 We negotiate the trade of the chair. It's going to my music class tomorrow. Your music class. And we have our recital and we host life. That cake was enormous, I think. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. It was. I just found it. I've had it for about 40 years, my whole life I've had this. I just found it. It's a little French, or somewhere. Welcome to the South Burlington Development View Board for Tuesday, May 21, 2019. We have an agenda, and I realize that our rules of procedure say that I will remind all presidents that the proceeding will be conducted in an orderly manner. So, see right there, it says, remind all that the proceeding will be conducted in an orderly manner. Oh, I don't doubt you, Bill. But copies of these rules, so our rules of procedure should be available. Copies of these rules should be available, so maybe they're not, they will be soon in other meetings. In the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, these two doors out right here are the best way out, unless something happens there. And then we go back up where we came, but we should all meet in the south lot, which is right behind me to make sure that everyone is safe per the sign-up sheet that's going around. Second item on the agenda, additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda items? Does anyone have any comments or questions, not related? Okay. Announcements. We need DRB members, so if you know of anyone who might be good at this, please ask them to apply. It would be very helpful. No experience required. That's how much I had. Yes, that is actually an interesting thing Delilah and I learned. Renters are encouraged to apply. You don't have to be. As long as you're a resident. You just have to be a resident. Very good point. So renters may apply. Thank you very much. That's great. Items five and six on the agenda, we would like to consider together because they both concern Blue Dragonfly. Item number five is site plan application SP 1908 of Blue Dragonfly LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 12,345 square foot building consisting of 6,549 square feet of office use, 4,164 square feet distribution of storage and 1,032 square feet vacant. The amendment consists of updating previously approved dimensional standards to reflect the recently approved subdivision SD 1909 at 1519 Sheldon Road and related site application SP 1909 of Blue Dragonfly to amend a previously approved plan for a 6,400 square foot, 6,470 square foot mixed use building consisting of auto repair and retail use. The amendment consists of updating previously approved dimensional standards to reflect the recently approved subdivision SD 1909, SD 1909 at 1525 Sheldon Road because this is SP 1909 and the previous one was also SP 1909 as opposed to SD. So who is here for Blue Dragonfly? Thank you very much. No conflicts of interest on the board and we're having conflicts of interest. Very good. And this, if you'll raise your right hand, you promise to have a whole truth and nothing but the truth on the penalty perjury. Thank you very much. So if you'll explain these two site plan, dimensional adjustments. My name is Steve closure with Pomela Real Estate and Blue Dragon. We just had to amend our site plans. We came in a couple of months ago and did a lot line adjustment and it was noticed that the plans hadn't been updated. So we're just bringing them in to get them done. Very good. Comments or questions from the board? Staff? Anybody? Hearing none. I'll enter into motion to close both of these applications. I move that we close SP 1908 of Blue Dragonfly and second application SP 1909 of Blue Dragonfly. Second. It's been moved in second. It closes applications on favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda, final application SD 19-14 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC to amend a previously approved planning development on 39.16 acres consisting of 64 single family dwellings, two, two family dwellings and 14 lots. The amendment consists of replacing five, two family dwellings with five single family dwellings at 255 Kennedy Drive. Who is here? The applicant. Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers. Thank you. Hi, Evan. How are you? Good. How are you doing? Good. Good. And this is first time on this, right? So we need to swear I'm in. If you raise your right hand, you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not peddling with burgery. Thank you very much. Great. Well, thank you again for welcoming us in. If staff is okay with it, I do have, you know, staff sometimes doesn't like us handing out supplemental materials. There's just four pages that give a little bit additional detail. Okay, if you guys, and I'll just walk you through this, these materials. I do have a coffee in particular. Nice to meet you. Thank you. Thank you. How are you? Nice to meet you. Oh, thank you. We figured it was time for an update. So the request primarily is to, to change a number of the units we have. I'm sorry. We're just replacing the setbacks that we saw in our packet. Yeah, it's updating the setbacks. So before we launch into it, we should probably talk about the issue that Andrew had called me about earlier this week, which is that despite some back and forth emails, both of us had missed that we misunderstood their proposal. And their proposal was in fact to replace five duplex units with seven single family units, not five single family units. Which explains that why there's seven units here on this, on the packet, right? Yep. I'm trying to understand. Okay. That makes sense to me now. So I had some questions about that because one of your plans showed five single families circled in. Oh, did I make that circle? Maybe that's why. All right. But the question for the board is whether this needs to be rewarned. Staff's position is that the approval is for five duplexes consisting of 10 units. They're requesting a reduction to seven single families, which, and we noticed a reduction to five single families. So in fact, they're asking for less of an amendment than we noticed. So we think it's okay without re-noticing it. But wanted to get the board to weigh in on that. I'm okay with it. I'm okay too, if it was going the other way I might have. It's really the applicant's choice, right? Because if it's not noticed properly, they're the ones that stand to lose from this. Yeah. We don't have a problem proceeding. All right. Good. Seven. Yeah. So as Marla pointed out, so the request is to reduce. We have five townhome units, which consist of 10 units. We want to replace those with seven single family units on the downhill side, which actually is consistent with the rest of Two Brothers Drive, which is that upper loop road on the existing development. It's not clear to me because very unusually I didn't look at the plat before I came. Are we talking about covering the same area of ground total coverage? These seven units occupy the same. Yeah. It doesn't change the coverage. Same area as the previous five buildings did? Correct. The only slight change would be on the rear yard setbacks, which does change a little bit because the single family units are a little bit longer. But it also increases because there's more side yard setback in between. So we could calculate that. You now have seven lots where you had five lots? Yeah, except that the five lots were townhome units, so they were wider. You know what I mean? Yeah. So this document, Marla, that was in our packet. This is these numbers. This is not up for consideration. It's this document that replaces it. Right. So we're updating it based on our updated calculations. And we've also shifted some of the units, which I'll get into in a second. Okay. So yes, this new table, which is the front page called Building Rear Setback Request, does replace that existing one. Continue. So again, on the units, I think it's 65 to 71 is what we're looking to convert to the single family units. And again, the real reason for doing this is that the single family homes are out pacing slightly the townhome units. And what we're trying to do is have a balanced approach to the development. So it proceeds along concurrently. We get in so the homeowners that are on the street have less construction, you know, in perpetuity, you know, if one side of the street is being built out at a higher rate than the other side of the street, it creates a little bit of an imbalance issue. So you have people living in construction for a longer period of time. We believe that the net reduction in units is immaterial. As a little bit of a side note there, as you know, we've gone in for a sketch plan on the multifamily component, which is the second piece of this existing master plan. When we came in for the sketch plan, we were slightly under the cap of the existing density units. We are trying to up that. And what we're trying to do is hit the ceiling on our existing density units. So even though we have a net loss of three units and what we're proposing here, we're looking to capture that and actually increase our unit count on the apartment units. Please remind me, do you have a density bonus on? No. The affordable housing issue is not present? There's no. And if we could look at the circle, the balloon we had around those was circling units 67 to 71. And you were saying that's actually 65 to 71, right? So the... Whatever you want, Devin. Whatever is best for you to show. So what that is actually showing there, which is here are the lot numbers. So there's 71. And so this red outline should actually be increased to encompass 65 through 71. So I think that's where the confusion was. So that, you know, you end up with seven units as opposed to ten units, so you have a net reduction of three. And there's a rear line adjustment down to 65, too? Yes. So what we're suggesting in this updated packet, which I just provided, is that on lot 65 and lot 71, we would stipulate having a lesser number of unit types that we could put there. So, you know, some of our units have deeper footprints, and so they encroach a little bit more on that lot line boundary. And so what we're suggesting is on lot 65, we would limit our footprints to two of our units. It actually creates multiple units, but two of our footprints. So the Trillium model footprint and the Lupin model footprint, which each have second story versions, so that it actually creates four units there. And then on lot 71, we would stipulate to limiting that to the Trillium, which again has a second story version, but it's one footprint. And as a result, none of those rear yard setbacks would encroach anywhere close upon the five yard issue that staff brought up. That's because 65 and 71 are closest to that line. Exactly. Exactly. You can see that the lot, you know, the home footprints are at angles to the boundaries. So obviously we're measuring the closest point to it, but the reality is that most of the building is not that tight to the rear yard setback. So for instance on 65, and if you back out a little bit, you see 71, those are the two closest. And so that's where we're really trying to limit ourselves on the units that we could put there. And so none of them would actually encroach within 10 feet. And again, there's, there's outboard decks of those footprints. So it's not even actually the building footprint that's encroaching upon it. It's the deck that's on a second level because of that hillside. So you have a cantilever deck, which is what is actually encroaching upon that boundary. And we're still staying within that 10 foot boundary. And the setbacks that we've proved on the townhomes were five feet. What was the? Actually Evan's shown the proofs that some of the units had waivers in his handouts. So on unit 65 and 66, they had a small waiver. And then on unit 70 and 71, they also had a waiver. Though Evan, I don't totally follow because the unit numbers should have changed, right? Or did you have- These are the single family units. So these are the seven single family units that we're showing on this front page. And I'm showing what the end result. So the original rear setback for the duplex units. So we basically just put what the original setback was for that. In that geography, not necessarily corresponding to that number. Not that corresponding number. Correct. Graphically, 66 looks like it's very close to the line too. Is there, is that just incorrect? I mean, I would have guessed that 76 was closer than- Sorry, 66 was closer than 65. It's the corner of what is being measured. Yeah, that does visually look closer. So I'm not sure why that is showing that way because- Well, if it's the scale then it would be because it's closer. That's a good point. You're saying it's two feet further based on- It will be two feet further away. Exactly, yeah. These are also the biggest footprints that we're showing here. And again, that takes into account the outboard deck. The homes with inboard decks such as the Trillium, the deck is actually set into the building. So it's only a foot outboard of the building. Whereas on a typical, call it on the daisy style home, you have a 10 foot deck outboard of the building. Your chart, you keep saying you're within the 10 feet, but I'm not sure it's material, but your chart says nine feet for the front setback for units 65 and 71. That's the front setback. We're talking about the rear setbacks that are encroaching upon the rear setback boundary. So it's the rear setback deck in parentheses there that's actually encroaching. The rear setback main is what the actual building footprint is. But in order to get, I know you talked about 65 and 71, but on 66, 67 and 70, are those what you're going to be with the Trillium, what do you call it, the inboard deck? The 65 and the 71 are the ones that were limiting. So you could put one of your larger footprints at 66 and 67 and get to 12 and 10. 66 through 70, they all work. Although you're still at 10 feet. Yeah. They all work to not encroach beyond 10 feet, I should say. So I think what Evan's saying is they'd like a setback waiver, a rear setback waiver for units 65 through 71 of 10 feet. Correct. Because I think what staff's comments were, the board does not have the ability to grant a variance within a five foot setback. Right. The board's ability to waive the setback is to five feet. And what you asked for was three feet. What they're asking for today instead is 10 feet, which is within the board's ability to waive. Correct. And for the front setback, the board has already granted a waiver that these homes are within. So no adjustment to that waiver is needed. And as you said, there's a drop off right behind these houses, right? There is. So on the last unit, so unit 71, there's a three foot retaining wall, which is, I don't know if you've been up to this site, but we're building them out of boulders that we've harvested off the site. So it's a pretty attractive wall. It's not just, you know, a poured concrete retaining wall, but it's three feet at the kind of the choke point of that green space. And then it gets higher as it goes along. So there's a pretty good grade drop off from the backyard of the single family home to where folks would actually be walking through the middle of that green space. And then there's a six foot retaining wall on the downhill side. So there's a significant grade change. So really what we're trying to get at is that as someone's walking their dog through that park, you know, they're not staring into the back window of the uphill home, and they're not staring into the back window of the downhill home because there's such a significant grade change. And I don't want to get ahead of myself, but we've also on the page after that rear setback table, what we have also suggested, you know, partially based on staff's comments, but we've also been intending to supplement our planting plan anyway. So we've suggested that we would be willing and we're going to do it regardless because we have the ability to supplement our landscaping to add additional screening in that green space area. So what you see right now in there that's highlighted in red are all new plantings. It encompasses about $20,000, actually, in access of $20,000 of new plantings just in that area there. What we're trying to do is have, you know, native species, a combination of deciduous and conifers as well as, you know, smaller hedges. And really it's not to create a heavily treeed area, but it's to better define that walking path and also provide a little bit of screening for the residences. So the drop-off you described, so you're kind of walking here, there's a cliff on one side, but then there's another cliff over here. So if you're walking along here you kind of could be looking into the windows. Yeah, but the grade change is so significant on the, from that green space to the downhill side that you're really, you're almost at basically a roofline. If you walked out there now you would actually get a better feel for the grade change. It's less of an impact on the uphill side, but again there's a three-foot retaining wall and that's on the walkout level, you know, the basement level, you could finish it out, but the main living level is up on the second deck. And you're going to treat that a little bit a little. And it's going to be screened as well. And you know, the other thing to keep in mind here is that while we do have a more formalized landscape park that's kind of in the middle of the area, where if you pull back to Lila it's the football shape, although this screen is not going to show it. I think most of you understand, in between the town homes and the single family homes, this area that we're talking about is really a green buffer area and while it is going to have a trail through it, it's more of a pedestrian connectivity issue than a place where you're going to walk around throw the football around or whatever, because there's other areas for that. So yeah, exactly. So this path will connect to other paths, essentially. We're going to have questions on that. You guys okay? The one other point I'll make on the kind of the visual impact or context for those single families to, or for those town homes to single families, the second to last page has a few different views or renderings of what a townhouse, a downhill townhouse looks like that's the top left and then immediately below it is one of our largest single family homes. That's the Aster style. So it gives a little bit of context in terms of what the character change of the street is and in fact it would probably be more consistent with the development pattern because the rest of the street is single family. But at least as represented, it's hardly a material difference. And the one other point I think on the kind of quantification of the change was the height issue. And staff was 100% right that we did not provide a table showing the different heights. The height difference between the townhouses as approved and what our highest or tallest single family home would be here is five inches. So it's again, I would say it's an immaterial change. It's 24 from the entry level to the roof. So it's not... So you don't need the adjustment? No, no. And then the last pages just show the different styles, the variety. Like another company that staff had made was making sure that we're continuing with variety and having different options to be able to offer customers. I would suggest that we breeze through the staff comments to make sure nothing was missed. The first comment talks about the inability of the board to issue a setback waiver for the rear lot line less than five feet. They've revised their waiver request to 10 feet. Staff considers park users may not feel comfortable walking within five feet of private homes. I guess I would say, you know, in making your determination on this, consider whether 10 feet is adequate. Talked about heights, which was staff comment number two. Marla. Yes. So this is the first waiver request I think I've had since I've been on the board. What are the standards we're supposed to apply in deciding whether to grant a waiver? The whether the purpose of the standard is still met. So, you know, you'd be looking at the purpose statement of the R 12, you'd be looking at the purpose statement of dimensional standards. A lot of times, you know, there's waiver request for landscaping and the purpose is that it's well landscaping well landscaped. Yes, please. Residential R 12 purpose. A residential 12 district is here by form to encourage high density residential use. The district is located in areas that are near shopping areas, schools and public transportation facilities, and that are served by roads capable of carrying high traffic volumes. Offices and other specified commercial uses may be permitted within the district in locations that have direct access to arterial and collector streets, and that will not adversely affect residential properties. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited except those that are allowed as conditional uses. So I think the key word here is high density residential. Right. And just so I'm clear, the minimum rear setback for this district you have as 19 to 24 feet. In the previous approval, the applicant requested a waiver from the standard setback to and they requested specific waivers for specific homes. So as it stands, this project has a setback of 19 to 24 feet. And the range we're looking at here is 10 to 25. If you're counting from the deck, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. But I think it is worth noting that the rear yard setback is encroaching upon a green buffer, which is also part of the project. And then, you know, separated then again by another portion of the project. So it's, you know, it's not like we're encroaching on a budding property or on something that already exists. So typically in the R 12 without any waivers, the rear setback standard setback for single family homes and two families, 30 feet. It seems to me the bigger the setback that's required the less density. Yeah. It makes it a larger feeling lot. Yeah. So but that you can see the tension there, right? They stayed a purpose of wanting to have a lot of density, but they impose a setback that discourages density. Okay. You know, I'm not sure I agree with with staff the standards. I'm looking at 15.02 when it comes to plan unit developments, I think the board has more latitude. I think the only standard that applies. The page 263 a three in conjunction with pud review, the modified, the modification, not to talk about a waiver. It says the modification of these land development regulations is permitted. Subjects to the conditions and standards in this article and other applicable provisions of these regulations. Then you know the four when it specifically talking about setbacks and it says notwithstanding 15.02 a three, however, the following standards shall follow all PUDs. And then it goes on to say you got, you know, you have an absolute limited five feet. So I think in the PUD context, we don't have to get into it. It's pretty, it's pretty free form. Whether it passes due process. Whether it passes vagueness. There's a separate question, but it looks to me like it does. It says for PUDs, you know, if the plan makes sense, you can, you can reduce the setback down to five feet. Whether it should say that is separate from what it does say. Right. What it says is what we're left with. Okay. So I don't think we have to look what I'm saying is I don't think we have to look for an appropriate justification to allow the setback in the PUD context. We haven't before. I know. So, so item staff comment number one looks okay. Staff comment number two. I think we just discussed that. So they're not asking for any waiver of height. Staff comment number three. Staff recommends the board discuss the visual compatibility of the single family homes with the number of development patterns. Anybody has any further concerns? Staff comment number four. While staff is not particularly concerned about an overall reduction of five dwelling units. Staff recommends the board also discuss what amount of change the number of dwelling units may warrant a master plan amendment in the future in order to guide staff and the applicant as they build out the remaining development. So it would be helpful for the applicant and for us to have some sense of what the board may consider a substantial change. I think Evan has said that his intention is to take and it's not five units, it's three, right? Is to take those three units and put them into the multi-family. So the overall intention that you have is to keep the same overall density that you've already identified, correct? Correct. We're going to do our best to hit that max density on this side. Are you going to have something you said before? I may be misinterpreted as wanting to go beyond that density, higher number of units? No. So what we had approved via the master plan was 458 density units. And more, you know, the balance that aren't included in this 118, which will now go down to 115 through the reduction of these three, we would like to take and put in that multi-family piece and just max it out. So guidance from the board, my guidance is that sounds fine to me? Yeah, that's not a suggestion. I think Marla was looking for something a little different though. You're asking if there was a change, if there was a decrease in density, at what level would it be considered significant? Is that right? Right. And maybe that's not relevant in this case. Significant enough for what? To amend the master plan. The master plan amendment is required in five very specific circumstances. And they are all related to, most of them are related to increase in the number of units or increase in impacts. When it's a decrease, staff has traditionally had to trouble identifying that line. And it seems like an opportunity to get some guidance. Since the applicant doesn't intend to decrease, it may not be as great an opportunity as we thought. It's hard to decide that in a vacuum. Well, and it's actually a difficult question anyway, because if I would normally think, oh, 5% sounds about right. And if you took 5 off of 100, that does sound about right. But if you take 5 off of 450, 5%, you're talking about 25, 23 units, that would be significant in my mind. More than significant. So I think it depends on the case. It would be very difficult to... You know, it raises another question. Are these plans, I mean, the master plan, the plan for the master plan, forgive me for not remembering, does get recorded or not? Does. So not to amend the master plan and not to require a new recording for any variation leaves a misleading plat in the land records, which is not desirable. Do you have something that addresses the issue? So we typically encourage applicants to be, include the minimum of information required by the LDRs on their master plan plat, so that there isn't this reliance on the master plan as representing all of the information. Things that I just wanted to look at, the things that require an amendment in the master plan are an increase in the number of units, an increase in site coverage, a change in the location, layout capacity or number of collector roadways, land development in any area previously identified as permanent open space or a change that results in an increase in trip ends. So in the case where an applicant may be reducing units, as we've seen on a couple other projects, that doesn't necessarily trigger, but there's a little bit of language that allows us to say you need to come back if you're not meeting one of these because it says somewhere else, it sort of gives us the opportunity to say you're making a big change here, guys. This doesn't pass the straight face test. I'll go back to what Brian said first. Let's not deal with the vacuum when you get to the point where your gut says you know what, you're making a pretty big change here, guys. Come see us. I think the recorded findings of fact are that we have up to 458 residential density units. But what I was getting at though, it bothers me a little bit, is that you have an actual plat in the land records that does or does not show lot lines, does it? Does your master plan plat show lot lines? They show lot lines, yeah. So the master plan of record will now be inconsistent with what you're actually doing. Your master plan doesn't show footprint lots. It doesn't show the footprint lots and on the multi-family it just shows the subdivided lot. What do you mean it doesn't show what's a footprint line? That fictitious concept? No, I don't. There's no such thing. So this project is all footprint lots. It's got 12 lots or so? And then all of the individual units are on footprint lots. So the footprint lots are not part of the recorded plan. Correct. So there's 12 lots in the residential component. But you're selling them as individual lots, right? Come on. Can we stop doing this fiction? For God's sake. You're selling individual lots. You're showing the individual lots. I don't care whether you're doing with dotted lines or little gold stars from fifth grade. These are lots. All right. Wait a minute. There's a significant change. You're going to have a misrepresentation of the record. But it's not going to really bother anybody at this level. Okay. So that was four. Number five talks about the rear setbacks again. So I think we're good on the rear setbacks. Talks about landscaping as screening between the homes and the park. The applicant is proposing landscaping between the homes and the park. I don't know if you're proposing to make that an amendment to the plans that would be a condition of approval or we're happy to stipulate to that. I mean, what I would suggest is that the specific locations of them will be defined on the site as we've requested in the past. If a shrub moves two feet to the left or the right that we not get that down to the weeds so to speak. So we'll find stipulating to an additional landscape requirement that reflects that plan that we've shown. It's again, I think worth noting that our landscaping plan as it currently sits is well above the requirement. It's in excess of $100,000 more than as it currently sits than the requirement. I think that's not quite accurate. I agree that you're over. But the single and duplex site landscaping doesn't count for your budget. But you are still over. And we can talk about that. It's not really relevant to this question, but I did catch that in your application. Comments, questions on landscaping. There is a note here that the provided landscaping does not result in screening between the homes in the park. I think that you were saying that there are several other factors that do provide screening if not this landscaping. Yeah, so the grade change that the two bolder retaining walls are probably the most significant factor. I think but with the proposed landscaping plan, it's not only going to provide some additional screening, but it's also going to better define that path, the pedestrian connectivity. With that comment, I can't feel that it actually does provide some screening to the homes between the park and the homes. I don't know if it's in the park. It's in the park. Isn't that what the point is? Very good. Next comment. Number six. Number six talks about the fact that the so the comment is staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant whether they anticipate difficulties meeting the approved design requirements with the replaced homes. The applicants approved design memorandum limits the number of identical homes on two brothers drive to three. And we want to make sure that they're not painting themselves into a corner and are going to run out of variations before they get to full build out of the street. For example, if everyone from 66 to 7 chooses Trillium and then 65 and 71 are also restricted to Trillium. Right. But we're already regulating that as it currently sits. We take certain homestyles out of the quiver as needed. They get designed to date. It really hasn't been a problem. But we will continue to regulate it. But there's also a variety of tools that we can use. So it's not necessarily just you can't have a Trillium but there's different ways to vary the exterior elevation through three different changes on the exterior that you can manage. So again, if you go out to Hillside right now, I think what you would see is a pretty varied streetscape, different styles of homes, different elevations. The one thing we're seeing repeatedly is there's too many grays. So we're starting to regulate the color scheme a little bit more because everybody seems to be picking different shades of gray. I mean, other than that, I think you'd see a very varied streetscape. And we'll continue on that. And the back page of that packet I just gave shows is over the variety. Pretty gray. How about a little, you know, chartreuse and vermilion next year? We're working on it. So I'm okay with what also sounds like you're going to be restricting, given that you now have two homes that are only going to be Trillium. You're going to reduce the number of Trilliums available for the rest of the street or something like that. Well, so what we're saying is that on Lot 65, we wouldn't have the full available number of units there. So it would be the footprint that represents the Trillium and the footprint that represents the Lupin. Again, it's not just the Trillium and the Lupin because those have different elevations as well. We're going to have a different design, but just have the footprint of the Trillium. Okay. Others comment? Cool. I think that's it for this time. We'd like the public for staff comments. Nope. Any more? Nothing from the board, right? Nothing from staff. Everybody's okay? Public. Yes, Dave Crawford. Natural Resources Committee. Dave Crawford, Chair of the Natural Resources Board. First off, we commend that you added some trees. Good. Thank you. I'm not quite here listening to you though as to whether it was an offer that there should be a planting plan for locating those specific trees and there was some discussion whether there was really very many trees to make the differentiation that staff was bringing up. I'm just not clear on that. There is a planting plan that we've submitted that supplements the existing planting plan that was already approved. So yeah. Okay. So there is a thank you. But thank you for more trees. We like it. Any other comments from the public? Anybody else have any comments, questions? Entertainment motion to close. Move that we close final plot application SD-19 14 of O'Brien Farm Road, LLC. Second. Been moved in second. We'll close this application. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Abstain. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Take care. On the agenda continued preliminary final application SD-19 dash 11 of city of Burlington Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan. The amendment consists of constructing 102 room, five-story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage at the bottom of the building. The three little pigs. I am I'm Greg Rabbit, from Rabbit O Architects with me is Adam Ports from the SE Group, our landscape architect, and Chris Jendrim from Stantec, the project's civil engineer. Marla has given the Y's council that brevity is the soul of the wit, so I'm going to try to keep our comments short this evening. There were eight red-letter comments I think a lot of them have been addressed in the staff notes There are two real substantive issues that I know the board is going to want to chew on a little bit the first being the addition of a cooling tower to the site plan which is Something that came up as the building drawings developed and we knew more about our mechanical systems The second issue of substance that I think we do need to talk about tonight is The landscape budget and the allocation of funds for existing and replacement trees A little bit of complexity there. They think we're going to want to unspoor But is it the Is it the pleasure of the chair that we go through these item numbered items or right? Okay, love it item one was about the The applicant seeking faa approval for the site as is required for this location That that application has been prepared and processed and we're just waiting for the result Um Item number two Is the issue of the cooling tower Excuse me for a minute. What's the timeline on getting the approval assuming there's no hitches I would estimate That otherwise works with your plans. We still have to get act 250 and yeah, you're going to buy time So we have there's everything should come together about the same time Yeah Pardon me. I have a little bronchitis tonight I'm just going to interrupt to say out loud for the record that brian has refused himself from this. Oh, thank you right okay A cooling tower is a piece of it's a piece of Equipment that cools water for the heat pump system that cools the building The cooling tower came up as part of the mechanical design if there was someone to get a site plan up I can show you that it's proposed for the The colored site plan there. I think it'd be a good one There yeah So it's it's in the lower left hand corner of that drawing You can see that there's a sort of u shaped hedge row and a gray box in the lower left hand corner That's the proposed pad location of this cooling tower Which would have a slatted fence and plant things around it plus some additional street trees These things are unfortunately orthopedic An example one would be in the corner of Kennedy drive or can airport parkway kennedy drive and and marshall avenue kimblav At that bank there. They have a cooling tower facing the street But the the proposed landscaping and fencing will substantially hide that But it's it's twice as high as the planting right? It's a 16 foot tower eight foot plantings Well at planting time. Yeah And eight foot fence excuse me and there's also there's also in front of that an additional row of Pine trees that You know, we'll we'll take off at about a foot foot and a half a year once they establish So we're thinking that this is like a multi level approach Well, it's screened from all the street sides. The only place there's really no screening is against the garage building itself You know what they look like Yeah, I got one that I put in last year. That's about 16 feet. It's huge All we can do I think is provide adequate screening It's really not appropriate in this location to try to put it on the roof For a lot of reasons not the least of which is the height issue Staff reviewed this location with the applicant when they first brought it to our attention And I don't know if you can zoom out to the whole site to lila a little bit So we sort of looked it over with them. They had proposed this location and we said, oh That's between the building and the street and then we kind of looked at it and we said, well Every other location kind of seems worse Yeah I would agree with that assessment like the ones I've I deal with there's a lot of a upward air pressure that comes off these things And that's pretty close to the To the garage any concerns We discussed that with the MEP and he didn't seem he didn't seem to have any concerns with it. So Turnover various What what I'm sorry, I missed the thrust of the substance Well, these these things have big fan units on the top that are You're you're you're pouring water over or coils essentially and And pushing air across those coils at the same time to cool the water that's going through the coil That those fan units typically are on top I don't know what they I mean they you they can be other places But they push air and that air is is moist air up into the Out of the top It's water vapor though. It's not the product of any kind of combustion or anything Right, but the the issue is I mean most of these things are wide open above them And here it's a close almost enclosed. I mean, it's not going to run in the winter So you're not going to you're not going to get ice off the thing but but uh, and maybe it'll be positive in the summer, I don't know, but There will be there will be heat coming off of it at some level and moisture And it's it's sort of the least occupied portion of the site Really all we can do wherever we put it is adequately screen it And I and I think by encapsulating it with the fence The hedge row material and then that the additional pine in front of it We have enough layers of stuff going on there. The other thing is we do we don't have to leave it galvanized Gray We could paint it and I think that would mitigate a little bit too if we painted it a darker color Yeah, you don't want to do that. I mean they're they come They come with that baked on enamel that works forever But what you could do and we've done it before is put it in a pit Yeah, and that's expensive and it's also problematic because Some of the parts that need to be replaced require sliding out And they tend to be at the bottom So that would Yeah As as for us I we're going to ask the board to evaluate this this proposal without a pit And hopefully you'll find the landscaping adequate Yeah from an engineering standpoint the Water coming off the top of the thing doesn't hurt the garage doesn't hurt the hotel We've asked we've asked the mechanical engineer to verify that and he says we're good. So Number three happens to be the next sticky issue. Um, so we can deal with the big ones all at once In our previous discussions about landscape and landscape budget We proposed a certain amount of new landscaping We were taking some credit for some existing materials And we were applying some of the landscape budget to other site features Turns out that the trees we were taking credit for had already been used as part of an earlier credit on another project at the airport So so that The value of those seven trees roughly twenty two thousand dollars has to be replaced in our planting place What's co-op since the last time we spoke and I don't think we've We're focusing on this before is there will be existing trees On this site that get removed as part of the construction of the building And because those trees were part of earlier approvals Staff is saying that we have to deal with the issue of of their replacement cost Those 33 trees are roughly split between deciduous and hardwood But the the estimated value if we go by just the the dollar value Per the city's recommended way of evaluating these things is like 220 thousand dollars Which we think is You know substantially more than the actual landscape budget requirement for the project And and we think it may be a bit excessive Now the way this rule has always been used that I've seen it used is somebody say builds a has a site plan They get it approved they build their project they plant their plants 10 years later They they want customers to see them better or something they cut the trees down Staff catches them and says no you have to put those back I I know as part of this process it comes up as well, but but we feel like the combinational landscaping that's proposed for the site In conjunction with the way the building is working is replacing some of the function of that those evergreen plantings which were initially intended to screen the garage We would like the board to have a discussion with us about About what we can do to mitigate that extreme cost because it seems disproportionate to the value of the project If we have to add additional landscaping Either to satisfy the initial budget or this extended budget that's the result of removing trees Some of that would be in an off-site location And and adam and I can talk about that But I I'd like to start by sort of wrestling with this issue of what to do about replacement trees Where the board is add on that and if if you have any relief you can offer us So most of the trees that are getting replaced Aren't they like in the footprint of Of the hope of the hotel. Yeah, that's basically yet. There's a few that are going because of utilities, but No, I think that the the largest and most valuable trees being lost are are in the footprint of the building So they were split between deciduous and hardwood. I thought that was Same thing. I thought some of times it's the same thing. Yeah, it could be Software software, okay, you know pine trees basically there's a lot of uh, you've now gone to the edge Of my understanding of this landscape Get David Yeah, I mean the the well, what's the source of the replacement rule and how's its size, but So the only as the board is pretty well aware the only standard for trees greater than five inches Is that site plan approval is needed. This is a bit of an interesting case It's dissimilar to what the board has seen recently In that these trees were required to be planted as part of a previous approval They're not leftover trees that were never approved that happened to be shown on the plan. These were specifically on the plan when the parking garage expansion was done Um back in the 90s and 2000s So can we identify what the value of those trees were when they were planted? Potentially what they're worth today Um, yeah, potentially credit we're talking about right. I mean there are the or the debit we're talking about But I have a Fundamentally misunderstanding. I thought our replacement rule went to calipers not value There's there's a couple different ways of measuring it and one is by the inch an inch for inch exchange That's that that results in a slightly lower cost, but still Substantially greater than than we were expecting The value is not specifically codified. Um, nor is inch by inch replacement on trees greater than five inches so In other instances staff has said well, look here's this way to calculate value if you want to propose that you're welcome to um, so I let if you go to Short that one is fine. You can see the trees that are proposed to be removed. They're the ones with x's on it um sheet number eight in the packet shows the sizes of those trees They are eight inch beaches 14 inch pines um 14 inch maples 20 inch maple Six inch spruce so it's all over the place So the goal is to have a good look at hotel with a whole bunch of trees And a whole bunch of plantings Um, that's the main goal for the city Uh, the secondary goal in my view And frank always disagrees with the others because he might we ever disagree The the other goal is to satisfy the ldr's So I don't Myself, I don't I don't think there's a huge need to like balance all the dollars out if the if the ldr's allow Enough vagueness To come up with a good-looking project that's going to stand the test of decades I don't see why we just don't go there. Well, the ldr's require a minimal landscape value And that minimal landscape value has been the same For decades exactly at the time that these trees were installed the minimal landscape value was based on the same calculation That is required today. Um So these trees that they're proposing to be removed to remove were Installed as a part of a required landscape value at that time. Yeah, so how much Um, you're just showing right is can I ask Can I ask that okay? Is the issue the value of the replacement of the trees that have to be removed or of Of the trees itself and in other words, there's where to put them Well, it's a little of both. I think Because there's other alternatives, obviously, you know to trees Is the question focused on Replanting the existing trees that are going to get removed. No, it's it's it's you have your landscape budget In one of the ways you satisfy that is with trees that you're removing to to add the more trees or there is other options Historically, the airport has looked creatively at the required landscape value, you know, there's the rain garden on the roof There's the off-site landscaping that was recently approved as part of the quick turnaround project I think there were other instances where there was an art project one time or art installation No, I do want to just state that we have, you know through the revision process and working with marla We do have a plan today With that doesn't include the preservation of the six or seven trees that we were counting of value that has a That we meet the landscape budget requirements through tree shrubs perennials ornamental grasses Stone walls and special paving and we've talked about that last time we submitted a Landscape maintenance plan to address the kind of perennials and ornamental grass portion of it So we are meeting the landscape budget requirements in the ldr's But for the replace the trees to be removed for the replacement And those those being Part of the previous project essentially you you owe us X and the question is what is x right and and uh any suggestion to mitigate that is welcome I mean we knew in our early financial planning that we would have the sliding scale that's always been in the orchids We didn't realize that some of those trees one of you know one of them's a 22 inch caliper maple that they had claims on them Some of them looked like they'd been there before the airport, right? Um but We just if we use the informal calculus that that we would normally do on a tree by tree basis If we do that at this kind of scale the number gets really huge and it just seems disproportionate for the requirements of the ldr's trees that were Like this 22 inch maple or whatever it is Was that used as a credit before or was that planted as part of the as part of the garage? I think it varies I think the 22 inch maple in particular was used as a credit But then some of the others were planted From my perspective, I would not have a problem if if you had 20 trees out there and they were all two to three inch caliper trees when they were planted and and They replaced them with 22 two to three inch trees elsewhere, and I don't really care where they go on the on the I mean, I want the place to look good But if if a dozen of them ended up down at the end of the runway for some reason It wouldn't bother people flying in But I it wouldn't bother me, you know Where where they were placed as long as we had a decent project here, but I do think there's a fairness Issue here. We we put everybody else through the standard Uh and To release these guys Without it. Um, I think we need I'm not saying to release these go ahead. Sorry I just I just think that we need to We need to be able to balance scales a little bit. Absolutely right and that's what I meant by adhering to the ldr So I meant that fairness would be uh Would be kept So I think what I'm hearing John say and I apologize for not having anticipated his suggestion. Um, didn't think like John Just as well um Is that maybe we should look at the Tree list as it was required at that time Rather than what they have grown into That makes sense That sound good Jennifer frank Let's let's do something a little more fundamental These guys come in here and they're very pleasant guys and they present things in an extremely reasonable manner It's it's you're halfway there by the time they finish the sentence, you know But the premises that an accommodation they start with the premise g an accommodation ought to be made and that premise In itself deserves Some examination because what gets me I'm not taking this wrong position. I'm just saying This is an 11 by an 11 million dollar project Yes, and you're saying gee to actually I really don't know whether value is the standard because that's why I was asking but I'll let's assume value is the standard And what you're what you're complaining about is a two percent surtax Basically a two percent Surtax to a couple hundred thousand dollars 11 millions about What two percent? Yeah You know, it's not So dramatic in in the overall scale of the project no one likes giving up Well, no one likes spending two hundred thousand dollars. They hadn't planned the one on the other hand It's not that much It's not that much of a hit if someone came in with a million dollar project or in a 1.1 million dollar project and was Complaining in the nicest possible way about having to spend another 20,000 you know Would we be weeping in our tea for that developer? This is a relatively small hit on a project of this scale I point that out for whatever way that it has in people's minds When you consider what genre is which is the fairness issue part of the complexity of the problem here is that on One side of well two sides of the project Uh two out of three effectively because it's almost a triangle You you really don't have a lot of planting area One side is a is a garage. You have no planting area You've you've put some Planner, I guess shade planting areas in in between just to try to take care of that But there's there's almost nothing there and you've got a driveway on the other side That that you have a little bit of planting area and but you've got a retention pond in the middle of it Yes, I think there's a retention pot Yeah It's it's a tricky site. So the the question is I'm not disagreeing with you The question is where else is it going to go because it's going to it's not going to go Well, have we taken a position? Do we have a view on the appropriateness of Satisfying requirements like that off-site? Well, if if if I can respond to your premise and and I think you have a valid point It it seems like the The formula by which we're determining the value of these phantom trees is not part of the LDR It's sort of a method that the staff has promulgated to help people do this most of the time to their benefit, but Of course we meet the minimum landscape requirements. I fully expect that we're going to pay something to replace these missing trees But that that that formula leads us to a result that to me seems excessive because it's so much It goes so much beyond the normal landscaping requirements. That's why I was asking for help about what the other measures are The caliper methodology is in the LDRs. Is it not? No, that's five inches right up to five So basically the 22 inch counts as a five No, that's not quite right. It's just there's absence of guidance There's an absence of guidance for trees greater than five inches in caliber, right? There's a historical Consistency of of saying, okay, if you've got a 10 inch tree, it's five two inch two inch caliber Five two inch caliber trees replace it 22 inch tree. You've got 11 going yet That's that's what ray used to do on a fairly regular basis But we were subjected to that because I thought it should be two five inch calipers month Okay, and we recently disagreed with that there was uh We recently had a case where um, we disagreed with that we would like to start looking more sensibly at that Okay Because that's that's kind of what i'm responding to as well Well, it was Look, we're tolerating In some fashion the destruction of a lot of ice trees in order to build this hotel, right? What was the original one approach to it was what was the original budget in other words? What was back when What was the developer required to spend to build these to you to install these trees And that's I think that's the root of john's john's inquiry and I think that's gets to it You know what where did they have to build in order where they have to grow in order to create the garage? What did they spend adjusted for inflation? What's that number and what was the credit on this 22 inch the credit that may have been five inch at the time I went give them the credit back So it looked like it was 127 roughly if that was the right document. No, it's not the right No, we haven't done that calculation All right, so sounds like calculation needs to be done We haven't decided on a number. Well, I'm just asking I'm not saying that's the way I'm saying that's Not off the wall. It's a way. It's a way Yeah It's a way, but you know once we set that precedent are we going to be happy with it for the million dollar developer instead of the 11 million dollar developer That's that that's my concern and as we get more and more infill projects On tighter lots, you'll see more of this As the trees go bigger and bigger in 20 years from now it can become more expensive in order to build Well, but with this new proposal They wouldn't right if you're removing a 20 inch tree and you're putting back whatever it was The first time you put the tree in that's true And is that Philosophically is that again not to prejudice the discussion which is to Flesh out the possibilities is that to go To Bill's high-wide and handsome point is that in fact the intent of the city or did the city intend What is The botanical fact that trees grow and 20 years later They expect them to be 22 inches in circumference and they don't want to see them replaced by two inch trees But with respect Uh, that 20 inch tree could die tomorrow And what would you replace it with not a 20 inch tree? You can't I mean first of all you can't buy one Uh, but and if you could it would it would be that 200,000 tree so so, uh And and the problem my face Many times has has been Where do I even put these dozen trees that replace the 124 inch tree? I'm only going to have to thin out 12 of them in three years. Anyway, because I'll choke each other I've told you this story But but there's a whole bunch of them that are on market street that the city is going to have to take out Because I put them there because I had no other place to put them Well, the extreme alternative is well, you can't build a hotel, you know That'd be that'd be one out tom, but then that's probably not the intent of the regulation I'm sorry, jenna. I was just going to say something a little off Topic as far as that, but I my only comment goes back to something you said before about the um The look of the hotel is kind of blocking the garage and it's not trees But I think the hotel is an improvement overlooking at the size of the garage the side of the garage And though so going by that that helps me be Leaning toward being more creative with a solution An airport drive has a lot of trees on it. It's I mean, it's it's it's a very in fact, it's it's kind of dark Because it's got so many trees on it I'm not I'm not upset that it's dark, but it but it but it is it is uh, it is well-treated now so that You'll have another problem of trying to get replacement areas. Well, we're you know We go A little past our remit when we get too much into you know, what's a good idea in the broad sense So I'd like to be steered back to the ldr's and so I get something concise from staff about what we can do under the ldr's To be precise about what the requirement is the requirement is exactly what? The requirement is for a percentage of the project value to be provided in landscaping The requirement has been for that same percentage To be provided in landscaping And what they're proposing to do is remove some of the trees that was provided as part of a previous required value Oh, wait a minute. I thought they were going to meet the the required value. I thought we're talking about replacement Yes, so they have proposed to meet the required value. Um, I adam said that they brought a plan for that Um exclusive of the trees to be retained We haven't seen that yet. I think that we will we'll get to that in a minute Um, so their plan is slightly different than what the board has already seen But then they also have this number of trees that they are proposing to remove That were previously required it did Just to throw another Total crazy crazy thing in here. Um, I did just remember reading through the documentation from the old files. Some of these trees were Trees that were relocate large trees that were relocated to this location From other parts of the airport property How long ago how long ago when was that done? I believe that was the 2006 nine. Yeah Yeah, unfortunately in the intervening decade, um, they've gotten too big to spade We don't think that we could practically pick them up and move them again There's there's maybe two that you could relocate And you know, we'd be open to considering that if we could find a nice home for them It's just you're not going to find a home within this construction site just simply because of all the staging and Working around it. So it would have to find an off-site location Um, but there are two ginkgo. I went and met with the city arborist on this site yesterday to walk around and look at the trees together Um And you know that is a possibility to take two of the ginkgos and put them elsewhere if we found an appropriate location But it's just two out of the 33 The vast majority of them on top of the berm are just white pine which you know, aren't the most Well, they become problematic as they get older and older. Um, so Yeah, you can very small root systems and Get a good wind and you and you get a good snowstorm and some wind and you're could be in trouble as they get What's the what's what's the how big kind of I'm off the topic, but how big can a spade take and it can take a It certainly can take a five inch tree. Can it take a 10 inch tree? It's more about the length and the height and the weight and there's techniques in the trade today that can move larger trees Um, I don't know if the Vermont market really Demands that There's air spading techniques where you can move very large trees But again, I think within the within the Vermont market. There's a few Industry folks who have a spade that could probably move five six seven inch but after that I've seen guys move bigger ones for the bucket loader, but it's not as And it's been successful. Um, but that's cutting the root system is okay Yeah, I mean to a to a certain degree, you know, it's um Well, I'm off time, but that's yeah So it's it is clear to us that there's really no place to put additional landscaping on the project site So in addition to consideration about the the valuation and we'll let you have your ads on that it the would be Acknowledgement that that that that would be allowed to go on other parts of the airport property Time with me. Yeah, that's consistent. Yep Um, so we're going to get a calculation from staff. So let's move on to this calculation of previous initial value of the trees that are there now Well, is that like to sort of an implicit implicit decision by the board that we're going with that? No, we're just taking that We're just looking at different numbers The next item is also landscaper related it's just Acknowledging that the board will allow the applicant to use some of their landscape budget for site features other than plants The retaining walls and uh and paving that was mentioned um number Number five is about the stormwater issue Um Chris has continued to work with the stormwater folks and maybe i'll let you just make a few comments on Where that stands i've been working with uh, Dave wheeler at public works. Um, him and i've been working very closely him and i met a few weeks back and he called me up and and him and i had some disagreement on some of the Um rulings and i had a misunderstanding on one of the rules and he set me straight So we had to update some of our basin designs To accommodate the 25 year storm event So we had to revise Some we had to revise one basin to be a biotension basin And we had to revise another basin just be larger than what was originally submitted So and and also we had to update the outlet structures to meet all the requirements that he was looking for to To make sure that we met his His standards and his requirements into into Dress his comments and we did that I've since discussed with him and he's he's been pretty busy these days working on in construction So he is it's in his hands and he's reviewing it As you know, he's going to review it the next couple days Make sure that i did in fact address his comments to his requirements Are the changes are the changes in the layout plan or is this something we're yet to say be something that I could show you if I plugged in my flash drive This is what you sent me today. Okay. You already this this is this is the one you sent to dave and me today Yeah, good. Yeah, that's exactly this is these are the updates here nothing too substantial So if I could interject here, um, I did speak with dave about this um about this revision and his sense was Um, it's ultimately up to the board who I suspect is going to say it's ultimately Ultimately up to the applicant um, if in his review of these plans And modeling materials he finds something that would require them to change it And the hearing has been closed the hearing has to be reworned and reopened It could be a six weeks to get that taken care of Alternatively if the hearing is continued, um, we can just sort of do a quick wrap up It sounds like we're going to be continued on the landscaping issue anyway And I'm sure dave will have comments to me on this by the end of the week So I don't anticipate any problems having answers on storm water by the by the next hearing Just as a point of information engineering information for education you're only asked to to Make these basins work On a 25 year storm hypothetical. Is that right? That's it That's that's actually pretty significant. Um typically like uh, let's just for instance like uh If I was doing work for the city or sir if I was doing a state permit They would only require me to treat the One inch storm which is Just for reference the 25 year storm is a four inch rainfall in a day Which is a significant amount of rain which you would likely the the way to look at it is there's a 4% chance of having That happening. I'm sorry 25 year storm is what? The 25 year storm is a four inch rainfall, which is a 4% chance of happening each year And at the state level you would only design for You would you would only design for a hundred year storm If the site was 10 acres or greater And we're only 0.4 acres Well, I asked because I mean I was involved in a musky project It was very contentious and we were dealing with under year storm events. So that was a different issue. It wasn't probably it was slopes It was grades that we were concerned with and the runoff from the grade But there had been you know, we did the historical work. There have been several hundred year storms Right, right in a whole lot less than a hundred years. It's not to say we don't consider those But this the city is not going to require us to to make sure that our site is going to be Before the site was there We're not required to meet the flow rate pre-existing conditions post conditions because it'd just be too Too impactful on the project you would it would it would make basins way too big way too expensive and It wouldn't be you know, it wouldn't be advantageous There's a certain dollar amount you get to that it just doesn't you get a hundred year storm. You got a problem You know, you say problem, but you know hundred year storms of flood event is going to be flooding And there's nothing you can do about it. It's going to be flooding everywhere But what if I could clarify? In the larger storm events 10 year 25 year 100 year It's not that the designer doesn't look at what happens. It's that there is a certain amount of ponding and overtopping that is allowed and what you do as the engineer is you consider Where that goes? Is it going into the building or is it going down the gutter? You know, you're not necessarily controlling Holding it on the site, but you are looking at Well, where does it go and does it go in the least impactful direction? That's exactly correct Yeah, that's like the light And the gutters and not into the building or into the basement or into the air tarmac in this case This project on its own Proposes very little new hard scale. I didn't mean to beat it to death. I really was just a point of information Yeah, and just to follow up State highways they designed for the 10-year storm to to pass the 10-year storm So it's 25 years pretty significant The next day of comment related to our discussion about um, vehicle trip ends And we were given the challenge to go out and find other airports that have hotels that are similar in size and and traffic in her, you know light throughput Stantec undertook a traffic count at another regional airport and came up with the stuff that's in the in the staff comments basically They proved I think pretty definitively that there would be a savings of vehicle trip ends for on here on airport hotel generation 40 to 47 percent So we're going to continue to ask if you if you are willing to consider Our trip generation rate to between 33 and 38 as it says in the staff comments and base our fee on that Um Well, how does their proposed calculation stack out next to appendix b and the What's permitted under appendix b of the of the ldr appendix b allows site specific studies on comparable locations. So without Having undertaken a technical review. I would Generally say that it would be in the right direction for appendix b Okay, do we have a comparable Rochester airport similar in scale similar sort of regional End of flight airport you're not it's not a it's not a hub. It's like Burlington You're saying what their trip ends are or the We documented a a reduction over the it value stantec did They they went out and they they measured and they They were trying to substantiate a 25 percent reduction is what we had proposed previously And the the results were actually higher than that You mean the percentage reduction was higher than that? Yes If you can sell it the Marla you can sell it to me it makes sense to me what I've read I mean you also consider the fact that the people the the flight attendants and the pilots would normally be in vehicles Going down Shelburne road towards exit 14 and now they'll just walk across the road Um, we certainly hope it will we'll capture a good part of that. I didn't like being compared to rochester, but It makes sense. Is there more than two paragraphs related to this somewhere? Yeah, there's a there's an entire couple There's a memo within the within the submittal I just didn't take It talks about the rochester airport. It also talks about the uh flight crew members at burlington international airport I had no idea of a 40 something flight crew members spend the night every night in our hotels We reached out to all the airlines and they hit and that's what they got back to us I'm sorry. I didn't go deep enough into the packet to find that Okay, thank you Uh, that's just looking for the fire chief to review their modified plans Yep, so I had a chance to speak to the What was his title No, no lieutenant, whatever. Anyway, terry second in command today who spoke on behalf of terry and was satisfied with the location of the hydrant and with the emergency access plan and With the removal of the parking space, which were the three issues So fire so it sounds like fire chiefs. Okay. Yes. Okay. Very good. How much question from the board? number eight very last one This is just the fact that the site plans today have shown the Sign that says welcome to burlington international airport has remained on the site plans. That's not a new sign I think they were just asking us to put a note on the plans that say it's existing and We're happy to do that Any other signs associated with the hotel will come in with Any other comments questions to the board? Any other comments questions from public? Dave You put the Thank you. Get your last night was the appointment, right? First of them is just say that we're really appreciative from The viewpoint of the Natural resource committee the dialogue that you just had regarding landscaping tree planning Replacement all those kinds of things. It really is, you know, anybody that says you folks aren't interested in the trees is or listen to the video And I include that as the airport and the in the developers and There's their representatives We note, I think that there's quite a bit more trees on the roadside that we were concerned with That's good news and there's more trees There's a nice landscape plan one footnote on that two footnotes one is that Uh, it doesn't look if I'm unless I'm missing it But that it has any tree replacement plan in it. It has a very good annual plan But when you think about the problem of how these things are going to be dying and replacement We'd like to think so have some consideration of that at the board We're able to do that The other thing is The Development or the the maintenance plan on its plus side We'd like to see if we could get a copy from In word So that we could use it kind of as a template that we're trying to develop to give you a suggested Here's a good one You know, that's something that we've taken on on a work task to try to develop So this one looks like it's got a lot to it and if we can have the addition of the Uh replacement kind of thing it would really be great So thank you very much I'm a chairman of the natural resource committee Dave Crawford We've got this question for the public Very none will continue I would suggest june 18th. It's got one two three four five Six seven things, but two of them are in pairs Which makes us five and one of them may be withdrawn which brings us to four So I would suggest june 18th. I would move that we continue preliminary and final plot application sd 1911 to june 18th Second It's been moved and seconded. We continue this to june 18th all in favor say aye. Aye opposed Up staying Thank you for your time. Can we ask that Whatever you come up with you get it to us before that date so we can come up with a new landscape plan The understanding that's only a data point The understanding that's only a data point. I guess I understand So That show one the city of south grovington To modify the build two zone Frontage build up frequency of entrances and glazing requirements of the building envelope standards for T5 Transsect zone has allowed under land development population section 8.06 a for a 49,930 square foot In this facility at 131th street. Thanks. Take care Who is here for the update Andrew bulldox city attorney Ilana Blanchard project director Tim duff project architect This is a first time for you Very much you just got the project Um, good evening. Thank you very much for considering our application So we're here to talk about a new civic building for south brollington And it's been designed to contain a library city hall and senior center and auditorium and I just Wanted to give you a brief introduction to the project before we jump into The issues that we're here to ask modifications for So this project has been designed through a considerable public process We retained women landfill to lead that process along with a firm From colorado humphreys pulley that specializes in libraries And we undertook considerable public outreach met with stakeholders in order to develop A consensus plan for the project and then also I worked With the city council in order to bring the costs down and and move the project forward to a public vote so we Are here tonight To look at to request modifications to three items the bell two zone The glazing and the frequency of entrance standards And so if we could just look at slide 22 in the presentation and I just You know, I think you're in a different So I think it's a little earlier. Maybe Page that one Just the floor plan. Sorry And and it's the orange one. So and then two before that one Yes, so on the so the main entrance, of course is in the center where it says vestibule And the building is designed with the central circulation Corridor and then so on the left hand side is Mainly the city hall and welcome functions on the right hand side is the library with a main Entrance living room area as you come in as well as a circulation desk and then most of the East side of the building is the children's library And then in the rear north east corner Is the senior center and in the northwest corner of the ground floor is the auditorium on the second floor Is wholly the library and that's the next slide the next page Um, and that's the adult collection. It also includes a porch on the front of the building But it's mainly collections and activity areas geared towards teen through adult And then the third floor, which is the next slide is all city hall functions including planning and zoning and public meeting rooms for mid-sized committee meetings as well as general city business or small committee meetings That will be available after hours Um, so So our understanding um with the four base codes is that the land development regulations lay out circumstances where By civic buildings may be considered to meet If if these circumstances are met then that modifications may be requested For particular items And our understanding is that uh in order to make that determination You need to consider whether the building was designed through a public process Consistency with adopted policies and consistency with the purposes of the Zone and design elements specifically encouraged within the applicable transect zone and so I I guess i'm ready to move on to address the staff comments and we We agree with comments and we thank staff for their review and just the main issue seems to be Is whether or not Is the frequency of entrances and So we and the question being for your consideration is the street orientation of the building and so We wanted to address that Essentially, we strongly feel that the proposed building is street oriented and geared towards supporting and creating an interesting and active downtown And that's one of the main purposes of both locating this building at this location and the design of the building The amount of transparent glass the closest to the sidewalk The internal arrangement of furniture and the functions which places people up against the main windows on both streets And brings the interior activity and uses out to the street We feel greatly enhanced the overall character of both market street and the side street The building has one main entrance And that's very much In character both with the building as a civic building To have one place for people to go in and to come out It puts everyone on the same footing and it also within a community brings By everyone coming in through the same door It brings people into contact with each other. So whether you're going to the library or the city hall Or you know to pay for a class at the information desk, you're all coming through the same place and into the same area And and it focuses the focuses the attention on market street, which is the first line of the purpose So we feel that that this design really meets that Main emphasis on market street as a central downtown street Um One of the um other functions of having a single entrance on market street Has to do with the function of the building as a public building So security is a paramount concern To any public entity today, uh, there's you all read the news. We all know that um, how Um, we want our government buildings to be transparent But we also want them to be safe places for people to assemble and gather And so this building is very specifically designed so that each public space has One entrance from the main hallway And and that entrance allows staff generally the staff areas where staff sit are or stand are near those access points So even on the second floor as people come out the elevator and up the stairs The service desk is overseas Both of those access points so that staff are always aware of who is coming in and out of The public areas and are sort of able to scan people and pay attention And while that's not their primary function It is a function that we take very seriously at the city and we do Have training from our police department on On ensuring that we're doing our best to create a safe environment for the public So, um, I believe that sort of concludes Our explanation of why the frequency ventrances are is designed in the manner that it is In order to promote the civic nature Okay, so staff comments so the There's really only one staff comment highlighted in red. Um civic buildings May As alana said request modifications to certain standards Um Because buildings are intended to have a different form than market-driven sites Just quoting from the staff notes. The applicant is requesting modification of the bill two zone Frequency of entrances And glazing requirements. So each of those things is discussed in the staff comments Um, but Only frequency of entrances is highlighted um, board is obviously welcome to discuss all three or Just focus on staff comments as this typical Um, I'm open to the board. I know several members of the board have strong feelings about Several of these items So I am happy to discuss, uh, bill two zone as the first item bill two and frontage build out Anyone have any questions comments on that my concerns and are are more universal than Then specific to build to versus Versus single doorway and so forth, but I'll comment on them. I mean I I understand the concept of of civic buildings Perhaps getting a different look But in the same in and I think that there's fundamental flaws in the form-based code So I'll start with that but The same concerns the same security concerns the same community concerns could be put out there with a relation to a hotel To a an apartment building We've had these in front of us already And the answer was no you got to fix it You got to find more ways in you've got to find more ways to deal with the security of getting in And and that's because the form-based code is pretty clear on it. I understand we may be able to Make that change for the civic building, but it but it's You know, it's it's not fair There's no question that that these rules Are one-sided If they only Look at civic buildings Where we looked at a hotel down down the street and you know They have the same kind of security concern And obviously everybody wants to come into a into a hotel at the main entrance and it's a community thing And and controlling security is just as important for them as it is for the city And I agree 100 percent. I mean this is further evidence. This is why form-based code This is not it I agree 100 with your assessment that we need to limit the frequency for all the reasons that you cited But so do all the projects and I don't know how we fix that But at least we're saying it on the record here tonight that it should be fixed Well, so I understand both of these gentlemen That indeed your point is well taken Since you are the one kind of building for which this accommodation is made Both of them agree that it's necessary. So you've completely satisfied that criterion as far as I'm concerned And we can move on to the next one May not may not have completely gotten your votes, but you know So the second issue discussed is um I guess that's so that was the second. So the first issue was built to Second issue was frequency of entrances and the third issue was glazing The applicant is the requirement is 80 percent Of the width to have glazing at least seven and a half feet tall The applicant is proposing 74.6 percent of the width They've indicated that this is short of the 80 requirement by approximately five feet on 160 foot facade Um Delilah, there's one image that shows that pretty well Age 15 please So in this image blue is the transparent glazing, which is at least seven and a half feet tall Red is locations that well is the total width. I guess so you can see where there is not glazing Staff didn't see an issue didn't see a opportunity to Get closer to 80 without being ridiculous. So Didn't have an issue with this request, but The board's welcome to discuss Go right back to my comment before Why didn't they design it? I mean one more glazed door at the front entrance would have done it. Um one I mean This could have been designed to fit it And and everybody else is required to fit that design. Why why are they not? I agree with that I mean, I agree with john That's something Well I come at it slightly differently. I think these inflexible requirements should be Subject to waiver for all uses not just for civic ones. However in this case I think as marla so eloquently said this would be ridiculous To hold them to that 80 standard If we had the right to wave In the same manner as before I would wave all sorts of things Related to the form-based code when we see them, but we haven't been allowed to in the past Perhaps you can fix that We are here It's a beautiful building that I think you guys are doing a beautiful job But I don't really understand why we can't why weather can't be one standard if it works could you do that could you Fix form-based code for us Could you do that tonight because there was there was a design archive? I missed it. I'm not sure what your roles are Is it one of the design architects here? Do you have an objection to adding Adding a little bit more glazing to comply So is there an aesthetic or a practical reason? Yes so so the reason That michael monella who did most of the facade design um And other members of the architecture team Which is just a little bit of an application But the reason is is that because it's a public building We wanted there to be both transparency, but also some weight to it And so that's why I missed that word also weight gravity gravitas Expressed through the architecture of the building and that's why by the entrance There's a granite panel on the right hand side and then on the left hand side of the building. There's a a granite and It's a granite panel that essentially allows that zinc band to come down and Essentially attach the building to the ground so it's more grounded. There's not just this kind of Completely transparent first floor so the building floats. We want it to have some weight to be grounded It's a municipal building. It needs some presence other than just a rhythmic opening that you would have on a conventional Block type building it needs to be different and distinguished from Essentially the background buildings that the the the bes is trying to create because it is a unique event It's a municipal building and Well, you know in fairness To them i'm not in fairness to Private developers who incidentally are not present here and have no standing to comment on this particular point In fairness to the people seeking a waiver Whether they could comply is not really One of the criteria that they have to satisfy the criteria that they have to satisfy You could you were getting and I apologize if I fed that because I just looked at what they have to comply with and Whether they could comply is completely beside the point under the standards that are set out in the ldr Which is presence of a public design process. I know you satisfied that in spades Consistency of design with an adopted municipal Building design policy if one exists. Can you speak to that? Is there a municipal design policy? If it doesn't exist and you don't have to comply with it Fine, you don't have to comply with that one see consistency of the project with the written purposes of the applicable transect zone So that's what we should maybe be focused on next What's the sentence after the glazing paragraph? This is the applicant is not requesting modification of the standard requiring that 75 percent of the first story glazing be transparent Or modification of glazing standards for the upper stories Um, there's several standards that pertain to glazing One of them is that 80 percent of the width of the first story must be glazed windows at least seven and a half feet tall Another is that 75 percent of the first story glazing must be transparent um, a third is that I think 40 of the upper story must be Upper story area must be glazed The only one of those standards that they're asking for Modification of is the 80 of the width of the first story And they're proposing if I read that correctly 74.6 percent. Yes, it's five feet 160. It's insignificant, but Comments still stands. It's just a fairness issue I agree but I still I I would I'd grant the waiver for a better building and not not rejected out of out of the unfairness issue But I still think we need to raise it in a in another venue in order to some other time in some other time Yes, I'm going to stir the pot just a little bit by saying that These are not waivers These are modification of the standards as allowed for civic buildings Correct, right. It's better stated. Thank you But the criteria that frank recited are still the applicable criteria. Exactly. Yes Actually the paragraph says she'll have the authority to modify or waive So The LDR itself doesn't make much of a distinction. All right, just a nicer way of saying it Point taken frank. Thank you And the whole point of the LDRs in this section is that civic buildings get a break They can do They can do a a bigger Setback they don't have to do 75 within six feet Um, they can have lower frequency of entrances And they can have lower glazing in order to create a more imposing structure more grounded as you say so, um It it feels to me as though. Yes, you're exactly right that Commercial structures would not be allowed to do this and that is the point of the LDRs the uh, it seems to me that the LDRs specifically allow a civic building to Uh deviate from those standards As you were saying a retail building would kind of float or a hotel would kind of float and um And not have this grounding of the granite panels there I Agree with that and I point something else out when I look at these as I start to parse these Standards that we're supposed to consider it doesn't say they have to satisfy all of them. This is not a checklist These are things we should take into consideration. It doesn't say how we should have to weight them. I would say implicitly to a is the Item that ought to have overwhelming weight, which is that I know we could Exact the testimony. We're going to take everybody to more or less accept as almost what's the What's the term judicial notice? Thank you That design has been the outcome of an excruciating and lengthy and very detailed public design process. Is that fair to say? Excruciating Well to be fair so was form-based code And it didn't work so Okay, but this kind of does and I think none of us really dispute that that it's a pretty nice design It's not what I would choose. I like the more monumental myself, but that's an aside You know, it's not it's pretty nice building and The people have approved it through a long public process And we should not be dallying around about whether we're going to allow this. We should just say, okay I agree Other comments from the board questions The final staff comment Entrance frequency Oh, you've discussed that at this point. We are discussing, right? So Um, I think we're through staff comments. Um, do we have any other comments or questions from the board? Happy to hear them. Okay comments questions from the public No trees here, Dave. I back up. I had one more question I I I'm sorry. I did have one more question. I meant to ask before but I didn't want to interrupt the The initial flow Why are you here at this time? Are you about to build this? Do you have you would do have an application pending for permit with the Zoni administrator We're working towards submitting a subdivision application And we will be also be submitting a site permit application But this is because you have Uh, notice period we wanted to get this application in the In the queue so Is there anything that governs timing on this marlin? Anything inappropriate about the time? Is there any in any way premature this application? The first staff comment notes that should the subdivision not be approved as it was presented at sketch the build to may be affected In which case We would recommend relooking at it and if it were affected recommend them coming back for reapproval of this request, but It's I think a relatively minor risk because they're not asking for modification of the secondary street build to And the primary street build to would not be affected by their subdivision. You could almost write that in the condition of the That's the end of my question other comments questions Hearing none. I'll move it into motion to close and move that we close miscellaneous permit ms 1901 of city of south brunington Second been moved from second to close this application. All in favor say aye. Hi Thank you very much Next item on the agenda is minutes of may 7th 2019 I have one Comment On the top of page four Mr. Miller said he would do some research on the intent of the language regarding Regarding the 85 percent rule of or allies and so on. I would never volunteer to do research Maybe you volunteered Marla Volunteered Marla So yes, so mr. Miller said he would like stop to do some research on the intent of the language exactly right. That's what I That's certainly what I intended Exactly other comments questions corrections, um, I think I think there was One misspelling of the word june June in the continuations, but now I'm not seeing it, of course No, it looks like it's been fixed. Okay. All right I'm doing a motion to approve the minutes that we approve the minutes from May 7th 2019 It's been moved in second that we approve these minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye opposed abstained Okay, abstained is met. Thank you very much nine o'clock. That's the end of southland development movement Thank you. Take care. Good night. Thank you. So deliberations quickly on sp 1908