next about the tree removal. So we We have a number of trees that are very close to the buildings and Some of which are dropping limbs and he would like to remove them I've since the last meeting. I've actually done a account of the other trees on site. So there's actually 30% of the site is conservation area The perimeter of the site has over 2,100 trees 11 years ago The previous owner took down some trees had a had a plan created and that plan is now the site plan although those trees are much older than this property so that the conservation areas to the left and That's that's showing the current site the one that are were marked in the plan or near the buildings inside that's the Second drawing if you can switch to that That shows that those trees are that we wish to take out or removed It's a little hard to See much of a difference. It's about 5% of the trees that we're proposing to to remove You were here last time it wasn't me it was somebody with whom I work So what we asked for is greater clarity in terms of of knowing what trees are going to be removed and and the board Have any comments about that the new The tree plan and then circles around what they're getting rid of right and I What's there now and then showing what it's going to be like with what they're proposing to remove and I think that what they've given us on top of the photos showing the conditions that are driving this request for removal You know, it's I think it's I personally in reviewing it looking at it. I think that it seems reasonable Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Do I this was about That's sort of an earlier picture as a sample of the site some of the trees are quite large. This was just five to go and So that's we have many of those trees right next to you know within five feet of the building Unfortunately, they're very large diameter And so and then in the next couple of pictures you can see some of the reason that You know, we were lucky this winter in that we didn't damage any buildings, but there's some large limbs that are coming down I don't think she we should have any hesitation at this point Yeah, just as a note in our packet. We see the memorandum from TJ Boyle associates from Jeremy Owens Commenting how this may not be the only Similar issue with tree removal as you tree that we're gonna have to deal with so it's something Just There were some principles that We arrived at last time where they're not But the discussion was that the LDR's omit direction on what to do for trees greater than five inches Except to say that it must go in front of the board So we do and therefore it is up to the board's discretion on whether to allow removal of trees greater than five We established or at least we discussed some rational principles for when we would allow it and not and one of them was you know proximity and perspective danger to the To the building or the or the foundation? I'm sure you all have gone and looked at this, but this is a this is a project that is so overplanted It's so sterlingly overplanted I Jokingly refer to it as a forest with some housing in it Well, it really is I mean they cleared the original decisions that you you chip and I have read through all the 200 pages of Exhaustive there were like court orders and things. It was a disaster But they literally Cleared as few trees as possible when they originally developed this project and it was a forest then I my only comment is I think it would be helpful to include. I don't know how clear the The minutes are on or even if they're drafted yet, but I Think it would be helpful to include in the decision Lay out so we have some guidelines for next time What you know what the general configurations are so I did minutes again reporting again because there aren't minutes available I summarized some of that in the hearing in the staff memo, which is that The board said they wanted to take into consideration Aesthetics forest health and building health when considering whether to allow the trees to be removed Just one other thing Human health Because Getting natural light to these buildings is is valuable to the people who are going to live in them I still I mean Chip said this this is I I would have gone for more So some of it's a budget budget That's why that doesn't already have some trees so I Mean, I'm ready. There's some other comments here. We should we should step through if that's alright with you Charles The staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant what they plan to use for utility cabinet screening Require the applicant to amend their plan to include a note describing the plan utility cabinet screening as a condition of approval Yeah, so we we do plan fencing around the Dumpsters so the dumpsters are indicated now on the the site plan and I'm still waiting to discuss with the utilities whether we can Plant shrubberies around those utility cabinets or whether we use fencing We're gonna want that before Um, do we need to know whether it's going to be Shrubs on the plan that they Application shall plant or provide fencing the ldr's read that they can do either I mean if this project were coming back in front of the board, I'd say get it sorted out And decide what it's going to be because this feels like a relatively minor issue Right. I want to find a way that they can just We can just have a condition So we can close it get the condition be it be either or It's up to the board. That's that's the way that rags read. Yes. So yeah, we could be taking I don't necessarily feel the need to at this point You know, we were considering adding the shrubs if you needed to have some compensatory plantings um but I'm not sure if the utilities are For that So staff rec also recommends as a condition of approval that non-compliant light fixtures must be replaced with downcast and shielded fixtures They do that. Yes. Those are replaced now All right, thank you I've discussed with the applicant where they intend to place bicycle parking Inquire the applicant to show bicycle parking locations on the plan as a condition of approval So do you have bike parking now or will you Well, there there's room within the parking sheds for bicycles in addition to the vehicles There's sort of bumpers and then there's room beyond that More than that there's not explicit bike parking Some people we need explicit bike parking on the pan And it only needs to be for six bikes Um, so if you want to do three of those inverted use Right And mark it on your plan Um, but if the board is going to close we need chip to point on the plan where he's going to put it so that we can include that as a condition of approval Where would you put six bikes? Um, I think we plan for more than that, but you know the at the lower corner there is the Office building that shed there's a parking shed Across the just outside the ring there. Um, so there's there's room What about by the entrance where the kids get off the bus? There's other there's room up by the the entrance out of dorset street In that area actually probably straight opposite the entrance would be a little bit better Right in that area Would would work well Um, I'd probably end up putting a few in the back area sort of the second loop um We only need three six total so We could do three and three or six up front So you only need three hues because each view parks two bicycles. Okay So if you wanted to do one in each of those locations you described one you and each that would be fine just have uh tj Indicate those on the plan that we submit. That's right. So let me just take some notes one by opposite entrance Trans one by By the what do you what did you call it? It's an office and maintenance building Is that building we may have changed that What does it say now? Do they have to be bolted to a concrete pad? They do have to be um, they do have to be firmly affixed to To the ground. I think it's something to that effect need something to hit you So on the outer loop road, I'm going to steal Delilah's cursor here Um Any other comments from the board Sorry, I just didn't get Enough direction on where the last the third one here is going by the by the maintenance shed. No, I got that one I would think between so it's building 10 and building seven. So that's uh, a little bit further around the curve Yep, right about there. Okay It comes from the public Dave could you identify yourself? Very thank you Natural resource chair The comments that we have is that number one if You're you're not giving up your jurisdiction if they trees grow again, and they need to be removed and the board still has that Controlling interest I presume that hasn't that changed by this Agent Say what one more time trees? Yes, so we're going to get bigger again. They're going to be Required removal if they're over the whatever the over five inches and they want to take them down They got to come back to us. Right. Yeah We're on that regard We're wondering if there shouldn't couldn't be Some way to accommodate a management plan so that the trees some new trees get planted when some old ones get taken out We appreciate the percentages that are you're talking about here, but um, and they seem you know To be there, but the idea of having property owners continuing to Manage their property and keep it up Planning trees at different times would seem to be a rational thing now having said that we Believe that we are correct that you can't Recreate View board you don't have a jurisdiction to make them tree maintenance or landscape maintenance plan That's something that we have on our list to Make the planning commission and counsel aware of it's an appropriate time in the future But we just want to make it's going to be a consistent thing that you're going to hear from us. It's one of the When we had the meeting and you know the tree canopy Maintaining that the way to maintain it is to have a responsible Replacement plan So if I could respond to what Dave was saying, um, he just said that you know, the drb doesn't have the authority to require that That's a true statement at site plan. Um for puds though the board often requires various conditions to be established So it may be A well in this plan There could easily be a landscape management plan that says something like if you know, you need to maintain a certain number of trees Total or whatever, but hurricane wipes out Five trees you need to replace five trees no matter what the calendar You could put that in a pud and and maybe it isn't maybe we do you know That pud doesn't require the inch by inch that we historically required But maybe there's some nod to maintenance of a well landscape site That would be a great solution I agree with Dave completely. I mean if you if you could have Something that basically you know, you're you're replacing trees as a tree has to come down as a tree gets too old And it's dying or it's under undermining a building You have a replacement plan a lot of people a lot of people in town Would be happy to put that into place just so they don't have to do this Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. We appreciate if we are hearing you write the idea You know has has some Acceptance we just got to figure out how to move forward in the future. That's right. I would I would think it I mean chip. I wouldn't hold this up over it But this is a this is a great opportunity for you all to say, you know, this is our plan The next six months or a year as you as you're sending this thing out to to come up with a forestry plan because you really have a forest and and You might be creating the base for everybody else It wouldn't that be nice That is a motion to close Motion to close continue site plan application sp 1902 of Champlain housing trust I move to close continue site plan application sp dash 1902 of Champlain housing trust Second oh, sorry Second Motion to close in a second all in favor say aye. All right those opposed Okay, thank you very much chip. Appreciate it Uh, I remember 10. I don't believe we have minutes. Is that do I have that right? Oh No, we do have minutes Did I not some no, I didn't see the link I got minutes dated 19 March. Where did you get them from because they're not in my pocket? Oh, they are they're just not the last thing Okay item 11 other business consider amendments to the development review board Rules of procedure to remove conflict of interest policy and refer to the stead to the citywide Conflict of interest policy adopted by the city council on December 3rd 2018 And be consider other clarifying amendments to the development review board rules of procedure So why don't we take the first one first? So if I can give a little background The City council adopted a citywide conflict of interest policy largely based on the drb conflict of interest policy back in december It Because the idea is to remove it from the drb one now that there's a citywide one all committees are subject to this So the first document in there or the first two documents is a red line removing the conflict of interest policy and A copy of the new citywide conflict of interest policy which the drb is subject to So that first item Should be fairly straightforward to try to keep it really simple The second Item in other business consider other clarifying amendments We thought that the development review board may want to chew over more. So we sort of separated them out And our hope was that you would take a look at them Maybe we could have some discussion, but we're not necessarily looking to have the board adopt all of those Changes tonight Where do we find those they were in the packet the red lining Other business no, I'm in the document all the red lines down below. So there's Five in agenda item number 11 A b c d e Well, they don't have it like that. They just have it as one big thing So the first one is the new conflict policy citywide The second one is the red line removing the conflict policy. The third one is An accepted version of that and then the fourth one is the other changes Um Unless other people are rarer to go I'd really appreciate it if we could defer this I'm actually very interested in the topic. I as I said, I had a heck of a time I could not make the link from your email to the To to the agenda I don't even manage to dig up the bear agenda by going to the public site Just before I come over here tonight It's I'd really like to take a look at these and think about them and And since not I agree with frank regarding the clarifying evidence development report the procedures the conflict of interest policy seems to be That's right. I don't care about that. I'm concerned about the and so I think we could Separate these two and we could approve That if there was a motion and then we could Decide to uh, I move we separated to the two they already are separated. Okay. So is there a motion to adopt the city-wide conflict of interest policy? So moved So moved second Second by jennifer All in favor of adopting the city-wide conflict of interest policy So that's not really what we're here to do the city-wide conflict of interest policy is not an option for us City council has adopted a on behalf of all city committees The people they did do have to unadopt our The the action that The board has to take is to adopt an amended drb rules of procedure that removes Their own conflict policy got it And does that Does that refer to the city councils? Yes, so Um Can we adopt the partial rules of procedures just reflecting the conflict of interest? Language and then take our time to review the actual changes Yes, yeah, why can't we just move to delete from the existing policy the conflict of interest provisions in deference to the To the city council and come back later and consider the rest of it I I I guess it was confusing but that is exactly what the first document does Check All in favor say aye. Okay, so frank moved to adopt the amendments removing the Conflict policy from the drb And then jennifer seconded sure All in favor say aye. All right. All right those opposed Okay, and uh, we should review rules of procedures. We'll make sure frank gets a copy and we'll have a robust discussion on a later day Two weeks from today or Um, let me look at the agenda for two weeks from today the That's a doozy of an agenda So I would prefer to do it in May Anybody else have trouble hooking up to the link from from marla's email to the link to get tonight to night's package I didn't do it that way I went through the site Okay, the development room board meeting for april second is over. Thank you very much We do have a draft um Oh three, um, we have a draft decision for For marlowe magic hat