out the two back doors and then go to your left. And there's a door immediately there. We'll take you out, go out in the parking lot. First thing for board members, any additions, solutions, or changes in the order of agenda items? OK. All right. Let's do some announcements here. First, just to do some introductions, I'm Dan Albrecht, the vice chair, sitting in for our chair. We have Delilah Hall. And I'll say it now, in case it's going to be 10 o'clock at night, so she's served with the city a long time. And she's moving on to a different position to be closer to family in southern Vermont. And we much want to thank her all for her great service that she's given the city and the people south brunt. And then Marla Keane, our development review planner, who puts all the hard work here into things. Other board members here, our newest member, John Stern. And Mark Baer, Stephanie Wyman, and Quinn Mann. I'm just going to go through a couple of procedural things here, just so everybody knows the ground rules for participation here. So again, the DRB is we're a quasi-judicial board. We oversee development projects within the city. We're reported by the city council. We hear and review applications for development under the applicable regulations. And a key thing here is that we are only approved applications that comply with applicable bylaws or state laws, and the board can only levy conditions that are permitted under the bylaw. By the same token, if a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, we are bound by law to grant the approval. Please be respectful of board members, staff, applicants, and other members. Initially, the way things work here is we have an initial discussion from the applicant. The board asks questions. Then we open it up for public comment, both here in the room and online. Please wait to, if you are recognized to speak, please identify yourself either here in the room or online. I don't think we'll get to time limits, but be aware that we have a little schedule set out of the timing of each application. We don't have any continuances to next hearings. So we're going to try to keep this schedule. And we do a hard stop at 10 o'clock. So just be aware of that. Keep your side conversations to a minimum. Take them outside in the hall. Don't just be careful that the chat feature for those of you online is only to identify yourself and what application you're here to speak on. So that's a way to enter yourself in the record. Please do not use it for side conversations or sniping at members of the board or the public. Please address the chair. Try not to address other audience members and don't interrupt people. Don't have to repeat yourself, et cetera. And I will make every reasonable effort to speak, to make everybody sure it can participate. And comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the planning and zoning department until the hearing is closed on each item. All right, great. So that's it. First off, any comments or questions from the public on any issues on any items not related to the agenda? Okay. All right, the first item up here as site plan application SP 22-021 and conditional use application CU-2204 of Elgato Cantina to amend a previously approved plan unit development for a 705,335 foot square foot shopping center complex. The amendment consists of adding seasonal mobile food unit as a use and designated an area for seasonal mobile food unit operations, 155 Dorset Street. Who is here for the applicant? If you guys can come up there to the two seats, that'd be great. Or you can stand at the podium, whatever you like and just press the button to be sure the bright green light is lit up. Yeah. Oh, look at that. Right, and if you just want to introduce yourselves. I'm Amy Bodeway and this is Javier Zerco. We are representing Elgato Cantina. Okay, I'm going to swear you guys in. So just raise your right hand and do swear till the truth regarding this application under the panes and penalties of perjury. Yes, we do. Okay. Amy, could you say your last name again? It's Bodeway, B-O-A-D-W-A-Y. It's not Broadway, common misconception. All right. I have eaten somehow is cooking, but I do not think it'll be a conflict of interest for me. Dali Boka and other stuff. But I can be fair about this and impartial. Go ahead. Oh, I have to recuse myself from this. Okay. Okay, thanks. Stephanie's going to recuse yourself. So yeah, tell us about your project. We have the staff analysis and staff comments and we'll dive into that, but just give an overview. So we are hoping to bring our food truck, our Elgato food truck to the University Mall parking lot where the TD Bank complex is in the front on Saturday nights just for the season, the summer season. Yep, right there. And run it from five to nine. We're hosting other vendors. So maybe a total of six to eight food trucks just Saturday nights from five to nine serving food and alcohol to the public. And what about any entertainment or? I don't, I think it would be like music, but. There is no music, nothing, not live music. No live music. No live music, yeah. No bands or anything, just like you were in a restaurant background music. Okay, gotcha. And just started claritying any alcohol sales or anything like that? Yes. Okay. All right. So do you have the, let's see, staff, did you want to highlight and bring up the staff comments there? Yeah, so we did this of this draft decision. There was, so basically the draft decision goes through all the applicable standards and says whether we believe it's met or not. Obviously, if there's anything in here that you have questions about, feel free to ask. The one question that we had highlighted for the board was to talk about if there's gonna be any illumination, especially as the season gets later. But it's gonna be a what? Any what? Any lighting. Any lighting. There is lighting, so the side, the little red area you see in the map, we have two of the parking light poles are in there. In addition to that, we were doing a stream of lights, just to make it pretty. Okay. But like bigger. A stream of lights around the perimeter of the food trucks kind of thing? Yeah, like string of Christmas lights, except the bulbs are a little bit bigger, but not shouldn't be great. I kind of like the patio lights type of thing. Exactly. Okay. So lights need to be downcast and shielded. There is an exception for like holiday lights during the holiday season. I don't think we generally tend to enforce on like little ambient lights, but if it gets into something that you can really see from far away, that wouldn't be allowed. If it's just eliminating the immediate area, that would be fine. And there's no, so if people, how patio lights, most of that's primarily residential use, do we have any standard for them to be able to get started without like just, you know, in terms of like setting, can we set parameters about? Well, so the standard, I'll take me a second to pull it up, but it says that there should be no glare visible from adjoining properties. And I think we can just use that as the standard. Okay. And I can write that into the decision too, if that makes sense. Pull it up exactly what it says. And what's directly across the street then, and the buildings are fairly set back from there. So it shouldn't cause too much of an issue then in terms of shining light on somebody's lawn or something like that. So that's cool. I can read the specific standard. It says, pole placement, mounting height and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming hazard or nuisance or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. So if we just included that excerpt, I think that would give us enough if it became an issue.  I heard Delilah's ever run. Can you zoom in a little bit? Can you talk a little bit how the food trucks are gonna be configured? Are they gonna be going around like the edge so that people gather in the middle? Right, so the food truck goes right where you have your mouse right now on the other side. That's where the trucks will lay out and there are two of their parking lot mall light poles.  So I don't think that, or Christmas lights we were gonna, I don't think they're gonna do much about. But the trucks will generally be around per perimeter? Yes. Okay, that'll, yeah. Yeah, we'll put that condition in there, just keep an eye on it, don't overdo it and get by with a minimum of what you need to save operation. But yeah, you should be okay as long as, yeah, you don't want the lighting to become a nuisance or cause heavy glare for people driving by that kind of thing. Board members, any questions? Yeah, quick question. Do the actual food trucks themselves have any sort of lights for elimination around the area? Typically, yes, they do. They have, like by the service windows, they probably have a light. Okay, all right. And this is for conditional use, so will it be for seasonal permit or is this gonna be, if we approve it, is it approved sort of in perpetuity? Go ahead. The way that it works is they get they get a conditional use approval from the board. They're able to operate April through October and then every year thereafter, they only need to come in and get a zoning permit to re-up it basically. And with that, every year, the zoning administrator will check in with PD and the fire department and just, you know, and then, you know, review our records if we got any complaints before the permit's issued. But as long as they consistently get a zoning permit every year, they can continue the use April through October, every subsequent year. And do our regs, do we have any limit on the number of trucks that can be there? We've shown the area of operation this becomes part of the record, right, so? Yep, and there's a maximum of 16 seats. So as many trucks as they wanna fit on the maximum of 16 seats. Okay, mm-hmm, okay. Great. I think it'd be somewhat self-limiting. Right, okay. Do we have anybody in the room here which is to testify other than the applicants? All right, anybody online? Okay, we'll close the hearing on this and then we'll do a decision later. Unless they have questions. Yeah, do you guys have any more questions for us? We don't. Okay, so she'll take the conditions document here, add the part about the lighting and then, and then we'll issue a decision in the next few weeks. And I'll make a motion that we close site plan application SB 22021 and conditional use application CU 2204, Delgato Contina. I'll second the motion. Thanks. Okay, motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor of the motion? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Passes four to you. Thanks a lot, guys. Thank you. All right, next item continued. Ooh, we're ahead of schedule. Yep. 14 minutes ahead. That doesn't mean you guys get extra time. But so we did clarify just because it's on the agenda as 7.30 we're not in violation of open meeting law because we warned it for seven that times didn't go on until we published the final agenda. Oh, that's pretty crafty. Yep. That's us. Crafty. Whenever it makes it move fast. We weren't going to be sitting here for 14 minutes not talking. That's right. Exactly. Okay. Continued final plan application SD 2205 O'Brien Farm Road, LLC for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space is allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two five story multifamily residential buildings and lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units 1,0219 square feet of commercial space and associated site improvements, two five five Kennedy drive. Who is here for the applicant? Andrew Gill. Okay. Brian Brothers. Scott, are you here for the applicant? Yes, Sam. Okay, great. I think Evan's on his way. We've sworn them both in already before, right? This is on the continuation, right? Yes. Okay. Evan's not here just so you know. Right. He might walk in at some point, but I presume that's okay. We'll find him. Okay. Let's... Here you go. Go ahead and kind of give an overview. Oh, there he comes. Packable time. Walk of shame. One DRV here and to another. Okay, just for the record, introduce yourself. Evan Langfield with O'Brien Brothers. All right, great. Okay guys, you know the drill. Just give us an overview and we'll dive. Right in on this. So, go ahead. Sure, I think we have successfully wrapped up the, all of the submissions that we need to get into you guys. Corrected everything. I think it seems like stuff is all in order. So I guess the update is there are a couple little loose ends to tie up or talk about tonight. And we are, I think, at a good spot. So the project remains the same as it was last time. Just a little bit better to find. Staff, do you want to highlight any particular things we should focus on to have an efficient discussion? No, there's just four highlighted red comments. It'd be great to go through. Okay, let's do that then. All right, number one regarding PUD standards and 15.183 around access circulation traffic management. Staff supports BFJ recommendation. That's the outside consultant, right? It reviews this to include a condition requiring the signal to be activated when 85% of the units approved for lots, 10, 11, 13 and 15 reach occupancy. The number of units are shown there. 85% of the total units would be 294 units, meaning the signal will be activated occupancy of either the third or fourth buildings. Staff recommends the board consider including condition at the sign signal be activated occupancy of the building containing the 294th unit in hillside phase two, or if warranted sooner and demonstrated by a traffic study. Do you guys have any thoughts on that? It seems in line with sort of what we had proposed. So I think it works fine. We're planning on putting the signal in with building 13 and 15. And so it sounds like it'll be activated before the fourth building is occupied. So that works for us. Okay, great. Staff, any other further? Okay, will you, is that okay? Do I have permission to go off script a little bit? You always, yes. I just have a question because you have approval for lots, 10 and 11. Right now, what's your best guess in terms of timing of when 13, 15, 10 and 11 relate to one another? I think there's a lot in flux right now based on, and we get into that a little bit, I think with the phasing request. Yeah, I mean, site logistics are challenging when we're talking the number of units that would all be constructed at once in four buildings. So it could be two years, it could be three years. And I think that's part of the phasing request. Okay, so we'll get to that later, I guess then. Thanks, board members. Okay, move on to number two. Regarding elevations architecture. So we've discussed the previous meetings, the elevations of the building there. With the most recent submission, the applicant has provided additional, but not all building eclavation. Staff recommends the board confirm the facades not shown will be similarly updated to reflect window headers and garage panels were applicable. If so, staff considers this can be a condition of approval. Where are you guys at on doing the adding the extra? Yeah, so I think I read the comment and we definitely can adapt all the elevations with the headers and the other details. I think that the reason we did these two were because they were the only two we were proposing the garage level paneling on, because we wanted to just get that out there. So certainly a condition of approval to update all the elevations to have the headers and all those details is fine. All right, board members. Okay, great. Thanks, moving on along. Number three regarding landscaping and screening requirements. So we talked quite a bit on the landscaping value and was it adequate as to meeting the minimum landscaping value? So the staff comment notes, excuse me, this was the finding of SD 2125. The board finds the applicant may in the future be allowed credit for the remaining streetscape elements towards the required minimum landscaping budget on lots 12 to 15. As long as the objectives are met, otherwise met and there's the details there. The above elements are not typically required for streets. However, the applicants proposed these elements in support of their objective of creating a pedestrian oriented development, which the board supports in exchange for reduced setbacks and increased heights. These values include only the incremental cost over standard features. So moving all the way down. So down to the bottom of the page, May 4th, we, the board indicated that we felt the site was actually landscaping or inclined to allow the deficit to be made up using the streetscape elements in SD 2125. Staff is asking us, the board, to affirm their conclusions of May 4th by reviewing the provided revised landscaping plans. You wanna take a look at those board? We're moving pretty quick here. Can we do that? Let's do that here since just for the record. Right, so the tree grate happens in the corner on just north, just above the top of the page. If you can scroll down a little bit, right? It's in that area. I believe it's on the patio, right? Yeah. There's trees and shrubs, granules and grasses. And then the big discussion was about whether colored concrete and concrete pavers should be allowed. What they proposed is to include only the cost over the cost of standard concrete. Yeah, so we updated the budget after the last meeting to include the cost above standard concrete, like we discussed. I think we increased some tree sizes because that was requested, made those changes, updated all the unit pricing to a current market price for the trees, resubmitted the budget. I think this was my error on the bollards and bikes. One of the previous staff reports had a comment in the landscaping that said, with the exception of bike racks and bollards, these are non-permanent elements that are typically, and then I read it and thought, oh, that means with the exception we can count those. But the rest of the sentence, I think, indicated that they weren't typically counted. So we had put them in because of that. And if you guys are taking them out, it seems like that's fine and that there's still enough budget in the previously approved permit to cover that deficit. So we would just increase the amount of that 140,000 that's being used to make that difference up and pull those items out of the landscape budget but still leave them in the project. So I'm understanding that even once we take the bollards out and the bike racks, the deficit is still more than adequate to make up the overage on the previous. The other way around, but yes, the overage on the previous is more than enough to make up the deficit on this one. Yeah, I'm in agreement with it and I affirm it because clearly the streetscape and these elements are all contributing to the success of this project. So I'm in support of this. Just, I'm curious about something for the record. How does our fire chief or somebody approve the location of the fire pits relative to a building or under a tree, you can't put it under a tree. The fire chief's position on fire pits is as long as they're 10 feet away from a structure, then you're fine. Okay. And that looks like it's associated with the cafe operation. So they would be in charge of turning it off and on? I think the, I'm not sure there's a fire pit on the cafe deck, but there's one I think on the lower level by building 15 potentially. Okay. But yeah, we've had a number of reviews with the fire chief and the fire marshal on the project already, with the architects and that issue hasn't been flagged. So I think we're in agreement on that. And from an operational standpoint, who manages the fire pit? The management company. Yeah, management company for the building. Okay. In charge. So there's onsite staff and management. Okay, great. Would you consider putting in a timer so that way they can only turn it on for an hour or however long and then it automatically turns off? Are they? I'm assuming they're gas. Yeah. Being included, yeah. We would not want that to be able to stay on. Yeah. A meter running. Especially when I just got our notice from VGS the other day too. It's like one of the hot tub timers or whatever, 18 minutes and it clicks on. They literally are egg timers. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Moving around along. Last item, long term bike storage. Provided architectural plans show bicycle storage in the parking garages. It appears there may be closed lockers in the 62 bike room, 62 dash bike room on lot 13 but no labels provided. Can you clarify please? There are a number of lockers in the bike room on lot 13 and so I think they could get used for a number of things. So I assume closed would be one of those things. So their intention was to be able to be used by the residents rented to store equipment or skis or stuff like that in stuff that would be associated with biking. So. I think biking gear would be one of those things. Do you need more detail on that stuff? As far as like what's the allowed use or labeling on the plans? So the reason there's a required closed locker is because of the commercial square footage in that building. So I guess we would just include a condition that says shall be made available to the tenants of the commercial space. Yeah, that seems fine. A locker, a closed locker shall be made available. Yeah, we can put it in the commercial space as well. I assume if in the back of the shop or whatever. The intent is for the employees of the shop, correct? Right, yeah. So if there's something that you have to choose to rent as a tenant, just have it be known to the tenants of the commercial space that they are also able to choose to rent one. Here, it's all right. That's fine. Okay. Staff, excuse me, board members any more comment on that one? I'm looking at the final plat one. Do you wanna see if there's any comment on this one and then move to the next document? Would that be best? Yeah. Did you guys wanna talk about the phasing at all? There wasn't any red stuff, comments on it. Yeah, I think it would be useful just to touch on it quickly, it's fairly important. So we had, in the letter we submitted, we sort of noticed recently that oftentimes when people get a final plat, it comes with a condition to get a zoning permit within 18 months. We had previously had approved a phasing plan that allowed for the buildings to be built sort of a couple of years apart. And so the way that that originally worked and the approval that's in effect now, the project that's proceeding on lots 10 and 11 would be the first phase and the way that the permit was written, we were not required to pursue a second phase. So not even to get to this point of having the final plat until, I think it was 2025 that we needed to file that final plat. And then we had the ability to go through the final plat and then you would subsequently have another 18 month period to get your zoning permit under the sort of standard provisions, which was quite a long timeline. And in sort of preparing for this hearing, we realized that that standard condition might shorten that by 18 months or so from what we had in our head. And so we just had put in there the request to sort of leave that 2025 timeline in effect so that this zoning permit would be required by May or June of 2025 for these two buildings, assuming that the other two proceed under their timeline. Just to provide a little context for those of you that weren't part of the DRB at the time, the spirit and intent really was to hold us accountable for the delivery of the inclusionary units because at the time it was intended that the marker rate units were going to lead followed by the inclusionary. As it turns out, the inclusionary units are actually the first ones to break ground. And so I think from a spirit and intent, it's kind of put to bed. So it's really just documenting that that phasing that that timeframe is still available to us. And the sort of group of concerns in terms of how to manage all that is just really managing all of it. So you've got the 94 units and the summit project. You've got a major roadway project connecting two brothers in Kennedy Drive, restriping and reconfiguring Kennedy Drive, all the associated work along with that. And then you've got another 250 units and two buildings immediately adjacent to that and how you sort of stage the construction and move people around and keep the site in compliance with stormwater and open areas that you're allowed during winter and whatnot is just logistically, we just need that flexibility to figure out how to phase things. Staff, any staff or board members any questions about the phasing? Okay. Are there any members of the public here in the room that wanna testify on 2205, the continued final plan application? Okay. Do we have any folks online? Okay. Can I just make one more point? So on that last point, I mean, it's really a critical item for us because if we close out this hearing and we don't have an understanding of where that's going, it might actually take us down a different path where we may say, well, we would like a continuation of the hearing because we need to figure this out. So I guess if possible, it would be helpful to understand where the board is on that particular piece. Marley, do you see any issues with their request for the phasing? No, our recommendation was given, you know, what Evan or what Andrew just said at the end there about how there's a lot of infrastructure, there's a lot of work going on the site and they already have two permits that they need to get within the next year and a half. It seems reasonable to allow them more time to get these additional two permits. Then I'm in support of their request and I'm kind of including it as a condition as opposed to the standard 18 month. Right. Do we have a firm? Won't be standard 18 months, but is there a upper limit on that? Do we have to put a month limit in there? No, the standard says it's six months unless the board grants a longer period for a multi-phase development or for other projects that may reasonably require a longer period before commencement of the primitive project. They're asking for May 2025. That seems reasonable. All right, thank you. Okay, well... Do we want to close this one and move on to the next or address? I mean, we have clear, we'll put that in the condition. Yeah, but I'm saying we're also doing the condition. Yeah, well, actually what's... The condition of these ones is a separate item and a separate agenda item. So let's get a motion on this one. I'll make a motion. We close ST-2205-255 Kennedy Drive last 13 and 15, final plot application. I'll second. Any further discussion? All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All right, motion carries. Thank you. All right, all right, great. Thanks, okay, next item. Continued site plan application. Sorry. Continued site plan application SP-SP-22-008 and conditional use application CU-22-01. Although Brian Farmer, LLC, to construct a 52-space commercial parking lot in an existing 4.3-acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants and they're joining multifamily residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. Everybody here has already been sworn in, so we're good. The same people representing, do you have other people for this one? No, seriously, like online, are you gonna have testimony from anyone else? No, I don't think so. Okay, yeah, thanks. So yeah, brief overviews. We have a short little memo here, so. Yes, sure, this is the parking that's associated with the lot 1315 development. It's located on a different lot for purposes outlined in the project, essentially keeping the master plan borders intact and not expanding it to include more land. So we're putting the parking on a different lot. That lot is included in the adjacent master plan that we've been working on with you guys. Everything seemed to be in order. There was a bunch of discussion at the last hearing about the parking lot islands and whether to view it holistically or singularly, I think we settled that all out. There was a zoning line issue and some parking spaces that were in the wrong zoning district, were in the R-12 district when the parking is not in allowed use in that district. We did actually bring in the GIS zoning line, which we didn't have in the plans previously and that actually made the situation much better, thankfully, and not worse. So it cleaned up the few spaces where the line was like kind of half in the spaces. It cleaned that up. Those are all clearly in the C1LR and the four spaces we were discussing, we moved to an alternate location. So that's all cleaned up as well. The Latticons? Is there a plan that shows a little more where the parking actually is on the lot? The next. I think it's just the next. Okay, thanks. So that people can see it here on the... Perfect, yeah. Blue line there is the adjusted zoning district boundary. Before that cut off a few of the parking spaces in the island parking? Yeah, so before that, there was parking sort of where that triangle of the blue and black heavy line are. There was parking right there to the left of the blue line that where that black line like angled through that we took out. Okay, thanks. And yeah, if you remember previously, the blue line was like over in the middle spaces. And we talked about doing compact spaces or shifting the whole island over. And we ended up not needing to do that because when we pulled in the GIS line, it was much more accurate and it all worked out. It's nice when that happens. Yeah, thankfully it didn't go the other way. No, I know. That's been a much bigger problem. Great. Board members, any further questions on this item? No, I think that was the only thing we had is an open item from the last year. Staff, you satisfied? Yep. Any members of the public on this item to testify? Okay, any members online? Members of the public online? All right. Chair, we're going to entertain a motion on this one. Make a motion. We close SB 22008 and conditional use C2201-255 Kennedy Drive 4.3 acre locked site plan and conditional use application. Thank you, John. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, John. All right, most of them have been made in second. In favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Motion carries 5-0. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. Next item, site plan application, SB-22-2004 Beta Air LLC for a portion of the next phase of a previously approved 40.43 acre master plan for a 344,000 square foot manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 square foot commercial building, and a 85,000 square foot flight instruction airport use building. The project consists of a 24,000 square foot hanger, which represents a portion of the 85,000 square foot flight instruction and airport use building, 430 Da Vinci Drive. All right. Who is here for the applicant? Art Clugo, Beta Technologies, Chris Gendron, Stantec. Okay. Anybody else here in the room for the applicant? And Joel Page, Scott and partner's architects. Okay. Anybody else representing the applicant who might testify? Okay. Okay. Do you have any representatives online at all or everybody live here? I think everybody's live. Okay. Great. A new application. So all of those, just introduce yourselves. Just raise your right hand. You swear that the testimony you would give regarding this application shall be truthful, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. Yeah, awesome. Great. All right. Now you guys want to give an overview and then we'll dive in. Before we get started, I'm recused from this item and the next item on the agenda. Okay. We'll have a good night. Thank you. You can bring everybody creamies or something. All right. Go ahead guys. Well, you did a fantastic job bug in your summary there. We'll try to add a little color to that. This is the second project in the master plan that was previously approved. The first project was the assembly facility. This is the, what we call the, is your mic on? Yeah, there we go. Sorry about that. The general aviation hanger, which is the first part of the multi-phase project that sits around the Valley West apron. For those that gobbled it, there's usually some air guard planes parked on there for a frame of reference. So we're excited to move out on this project. As you mentioned there, this is part of our cultural center, part of our training facility. And we look forward to adding this building and this project to the campus. I'm going to dive into the, excuse me, thanks. We'll dive into the staff comments. First one. Where's that middle of page, page number here. I can't see the color. The page, page three. Yes, page three. Okay. So the connection between the project area and the portion of Valley Road to remain in the blue phase shall be removed no later than the red phase. So right now these we're looking at the subject heading here is the master plan conditions.  So one of the conditions was that the connection between Valley Road and the project be removed no later than the red phase. And so that's the context. And you feel it's not relevant because this condition, okay, right. Cause we'll only get to it later, gotcha. All right, so we can remove, we wanna just be sure that everybody concurs with staff. Yep. Okay, all right, thanks. Applicant, is that okay with you? It is, thank you. All right, thanks. All right, next item is middle of page, top of page six. If we could just step back real quick, there is one other item for clarification. Under B phasing, the project was noted as a four phase project. It's actually a three phase project. Cold storage will be permitted under a separate application. It's not part of the master plan. It was not included in the master plan. So we can't apply for it under the master plan approval. Just as a note of clarification. Does that make sense to you, staff? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. Okay, so back to top of page six regarding building placement orientation. These are site plan review standards 14.06, building placement orientation. Maintain or establish a step, maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and where a prevalent pattern exists shall continue the manner in which the site's existing building foundation relates to the site's topography and grade. Staff, comment, notes. There are five doors to the building, three open and equipment mechanical spaces, one on the stairwell, the fifth door is the building's main entrance and is oriented to the side and not the street. The other building approved along the street has its main oriented to the street. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to modify the plans to provide a principal entrance facing the street. Applicants? Couple of things. Appreciate the comment. As we discussed, this is the first phase of a multi-phase project. The main entrance, the cultural center which will be built as part of the second phase is where that street facing entrance would be. The hanger itself is a service building. The entrance is off to the side, although because it's an odd configuration, not quite a corner lot, but maybe a corner lot, you could make the argument that it is on the street facing side if you chose eagle drives as the orientation there. The other part of it is that the, in terms of, where is it at here? In 14.06, it doesn't actually require the door to be on the front of the street. It just requires that there is clear pathway from the street to the entrance way, which we feel like the landscape plan articulates really well, shows how all those spaces come together for the public. And we would ask that the DRB approve the plan as it's submitted. Do we have one we can, do you have something you can bring up to? Yeah, Delilah just lost connection, so we're working on that. What happens when you leave the city? There it is, we're on there, are you just keeping it? I mean, I'm in, yeah, it's difficult for me to take notes. Yeah, I might, remember other people who have been having this problem, you might need to close Zoom altogether and start it over, I'll present for now, but I don't really want to do this long term. Okay, so the standard is to maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and where a prevalent pattern exists shall continue in the manner in which the street's existing, site's existing building foundations relate to the site typography in grade. And this is a new standard as of May, which is why you're not familiar with it. So if I flip ahead to the picture, which is probably this guy, I guess, what the heck, we'll even do the planting plan. Right, so a couple of key takeaways that we had from that new standard is that it's a general criteria that it's intended to provide a framework. So it's prescriptive, or it's descriptive, not prescriptive, it's not, we need to do this. It's do what works best for the site conditions, which we feel we've done, and that the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, innovation, while improving the visual appearance of the city of South Browington. So when we look at the blow up for that area, that entrance, which was provided as, Chris, what was that exhibit where we showed the site amenity? That was exhibit 009, the one we submitted at noon today. Can you just put a circle around this fifth door so we know we're, it's the, Let's give her a sec. Yeah, right there, that's right. And the street in question is, is the new drive, is Da Vinci Drive, which is at the bottom of the page there, and you can see the sidewalk, and the crosswalks that are provided that will guide the pedestrians to the temporary front of the building. There's also a sidewalk that runs across the front, which will eventually be connected to the future primary entrance. And then there's the site amenity, which is where the rocks and the hardscape. The second half of the building, the second half of the building, where's that gonna be? To the right, it's off the page, to the right as I'm looking at it. There Dan. All right, is this building open to the public, or is it purely employee staff, you know, closed? Right, right. I would, in terms of a percentage of use, I would say it's probably 90% beta, 10% public. We'll have people coming there, but it's not intended to be the public component of the cultural center. That's the piece that's yet to be designed, yet to be built. And then there's another door that we don't see on. Is your mic on? So there's another door that will be facing the street further to the right that we don't see on this picture. That hasn't been designed yet. It's not part of this application. It's a future application, correct? I'll try to zoom out here. And question, when the cultural center gets built and it's gonna have a main prominent public entrance, will the other entrances that are currently on the hangar still be used for public, or will they be overridden by the main entrance into the cultural center? They'll be subordinate to the primary entrance. There may be one or two people from time to time that need to use that, but I would say it goes from 90% beta to 99% beta once that new public. So I don't wanna say that there's no public gonna come through there, but it'll be rare if it's not the primary means. I tried to put little stars on all the doors, but I'm missing one at this scale. So I'm gonna zoom in to this area. So the suggestion here was that this is, again, the main door, and this space is sort of open. So the suggestion was that there should be a second door or maybe just a corner door instead of- The door looks, at least, the door looks internal to the building, but- This guy. Oh, there it is, okay. All right. So what's the, and I know what the standard says, but in the way, this is a corner lot, is it? It's got two streets. Yeah, they're both private streets and we've interpreted Eagle Drive to not be really a street at all for the purposes of this application. Because then, obviously, we have a bunch of parking to the front and that doesn't work. Gotcha. Well, actually, the parking to the front is about public street, so that doesn't matter anyway. But yeah, we've interpreted this to be this principal street because that's sort of the street through the project. And we would agree with that. Ultimately, when the cultural center is built out, that's the intent. The standard that we're applying is 1406A. One, two, three, two dash four, page 233. This says the applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building's main entrance. It doesn't define where that building main entrance needs to be in this portion. It just says we need to be able to get the public there safely. And if you look at the new insert there, right below the heading 14.06, do it in a way that's creative, inventive, and innovative so that there's a good experience as you're moving from place to place in that area, which is what's shown in the landscape plan. I'm just passing control back to Delilah. 18, maybe. So, Marla, how proscriptive are this new section of?  So it's 14, the idea here is it's 14.06A1 as it existed with some supplemental standards to help the board understand how to implement the standard 14.06A1 as it's been written all along. So because the other building approved along the street has its main entrance oriented to the street, that's somewhat driving your recommendation. Somewhat. Mm-hmm. And general principle of having entrances face the street, the city's objective through the conglomeration of all of the standards, take the thread that runs through them is sort of doors should face the street and we should move in that direction, though it has stopped short of requiring it. Which seems reasonable given the standard that the city has added here in 14.06 about creativity, invention and innovation in that a primary entrance doesn't, especially in this situation where there is no pattern yet because the other building is 1,000 or 1,200 feet away to the right where the assembly facility is that there's an opportunity to create a variety of entrance types and experiences for the public to come as they're moving in and out of this new private drive that we're creating. Board members, did I get none of this? I've got a couple of questions. So you walk into, you park in the parking lot and then walk over to the side doors, the idea across, I'm not sure what that. So you would walk into, if you could bring that up, so that you see where the paved area is, the area that's highlighted with the pavers, that's the entry plaza. So you'll walk from your park, you'll walk from your car to the entry plaza, the door sits right off the entry plaza and you'll enter the building at that location. And the walkway over to the right a little bit, is there, it looks like there's another entrance right above the walkway. Those are emergency. Emergency, I agree. Exits and for now, that walkway serves as a function for the emergency egress. Eventually that walkway will connect down to the future entrance where the public will come in as part of the cultural center. So, you have a road, you have a parking lot, and the standard would have them walk back into, in front of the road, not easily accessible from the parking lot, right, is the question. Yeah, I'm sorry, could you? Yeah, so again, parking lot is where people are gonna be coming from. Correct. What's down? Down, down. Down that walkway, down south, I guess it's, where's north-south, yeah. There is wetlands across the street. There's a sidewalk that runs along the wetlands over to the new campus where the assembly facility is at, and then ultimately connects out to Wilston Road. And so what you're suggesting is, even though that's a road, and the standard says, build the entrance on the road, the fact is the parking's over to the left. That's where the people are gonna be coming from, and it's actually a little bit more convenient for the people to come from the parking lot into that door on the left, on the right. I would say that 95% of that's correct. We would suggest that the standard doesn't say that you have to build the entrance on the front. The way that it's written, the way that it was reconstructed and recently adopted provides other opportunities, and we'd like to see the other opportunities applied in this particular instance. Thank you. Yep. Yeah, jump in here, yep. And also. Can you turn on your microphone? I saw it. It's even brighter. It's helpful to think of this building as a composition, and that corner entry is a full glass corner, a wrapped corner, and the way the entry door is oriented coordinates you directly with the parking lot. As the building expands into the next phase, that connecting sidewalk will still remain a secondary sidewalk, because ultimately there will be a parking garage related to the second phase. So this parking area will primarily be focused on the GA hangar and not the full built. So right now, the way the building is situated and oriented, it really focuses on using that parking lot. The reality is at this phase of things, there probably won't be a lot of pedestrians accessing up through that way until the full cultural center is built. Right, so it's helpful, at least for me, to look at the issue. While there is more flexibility in the rewrite, where there's more guidance given to the board, we do have pedestrian orientation D, improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability within the area proposed for development. So when I look at the entrance there, if I wanted to be a bomb thrower, I'd say, oh, so this is all oriented about car culture. The entrance is for the people who drive cars. The rest of the people who are walking and biking are not being served or welcomed. And the standard is pretty clear about enhancing pedestrian connections. It may seem weird in the context of, well, every 95% of the year, but we had this whole discussion too with a previous applicant about a car dealership on Shelburne Road. It's like, main entrance, yes, most everybody's, yes, it's very rare that somebody's gonna be walking down Shelburne Road to go buy a car. Most everybody's driving or a friend or they already have a car, but it's clear you're trying to, we're, what's the word? We're trying to reorient things to pedestrians and the whole community, not just those with cars. So as staff comment number three is related to the prior one, staff considers the building we're pedestrian oriented. Quinn, you got something on this? Yeah, I was just gonna add that we appreciate you talking through, obviously we're digesting this new standard. And just to share with the board what I'm thinking, I'm just a little torn because I do see the leeway that the applicant is noting as far as how the standard has written. Marla, I appreciate your overview as far as the intention, that's helpful. And the sticking point I'm having is that they, in theory, will be establishing the cultural center later on, which will clearly be the more facing the street primary entrance, accommodating pedestrians and all of that, but that's not in what we're looking at. And so the other thing that we wanna think about is consistency, especially with this new standard and establishing that. So which is all to say I'm torn. So I don't know if other folks wanna weigh in, but that's my thoughts on it right now. Yeah, and that's the challenge that DRB has, right? It's how do you take this language and apply it to the interpretations from a variety of folks and it doesn't make your job easy because when you read that deep pedestrian orientation and proven enhanced pedestrian connections and walkability within the proposed development. And we would argue that the landscaping and the orientation that we've created that guides the pedestrian from point to point. So you have experiences along the path that's not just this long vacant path and everything's the same. We've all walked down streets where everything is exactly the same. It's a really, it's a sterile experience. It's not an experience that you like to have as a pedestrian, that there's, how do we integrate interest into the project? It's a large project that's 40 acres of redevelopment and we wanna be able to make sure that experience from beginning to end is as unique as the master plan itself is intended to be. And so we're looking at the opportunity that's provided here in the new standard for creativity, innovation and invention, understanding that none of that works if we're not paying attention to what the pedestrian experience is and how that connects back to the individual. And so when you look at the landscape plan that was submitted as part of the supplemental information this afternoon, it really speaks to the care that was taken in creating that site amenity which is key to orienting the front of that building and creating that experience that both of these standards talk about. Well, so do we want to then keep moving and circle back to the question of pedestrian orientation and street presence after we have seen how what art is saying the site amenity enhances that? That seems like a great suggestion. Okay. So why don't we move to section C, what is it, 1406C? We'll skip comment number three for now. C is about the site amenity requirement. So this is also a new standard so just be patient with us. This now applies to all site plans over 5,000 square feet need to have a site amenity. This has been the thing that's been in place in the form-based code zoning district. So I've been dealing with it for a while administratively but there is a table of available site amenities that an applicant can choose from and each of those different types has certain criteria associated with it. If it's gonna be a park light, it has to have seating. If it's gonna be a cafe space or an outdoor cafe it needs to actually be adjacent to a restaurant. If it's going to be a active recreation space it needs to be a certain size in order to allow you to actually play ball on it that sort of thing. So at the time and we missed this because it was so freaking brand new they didn't submit it but it sounds like they've made some progress and would like to present it now. Correct. Go ahead, yeah. And it's a good point. We're all learning as we go. We're like we're early in the process of utilizing these new regulations so happy to have the conversation and talk through these. I'll get this jump started and maybe Jeff anything that we need to highlight here or Carolyn, either of you can jump in. So we did apply the standard. We went through and did a calculation and I believe Chris provided that to you in his supplemental information. We have roughly 23,000 square feet of gross floor area when you do the calculation based on 6%. It means we should have roughly 1,500 square feet. I think it's 1,400 in change of site amenity. The board has the latitude to provide a 50% waiver of that which would be roughly set down to 710 square feet. When you do the math, we've proposed the 780 square foot. So it's not all the way down to the maximum that the board can waive but given the site and the other things that we have planned in the future, we were offering this 780 square foot amenity that's tucked in and fits well. It's intended to be a private space dedicated to beta employees. Obviously as the public comes and goes where you get visitors, they'll be able to utilize that space as well but it's not intended per the standard. It's either a civic or a private and either to be used by the public or users of the building. This particular instance is a private space for users of the building. Jeff, anything that I may have missed? Sure. Jeff Hudson, Wagner Hudson. So in the manufacturing project, we've unearthed a bunch of really amazing boulders and we've saved a few dozen. So we were thinking of pulling some of those over into here to kind of create a bit of an enclosure for a patio for kind of dining tables and chairs for employees. And I suppose the public, if they come by here and with papers, concrete pavers. We're extremely family friendly. We anticipate people bringing friends and stuff by. It's not just an employee entrance and certainly would welcome anybody walking by to stop them. So because this is new, I'm gonna kind of have a step through this a little bit at a time. Delilah, if you could get ready with the newest LDRs open. I would ask you to go to page 164. Yep. And so I'm gonna go back to what you said about 50% and ask you to elaborate because in the board's packet, you can see that criteria C4 is the DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required sediment in the area if the applicant demonstrates a safe walkable connection to an existing civic space or public park that is accessible by the general public and located within 500 feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building on the lot via walking route and or pedestrian way. A safe walkable connection shall not include or require crossing a four lane road. So can you explain what existing civic space or public park is within 500 feet of the building? There isn't one. This is a standard that we wish we would have had an opportunity to discuss. We're creating acres of park as part of the master plan that's within a five minute walk that will be used by not just the folks visiting the beta campus, but will also be available to anybody that's on a bike or is utilizing the bike paths and the walking paths that are part of the airport master plan and connect into the broader community. We understand that the 500 foot piece is there. It's an, it's zoned industrial. It's tough to be able to sit here and say, yeah, there's a park within 500 feet. And the closest we could get is to say the wetlands are public park, similar to what's across the street, although there's no artwork in that wetlands. But yeah, I can't sit here with a straight face and say that there's a park within 500 feet. I was hoping we could have that discussion here. So my understanding, and you know, I'm taking off my development review planner hat for a moment and just kind of parroting what I've been told about this because this was, you know, landed on my desk just as much as it landed on your guys is that the planning commission anticipated that this number of 6% was small enough that it was not really going to be a problem for most sites because most sites have, you know, an upper lock coverage limit of 30%, 70% in the industrial zoning districts. And so the hope was that 6% could fall within some of that extra space on a lot. There is not an exemption for 50% of that site amenity to be waived without 500 square feet. I think that if you guys want to enter into a discussion about other available waiver, the board's other waiver authority, I'd like to have it in a deliberation just because I'm not really prepared for that conversation right now, but I know there's the PUD stuff, there's site plan waivers, you know, I would just like to get a little more prepared for that conversation if that's the way you want to hit. Yeah. So the other just is a good suggestion, Marla, and certainly recognize Quinn mentioned this earlier, it's tough, they're actually not tough, but the DRB can't look at things that are not before them. It is worth noting though, in this discussion that you would have, that there would be additional site amenities provided when phase two is constructed. That's part of the plan. So in terms of the overall percentage that would need to be met, we expect to be able to do that as part of the full build out. Here it's, this particular site presents challenges to do that. So if, let's just suspend discussion for right now and assume that somehow you only need to provide 720 square feet, can Jeff you explain which of the, and this is Delilah, why I wanted you to open to page 164? Could you explain which of the open space types this is? It's just going, let me take a second. So there's this whole list. Apparently, there is, there was an error when this was adopted, there you go, that page. And there was supposed to be a, here's, yeah, one more, I think, you're in the road types, one more after that. That's it. There's supposed to be a row here after PUD applicability that says site plan applicability, but for now, until that gets fixed, which will be coming up very shortly, we're just gonna say any of them are allowable. So there's this page of them and it can be a specific space, it can be, you know, a neighborhood park, a greenway, a green, a square, a plaza. And then there's a second page that are more site level sizes. Can we zoom in a little bit on our like the applicable section? So these are the ones that are more likely to be what you're looking for. Yeah. Outdoor cafe, restaurant seating, sun terrace, courtyard, shared garden space, rain garden, snippet, parklet, street front open space. And you said dining has to have a restaurant associated with it. So is that one? It did, let me make sure it still does. Yes, it still does. Okay, then I would definitely say sun terrace since it's kind of got South and West exposure. That one's an upper story. So it sounds like you guys haven't really looked at this yet. I honestly didn't realize it had to fall into one of these. Yeah, the cross, we didn't pick up the cross reference to this, honestly. Yeah, it's a little messy I think. So I guess we have a little bit of work to do and they have a little bit of work to do. I ask a question, cause one of them is rain garden, a shallow depression plant with native plants that captures rain water runoff from the previous urban areas. Is it one of your islands in your parking lot? It's actually right adjacent, not even, well we have two locations, right?  Right, and then isn't one of your landscape islands? It is, yeah, so collectively. Meet the criteria. Yeah, so if I, if you wanna flip back to the plan, I can just read out that a little bit, yeah. So a rain garden can count as no more than 50% of the minimum required qualifying open space. So you got a rain garden, you got the comp. Right, if they have both of those things, for 50% each. You can see the rain garden right there, it's the triangle, just down at the bottom of the page. And then also the island. There's that one in the island as well, yeah. I mean, I'd rather solve this by actually meeting the criteria rather than trying to find a waiver. And it seems like you pretty much have it. So if you got to adjust your plantings to make a real rain garden, rather than just a depression for a stormwater runoff. It's already planted. Yeah, so it seems like this is more of a, there we go. Yeah, there you go. So you can see clearly if that area that we had shown as the site amenity is 780 square feet that the rain garden is probably twice that size of the rain garden, it only counts for 50%. But between the two, That's what I'm saying. I think we've exceeded the minimum requirement at 6%. I mean, I would argue that they meet the criteria with those two amenities combined. I'm okay with that. I do feel a little uncomfortable making that on the fly, but I guess let's see where we land with everything else. I feel more comfortable with that than most and would probably be okay without like triple checking it, but I would feel certainly better if we kind of came back. If there's nothing else remaining, what I would propose is keep it open. We'll head towards a draft decision on July 6th and say hello, thank you for coming. We don't have any more questions closed. I mean, if we can dot our eyes and cross our T's with meeting the criteria rather than deliberate how to sign off on a 50%, I'd rather do that because it seems like you actually meet the criteria, but I agree with Marla, staff needs to review it rather than just sort of me say, hey, it looks like you meet it in the meeting. Yeah, completely agree on both points. Mark, thank you. Again, we're all learning as we go through and try to apply these new standards. So if whatever else you need from us to help in that, let us know we're here to support that. Sounds like we need to pick a category for the other 50%. Yeah, so, well, you'll read it. One of the things that says in the rain garden is that maximum size is 3,500 square feet. The space must serve as a visual amenity adjacent seating proportionate with the size of the garden and number of users is required and can be counted as part of the required open space. So if we can, I don't know if that means it needs to be, see, that's where I'm not sure about this, but I feel like maybe that seating area needs to be more integrated into the rain garden, whether it's just visually integrated, like, you know, you move the rock that blocks the view of the rain garden. Well, there's a footpath that takes you to the rain garden. Let us take a stab at that because there certainly seems to be a design opportunity in terms of connecting these two pieces more intentionally to address your point, Marla. And then it's all rain garden even though some of it is seating. Oh, I see. Board members, can we hop back? Because we've got this nice illustration up to our previous discussion about the entrance because I just want to have a couple of questions for the applicant here. So I hear your discussion about, like, okay, it's, we're working with this new standard we're doing basically. Can you describe in the southwest corner of the building, what is in that first little cube there that an employee walks in in the 11 o'clock position and what's that, what's that space there, that first space? What's in that space? Joel, you want to hear it? It's Joel. Well, it's a combination of an entry area and open office area and a meeting area. So it's multiple functions. And for those that have been to beta, the whole open office concept is really exploded. As Joel just described, all these things mesh together to provide the collaborative environment that's been created. But the first part of it, or at least when they walk in, it's almost an employee entrance, right? Correct, yeah. It's not really designed to be technically a public entrance, it's that. Yeah, and that's one of the challenges we're dealing with because I guess here's a question, we're just, you know, we're trying to get to this orientation to the street and I get the way the landscaping goes all the way to the same, it lines up with the building itself, just below the little hand there. Is it feasible from what's going, I mean, in some ways, again, I know it's only five or 10% of the public coming in there, but if we're trying to tie into the rain garden more or making using that sort of a visually pleasant space to come into as an entrance and it draws your eye towards that part, is there any reason why you can't just put a door facing southwards?  And so is it that much heartache to put a door facing south and then some of the landscaping, instead of being flushed to the building, is removed there and it creates more of a plaza effect at the corner there, at the southwest corner that draws people in and welcomes people in and you have a clear door for employees, which is gonna get most of the use, but that space there is somewhat welcoming and people come in and they're coming there for a meeting or for a meet and greet or something like that. Do we have some grade challenges the way the grade and the street sort of, at the level of entry to the building and the street level, there's a bit of a drop there, so to try and create a plaza is gonna be somewhat. Well, I'm even just talking about like a door. Like why is it such a challenge to put a door facing the street? Have you? Well, for a couple of reasons, we were trying to, it was done intentionally, obviously, right? We feel like we've created a nice public space there. The reality is when we say public though, those are secured doors, this is a secured building. If not, when it's open to the public, you've gotta come, you're prescreened, it's not that the general public can just walk in. And so to whatever degree knowing what the second phase of this project is, that we can protect the idea that this is a secure building, functionally, that door really wants to be exactly where it's at. If the DRB says, absolutely, we're not going to approve this application without moving the door, we will move the door, but functionally, it's not the way the buildings intended to be used. And we believe the spaces that are created around that to support that are really in the spirit and meeting the intent of the language that's been developed and adopted here in the new regulations. And to build on that, one of the, What's your mic on? To build on what Art was just saying, earlier in the discussion, there was a discussion about where the doors were. There was the interior door and the exterior door. You notice they're close together. So that limits the path of travel to have to go into the office space. So if you relocated the door to the south, you create a bigger pathway and we lose a lot of functional space. I wasn't necessarily saying lose a door, I was just saying. Well, I would shift the door to the south. It creates more pathway of travel through a useful space that might otherwise. I'm just saying out of door, facing the street. Yeah, and here's the interesting part about one of the upcoming comments, which was the idea, the need to flip the service entrance, the overhead door and the ADA parking. Actually, by doing, and we've done that, you'll see, I think in the supplemental information that we agreed with that suggestion and that observation, we've made that change by pushing that service or the shipping and receiving door closer to the airfield, it improves the security of the building because we don't have that, those two things congregated together. So it's another way of just trying to be consistent with the overall use of the building. What members you wanna talk about this more? I'll move on to number five. I just wanna ask on the prior picture, there's a picture of a tree. We're talking about a door on the left hand side, but there was something behind the tree. Was that like a hanger of entrance or something? You might've been looking at the solar panels that are on the outside of the building. Is that, yeah, there's a band of solar panels that flank the, is that the south face? Joel, and then wrap around to the west. The overhead door that we talked about that they flipped over there. You get the solar panels and then a short sunshade right there above the glass. So that band that fits in between the solar panels. John was talking about the overhead door that's to the left of your public entrance. Yeah, that door gets moved farther to the left. And see it flipped there with the ADA. Yeah, yep, yep. So I'll just throw out a quick thing. I think in regards to solving the amenity space, I like the direction we're going in. I think that could be solved. And for me, the public door isn't as important because the public space is more important for me if phase two never gets built because you gotta look at these things as standalone projects. And this building's not meant to be like a public building. So if it doesn't have a public front door facing the street, it doesn't bother me so much because if phase two gets built, which I say if because we can't control what the future holds, if it gets built, it's gonna have its own amenity space but this building's already gonna have it and it will have the main entrance into both of these buildings. If it never gets built, this building is never meant to be like a public building per se. So your testimony that's gonna be a lock secure door, speaks a lot to me that if you had a public door in the front, people would be going to it and it's secure. You can't go into it short of getting buzzed in but I think routing them to the side. So if our regulations do allow us that flexibility for this to be a discretion item, I would be leaning towards in this instance, we allow it to move forward as design because of the phasing and the fact that if it stands alone, it's not meant to be a public building. And we're not closing the hearing on this one or we'll be working on it tomorrow. Yeah, it sounds like we're gonna work a little bit on the landscaping but I'd love to have it be something we can turn around. Yeah, no, I get that I just don't wanna get bogged down knowing what, because we need time to digest this. Okay, so the plan then is, we'll talk about it. We'll talk about some more. In deliberations and then provide that feedback to you at the meeting in which you provide the feedback on the side of many to us. Yeah, great. Okay, all right, so let's move on to number five, bottom of page 10, staff comment. There is no fencing or screening for the proposed dumpster. Do you guys have a supplemental on that? There was, there were supplemental details submitted. The dumpster design is the same dumpster design that was approved at the North Hanger project. And we have that staff. It's loading. It's loading. Stand by. But you received it, I guess is the question. I literally didn't have time to open the files. Okay, that's okay. I don't know. That's okay, I'm not saying. Yeah, but as you go through that information, you'll see that that it's provided. Yeah. All right. Well, that's loading. We'll go to number six. The applicant has proposed this is regarding off street parking and loading. Applicants proposed standard 13.02 off street parking and loading G2, the location of parking in areas and loading dock shall prevent conflicts, et cetera, et cetera. The applicant is proposing a load comment. The applicant is proposing a loading dock. The loading dock will not block access to either side of the building while in use, but it does appear it will block the ADA compliant parking spaces from access to the building by the site when in use while the LDR does not regulate the ADA access that recommends the board. Nonetheless, it's about the applicant to modify their plans to address this issue prior to closing the hearing. I think that's what they just tested. Yeah, okay. And we've got the submittal on that too. Let me see if I can pull it up. Zero 10 site plan sketch. It's what? Zero 10, oh 10 site plan sketch. Got it. Let me just hit present. Maybe if I can do that. Sorry, it's like small. It's so that I can kind of type on half of the screen here. Oh yeah, that doesn't want to load. I think we're having internet issues in the building. Here, my son. I think we're having internet issues in the building that's causing our documents to not load. There it is. There it is. So it's still loading. So the loading dock is now here? Yep. Where it was here? Correct. And you've kept the same number of parking spaces. We will actually lose one. And is it an ADA or a regular? It's an, it will lose one ADA space. And we were over parked on the ADA. So we're still compliant. All right, board members okay with that? All right staff, we got it on the screen, awesome. Number seven, bike packing and storage. Since the long-term spaces are not one of the secure, the staff recommends the board required demonstration of the long-term parking quote, allows secure locking of the frame and wheel and supports a bicycle upright. Oh, yada, yada, yada, through provision of a detail, the plan bicycle parking rack. Staff further recommends the board require the applicant to provide a closed locker and show its location on the architectural plans. Do we get that in the middle on that or? And that's the sketch right there. The plan in the lower left-hand corner, there's two note call-outs, one for the location of the bike racks there right along column line E. And then on the bottom of the page, you can see where the lockers are noted as well. There's also a supplemental sketch that was more of a cut sheet that was provided for the type of bike racks that we're using that show how they're being secured and how they're able to be locked. So all that information is in the package that was submitted earlier today. Staff satisfied on that? Yep, I'm gonna have to take their word for it on the cut sheet, but that's fine. It was in the write-up, one of the supplemental narratives. Got it. Because it's not like a detail, it's a spec sheet. Little thing. Okay, thanks guys. Staff comment number eight regarding top of page 13. Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and a half inches when measured on the tree stem, six inches above the root ball. Staff comment, trees are proposed to be 2.5 dash three inches in caliber, except for the autumn bullion's service barrier, which is proposed to be 2.25 inches of which four are proposed. Sneaky service barriers there. Staff recommends board require the applicant to increase the installed size of this tree species. Who wants to take the service barrier question? So we have Jeff and Caroline talk to the arborist, the arborist agreed, and there's an email correspondence that was included in the package of information earlier today, except in the two to two and a half inch caliper tree, pending the DRB's approval. Caroline? So to further explain that, they're not shade trees, they're ornamental trees, and they're meant to highlight the stormwater area. So they're really just, they're ornamental as opposed to they're not providing shade, they're not there to provide shade on the parking lot and they're not street trees. We typically size them a little smaller than something that's gonna get 60 to 80 feet. They only get about 20, 25 feet tall. Okay, Marla? We don't have any, just go and stay at the, we don't have flexibility on this because it's a shout, it's pretty clear on that. So, did you receive the email correspondence on there? I'm sure it's in there. Yeah. The, yeah, so the standard, as you're saying, is a shell. I know, you know, put it on my way back at, this was one of the things that Ray was extremely, extremely inflexible about minimum size of two and a half inches. Well, it's the gone to standard, we're not slipping then. Don't even take about it, I'll walk out, I'll resign right now. But the LDR has been amended to allow the board to waive dimensional standards of site plans. I suppose tree size is technically a dimensional standard, though it's not in Article 14, it's in Article 13. So, if you wanted to waive it, we've never done it before. So, I think, is it hard to find? I think it's kind of my fault in a way because other times when I've done plant schedules, I've maybe called out shade trees and then ornamental trees as separate items. And so they didn't, I've never had it come back that way. But the other way to look at it is that a shad is more like a large shrub than, it's a large shrub small tree as opposed to like a maple, for instance. Is it something you see in the woods it's like an understory tree shrub. I can understand. What's its botanical definition? Is it a tree or a shrub? It's listed as both. It depends on what book you're reading, but. Some catalogs it's shrub, some catalogs it's tree. You weren't looking for the easy answer, were you Dan? Well, and is it truly hard to find one that has a larger minimum size? Yeah, okay. I mean, I guess the way I look at this is it's one thing if it is a street tree or a shade tree that's required to get to be a certain size and it's required for the regulations. It's another if it's just a decorative element of the landscape plan. To me, then I would say that it's a waivable criteria if, especially if the size is not able to be procured and it's an integral part of the landscape plan. Do we have a, I hate to ask this, but I'm done. Do we have a definition of a tree in the LDRs? Cause that's all that really matters. Yeah. I mean, do not. I guess when I was reading those, it was, I felt like it was described, like it came, it was a line item after talking about how many trees have to go around the parking lot and to provide shade. Yeah, it's not a sub-heading. You're right, it's right after it, but it's not a sub-heading. Anyway, these are pictures of autumn brilliant service berries. Okay. If anyone wants to know what they looked like. Gotcha. Those are not big trees. Those are decorative elemental trees. Yes. It's written in the Vermont hubris of maple and oak and stuff. So everything had to be, okay. And they're in, I won't, let's not beat around the bush anymore. Oh. Thanks for all for coming. Okay. All right, let's. Making this chairing the meeting. All right. I don't know if it meets the dimensional standard. Let's, but we've talked about it enough. Okay. Taking enough information. We'll decide in deliberation. Oh, we'll talk about it. Let's see us. Exactly. All right. Yeah, that's it. We get through that was it, right? Staff comments. There is, but there's one more item that I was hoping to just touch on real quick. Sorry. No, go ahead. Sorry to break the flow a little bit here. 13.07 exterior lighting. It's noted that the lights may be no higher than 30 feet. As we discussed in the master plan on the air side of the building, the height is dictated by the FAA. And we would just ask that any decision reflect the requirement that we adhere to the FAA standard in lieu of the land side standard. Fair. Okay. All right. Board members, any last questions for the applicant on this? Okay. Do we have any members of the public here in the room that wish to comment? And do we have anybody online that wishes to comment? So recommendation for continuation date. I can, it's going to depend on you guys and how many late nights you would like to spend at the office away from your families between now and the end of the week. Because my packet is due next Wednesday. So in order to get anything reviewed, I'd realistically need it to be in my inbox Monday morning. And we're just talking about next. If we're talking about the July 9th, July 6th meeting. And what are the open items that they're going to be? So you guys are going to talk about and decide what you want to do about an entrance. And they're going to make a proposal for the site amenity that fits into one of the boxes. That's right. Yeah. Can you do it too? Yeah. We all start looking back. So I have room on July 19th, but I also have room on July. If you guys can get it to my inbox Monday morning, then we're good. But if not, we'll put you on July 19th instead. Can you get it to Marla's inbox by Monday morning? And we can get it to which meeting again? Does that take clear? July 6th. July 6th. Which is a Wednesday, by the way. It is a Wednesday. Good point. And then the next meeting is the 18th, you said? 19th. 19th. Ideally, we'd do it on the 6th. I'm going to put you guys in it. I mean, it doesn't seem complicated. Yeah. And just do it. And we can talk about how we make that happen. OK. We'll endeavor to get it in by Monday, so it'll make the packet for the July 6th meeting. Thank you. Do you need a motion to continue? Yes, please. OK. Do you want to make a motion to continue to the date certain of July 6th? I'll make a motion that we continue site plan application SB 22024 beta error to July 6th. I'll second that. All right, motion's been made in second. All those in favor say, hi. Hi. All right, motion carries for zero. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Thank you. And ladies. All right, next item, last item, holy cow. Get 25 minutes ahead of schedule. Could you please knock on wood somewhere? Plastic laminate. Count. Oh, well. I would like to note in the interest of fun information, Dave Marshall is both in person and online right now. Site plan application, SP dash 22 dash 020 of Nagley and Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 square foot office building, create 2,000 more square feet of outdoor storage and associated site improvements, 39 Bowdoin Street, who is here for the applicant. Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. All right. Anybody else or your alter ego in the ether? So, all right. Swearing Dave, please raise your right hand and swear that the testimony you're about to give regarding this application is the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. Awesome.  I just need to disclose, I was the architect on the project directly to the north end. Dave was the civil engineer, but it was like forever ago. So I don't see any real conflict. Well, hopefully there'll be no architectural inconsistencies. So, all right, go ahead, Dave. Very good. So first of all, we would like to apologize in the fact that Mark Nagley, the applicant's representative, has been laid up due to an intestinal virus and for the past three weeks. So some of the information that we really had hoped to have for you, for your packages, for Marla, did not come through. But at this point, Marla did recommend that we leased touch base on some of the higher elevation items. And out of all that, make sure that we're headed in the correct direction on some of those items so that we can, in turn, come back in an appropriate time in the future with a cleaner slate for you. So with that being the background, this particular project is located out in the Meadowland Business Park off of Hinesburg Road, basically on the south side of the interstate. Dynapower is in the immediate vicinity if you've driven by and seen a large wind turbine. But nonetheless, in this particular case, this application is associated with Lot 7. And as on your screen, up in the top left is the intersection of Meadowland Drive and Hinesburg Road. That is currently not a signalized intersection. This actually lies south of the new traffic signal that just went in for Tilly Drive. But in this particular case, as you head down or eastly of Meadowland Drive, you will go past a large Lot 1, generally undeveloped. You'll come to logics, excuse me, on logic. Drive past that. That's Thompson Street. Then there is a significant stormwater management facility that's actually on the western portion of this particular Lot 7, crossing a wetland and then coming to the upland area that's at the intersection of Bowdoin Street and Meadowland Drive. So that's the overview, as far as at least location. Historical background of Meadowland Business Park is that you can see that the Meadowland Drive continues easterly and then just abruptly ends. There was a concept at the time of extending that roadway into Williston to basically provide improved connectivity. But the Corps of Engineers basically put a kibosh on that. And the city has now acknowledged that this will be essentially a dead-end road, as far as at least it's eastly connections. So that ultimately shapes a little bit of the discussion in regards to how this particular building is oriented to the street. Because, again, primarily, most of that traffic is coming from Hinesburg Road and then running towards this particular property and then, of course, back out again. There are a number of properties, just as Mark indicated, immediately to the north. And those to immediately to the east and northeast, some of them are very industrial in nature. But Mark's building is much better at looking than those. So that being where it is, we'll move on with those comments. OK. And it's basically an office building for Naitley and Chase. Sorry, the application is for an office building, right? Cutting to the Chase, yes. This is actually essentially a contractor's building where portions of it are dedicated to off-space and then other areas are dedicated to manufacturing particular items for their projects or for storage. And that ultimately is this particular building is designed to have two tenants, Naitley and Chase and then also an unnamed tenant at this point in time. But their discussions with potential tenants is, again, focuses on a large amount of that particular open floor plan area for manufacturing purposes. So that's still to be determined. Those are some of the items within the staff report, which are more on the detail end of things. But again, what's up on the screen right now represents the floor plan of at least what Naitley and Chase would like to proceed with with their half of the structure and the remaining open areas, again, primarily on the left side of this particular drawing associated with that future tenant space. Can you explain the two-story nature or not quite two-story nature? It's like there's an inset at the bottom of the page. No. Sorry. Sorry to be brief. But Mark will be able to tell us a little bit more about how some of these things orient themselves. Marla, I had the same problem. So Mark indicated that he would be very happy when his strength resumes to be able to provide better responses on certain items associated with the architecture of the building. But unfortunately, there will be a number of them that will be blank tonight for us. All right. I'm going to propose that we kind of go through, because we know we're going to have more discussion about this. Let's try to get through as many of the staff comments as we can, but without too much detail, knowing that we can answer more later. Does that sound OK to staff? Do we know which ones are the high-level ones you want to talk about? Because just looking at the staff comments, they're pretty colorful. So I'm wondering if there's ones we want to highlight for tonight and which ones are nothing less from Marla? Yeah, I mean, I'll let Dave drive the train on that. I get to be an engineer in a different way. All right. So. Two, two. OK, so there's probably two of them. One of them, the staff reports, talks about how the board should look at this particular building, how it orients itself to the street, whether it's set up in a way that complies with the LDRs. So I think that's probably one of the primary components. And then a secondary aspect is the proposed means of access on the east side of the site. Again, being a corner lot, it is challenged. I'm having frontage on two streets. But in this particular case, there is a recommendation to align a driveway. It's one that actually got vetted back in 2019 when nearly this exact same site plan came before the then board. And with that, let's at least open up with the discussion of how this particular building orients itself to the street and whether or not this makes sense. Another thing that has components in regards to how the building fits with the land form is a concern of staff as it relates to the amount of fill and the use of retaining walls to basically make this particular structure fit with the site or not fit with the site, depending on how you want to interpret the LDRs. So in this particular case, what's up on the screen is sheet 2.0. It's kind of the overall plan for the entire parcel. Again, it runs in the long direction from left to right or west to east. And what you see on the bottom right is the intersection of both Bowdoin Street and Middelland Drive. One of the challenges, you can see the wetlands and the middle portion of the parcel, is that everything drains downhill towards that particular feature. And when you have a building that is essentially going to be all set at the same elevation that something's got to give. So we did try to lower the building on the right side or east side in order to basically get it down below the street. But nonetheless, as that finish grade runs out in the west direction, it puts us above existing grade. We did seek to create as much grade change from the west side of the building down to the edge of the parking on the far west end. Again, try to basically not get slopes more than 5%. At that point, sometimes doors start flying open a little bit quicker than people anticipate and their neighborly car gets impacted. So we did try to both lower the building as well as get that particular west end of the site as low as possible. But that being the background, it still puts us above existing grade. The nice thing about the retaining wall that's shown as you start at Middelland Drive on the south end and head in the northerly direction is that it basically starts at 0 as far as its height and basically works up to a larger elevation, probably at the midpoint, or probably about 8 and 1 1⁄2 feet. And then as you move further back, it's 9 feet and more. So those are at least some of the site challenges with regard to how we have either worked with or worked against the existing grade in order to basically produce a usable facility at this location. So what is highlighted on the screen right now is that retaining wall on the west side. And I think primarily the biggest discussion point we had back in 2019 when we came before the board was perhaps how to augment or try to break up the mass of that wall with some sort of landscaping. So I think that's perhaps one particular mitigation measure that can be proposed in regards to how to, again, not make this look like an island out in the middle of the industrial park. So this is just to give the context, this is specifically one of the factors. So this is the big picture plan. If we go one sheet further into the package, it will start to zoom in, at least on the building and the amenities around the perimeter. Yeah, that was the question about the staff coming over to us about the facade. So the architectural plans may be in the very back of the set as far as at least the three sheets that were provided. So this particular sheet, as long as we're on it, while Amarla is looking for the architectures, what we are proposing is two entry points. This is consistent with the on-logic building that sits on a corner parcel a little bit further west on this particular business park. And what Mark wanted to make sure that everybody understood is that as you drive down Meadowland Drive, you have this long kind of bowling alley aesthetic. And that's where they wanted to invest in the character of that particular entrance on the southwest corner of the building. And that's also the area that ultimately is another discussion point as far as the site amenity to basically kind of pull all of that together in a comprehensive aesthetic and improvement area. So these elevations, they look pretty bland in regards to what you're looking at. But nonetheless, how do you describe what you're looking at here? A shoebox. So the second one from the bottom is essentially the view as you're heading east on Meadowland Drive, coming from Hinesburg Road, heading down toward this particular property. These are the punch-out windows that are associated with some of the office component. But on the right-hand side is that common entrance. And that is ultimately going to be the area that I would like to think is going to be dressed up pretty significantly. So it represents a drawing point for the eye as well as for a signal as far as where people are to enter this particular building. So that is still an item that needs additional detail in order to be able to get us closer to where we need to be in regards to describing how this particular. And most of the employees would come in on that north side, right? Because that west side you just showed didn't seem to have a door there. There's some parking spaces there. That is correct. There are entry points on the northeast end of the building to facilitate ease of access coming from. Is there an entrance on the, I'm getting, I mean, it's kind of back to the previous debate about the orienting an entrance to the street. Do we, the east side of the building there, does it have a? It's basically that north side is the. So the entrance, this is the west side entrance that you were seeing on that elevation. The elevation shows that the siding on this side is sort of a copper color. And then I don't know if it was like a light blue or white or something on this side. And then there is not a main door on the east side. We don't, we don't really have any kind of door facing either street at this point. That is correct. Right. And so this is where that standard about being consistent with the remainder of the development comes more into play because this is a much more established neighborhood with the pattern of development that already exists. Right. And what is that pattern on adjoining neighbor, adjoining lots? Do we, do we know what, do they all have doors facing the street? Yeah, I did take a look when writing the staff report. I didn't look specifically at the doors, but I did look at the architecture. And I would say that the nicest building that you can see from Meadowland Drive is actually the existing Naglian Chase building that has some brick on the first couple levels that you can see from the street. And then this building is sort of like in between that one and the plain metal siding ones. The Super Tempo, do you mean? Or the Commando condos? The, I guess it's the condos. The condos. The one's a 5,000 square foot segmented. The one's the long linear building. Yeah. That doesn't have any pedestrian access. You ought to walk through the driveway. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Let's just try to gather information as opposed to, you know. So we see that. What was the other staff cut? What was the other primary staff coming you want to talk about? I think just moving to the east side of that site, if we can bring up the site plan again, then we can talk a little bit about one of the comments, which was a recommendation to align the driveways with the CBA building that's on the east side of Bowdoin Street. That's the CBA building, just for reference. And on the right-hand side, that's the existing undeveloped lot 7. The CBA building is one that's been there forever. You know, it was the first one down there before the rock, before Hanlajic, before Super Tempo. Yeah. It was the first building. First one. Yes. Tom Chase did that. Yeah. So the comment here was, oops, I should not be looking at my own screen. I should be marking on your screen. Going to highlighter. Whether this, the driveway on the east, should be aligned to the driveway on the west. There we go. So the pink highlighting represents an initial. Back in 2019, that's exactly what we did. We essentially had two curb cuts, one that came out opposite of the CBA driveway. That's what you're seeing in the top right, right near that north arrow. And then we have this loading dock that also, just because of the geometrics of moving a truck in and out, we couldn't figure out how to basically utilize a driveway across from CBA and still get into this particular building. So that was at least the background. What we were asked to do back in 2019 was actually to consolidate it into one driveway. And in this particular case, the one that was chosen was that particular one that enables the trucks to access the loading dock. And the reason we did that was that because of the dead-end nature of Meadowland Drive, everybody is coming in and leaving towards the west. Coming from the west, leaving in the west. So again, most of this particular traffic is likely going to be utilizing that particular driveway off the Meadowland Drive. And we felt that the limited amount of those people parked in the far northeast corner would create a very small amount of conflict with those people coming out of the CBA driveway. Because that's really what you're trying to do when you're lying driveways is if it's a street, you want to basically have a knees of movement back and forth. If it's private driveways, which essentially these are, you want to basically make sure that people can see each other so that when they're making turning movements, that they're not turning into each other. So that's really what is at least the technical issue in regards to how those driveways can interact with the neighbors area. Do the standards require orientation or is there flexibility? Because I see the point about the loading docks. Yeah, let me get the exact standard. Because I think it's in certain circumstances, it's specifically required. And in other circumstances, it's recommended. So that is, do we know what staff comment this is? I don't know. Tell me what staff comment it. So 15A14E, which is within the street design requirements, 15A14E, access and circulation. So subdivision entrances are required to be aligned with one another. The design intersection, I hope that's not it, align access. So what it says, I guess I need to read the header. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to meet applicable standards. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangements of streets, must be designed to align access points with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access points or curb cuts within the subdivision to the extent physically and functionally feasible. Physically and functionally feasible. So that's a must, but you're referring to the other, the site plan standards that do allow flexibility or do we not seem to apply that way? Well, it says must align to the extent physically and functionally feasible. So, you know, if there's a functionality element, the functional operation of the building. Am I reading that right, board members? OK. So we have, all right. OK. Are we OK with that orientation of the curb cut? Ask a question. Yeah, go ahead. What is the size of the truck that will be 18-wheelers? That's a very good question. I'm just trying to think as far as how, type of delivery of materials. A WB40, that's a 40-foot trailer, is probably the smallest of typically how those would get delivered. And you have companies that probably want to have a 53-foot trailer just because it's efficient for them to basically move materials or deliveries. So I would have to say that in this world in which 53-foot trailers have burst on the scene in the past 20 years, that they've changed significantly the site layout obligations. And I think it would be remiss for me to advise anything less than a 53-foot trailer just because of that's what is being used today. And the Bowdoin Street is wide enough that a truck, an 18-wheeler, can pull in there and then back in? Yes. Yeah? Back in, yes. But the staff comment, if I were able to find it, the point that it makes is somewhat asking a good question. If the driveway were aligned, would that backing movement occur off the street and instead within the site itself? So I think probably we can beat ourselves up guessing about turning movements. I think what we should do is provide some of those turning movement ideas as far as whether we try to align the driveways and show you what it would take in order to basically get a vehicle in and out versus what is shown on the plan now. And at the same time, we had indicated previously to Marla that, of course, we have information on how the fire department will be able to move through its site. But for whatever reason, that plan didn't get to her. So we have the opportunity to create a package and at the same time, it might be prudent to at least have the traffic consultant for the project sound in on that particular issue. And that way, we can try to gain as much information as possible to allow an appropriate decision to be made. As it stands, we're talking about that. Where would the backup for the truck be relative to what we're seeing here? Probably right where the Bowdoin Street is, a little bit this side of it. Because that's a curb cut for a CBA. And then right about there. Board members, you want to take a break here? Five minute break? Yeah. Let's take a five minute break, just stretch our lights, use the bathroom, whatever. In seeing and rendering or some sort of elevation that incorporates that retaining wall, or do they feel like you can get enough information looking at the plans and architectural elevations? Board members, what do you think? Do you want a little more of a? I mean, in my opinion, it kind of is what it is in terms of it in an industrial development lot, but at the same time, it might not be a bad idea to incorporate it. Not as a, I don't think we need a 3D rendering, but I think if you incorporate it into the north of the west elevation of the building, show the retaining wall, the grade and the retaining wall in the building above it. So we have some perspective for height purposes. Yeah, I think that would be good. Yeah. Any safety concerns at that height? I'm sure that's got to be fenced. So anytime you have a pedestrian adjacent to a drop of more than 30 inches, you're required to basically provide some level of protection. So as you get further away from a issue, then it becomes more a liability issue in your insurance company as far as what protections you want to provide there. So there's going to be a fence on top of the retaining wall? No, at least a 42 inch high guardrail. Guardrail, OK, OK. 42 is pretty big, though. That's not like a, that's not the kind of guardrail you're picturing on the highway. That's more like a pedestrian guardrail along the bridge. Yeah, and it has to have the 4 inch, no more than 4 inch spacing, you know. It's pretty serious, yeah. Basically, yeah, it's basically like what you'd see as a residential picker fence. Yeah, gotcha. That's about 42 inches high. And can the rendering, would the rendering, can the rendering show that too? Yes. Yeah, probably good, because it's across the bridge when we come to it, so. The other thing I want to talk about is the site amenity. I'm just going to write down what you just said. Should show a fence. OK, so the site amenity is staff comment number four. We just talked about this with beta. This is the board's first hearing where they're talking about site amenity, is it all? So please be patient with us. Sites with non-residential development over 5,000 square feet have to provide 6% of the non-residential gross floor area in a site amenity. The site amenity has to be one of the types in Article 10. As I said, for the last hearing, there was an error in the LDR. It was intended that only some of the types were going to be allowed for site plans, but since that didn't get in there, we're allowing all of them for the time being. So the site amenity needs to tick all the boxes in one of the types. It could be a courtyard. It could be a snippet. It could be a rain garden. It could be a enhanced stormwater treatment area. And so that would be something we'd be looking for a little more information in. I think that the applicant had provided some testimony that they were going to create an awning over the entrance. And I think that that may be a start, but I think that there needs to be more information and potentially a little more size to tick all the boxes for one of the available types. We concur. You don't mind me just flipping through the rest quickly. Traffic, I think that we need to understand from Mark probably what the intended mix of uses are to address the traffic. Are you ready to talk about that? I think we have the opportunity to provide more defined responses as far as exactly what the applicant is looking to do. I think we made an attempt during the last correspondence to try to provide clarity, but we'll do a better job. Yeah, and I don't think anything is necessarily a problem. I think it's just a lack of clarity, as you said. For my clarity, does the applicant need to provide an estimate for the second tenant at this time, or only one? Do they need to? Yes and no. So for the purposes of evaluating whether there would be impacts requiring offsite mitigation, such as a signal, there should be some sort of like left test, like this is the range of possibilities. And none of them trigger a signal. Therefore, we're good. In terms of pinning down a specific number for the vacant space, they can do that when they come in to occupy the space. Yeah, Marla indicated that there's two different options. One is just to commit to something now and hope you can work within it. If you can't, you need to come back and amend. Or you can not permit the open space at all and just focus on what is known. And that would definitely require that we come back and fill in the blanks. So I think at this point, our goal, based on at least what the client has indicated to us, is that they're going to look to permit both halves of the building with a certain program and that they want to be conservative as far as what ultimately is a traffic generating component. So for example, there's a certain amount of square footage of office space that essentially is built into the contractor's yard traffic analysis. And what they're hearing is that people don't want that much office space. They want more construction or manufacturing space, which has a lesser demand per square foot. So I think we're headed in a direction more comfortable that ultimately is not going to require that we take your time up in the future. It will require, obviously, some additional payment for those trip ends. But that's the insurance policy that is essentially being bought here. All right. Just curious, may I ask? Yeah, go ahead. And you can always jump in. You don't have to ask me. Go ahead. What's the square footage of the unoccupied square of the manufacturing space? It's on there if you can zoom way, way in. Thank you, because I couldn't remember the answer. So it's about 10 and 10. Thank you. All right. And just to be just want to just hype through some of these quickly, Dave, just to be clear, you understand what the staff comments are. Staff comment number one on page three was about the require of the applicant to provide a height measured from average pre-construction grade. It's been done. We just haven't shared it. All right, good. Number two was about the facade. So we talked about that. I was on page four. I didn't feel like I got clear guidance. I don't know if Dave read between the lines better than I did. But I don't really know what the direction of the board was on that. I mean, you know, my argument always wants more architectural detail on the buildings. But at the same time, I don't think the elevations are coordinated with the plans yet, because I'm looking at the plans and I'm seeing all the windows and all the offices. I'm looking at the elevations. And I'm not seeing those. I, of course, would love to see more fenestration detail more. But I think that the rest of the development has kind of set that as the design paradigm. The Buska Movers building has not got great detail and great, but it's fine. It fits in with the rest of the development. I see some of the notes on the elevations sheet, you know, the color of the panels and all that. I think that once you do coordinate the elevations with the plans, I would ask them to look a little more at it, you know, especially if you're talking about getting a canopy for one of the amenities. I think it's going to be, I'll put it in air quotes, fine. Only because of our last discussion and we have other buildings on the street where there's an entrance facing the street. We've got a corner lot here and somehow we can't get an entrance on the south or the east side. And I just don't, I'm worried about the precedent we set if we don't. So if we go back to the floor plan, if we may, you know, the low hanging fruit, you see how that particular foyer heads in the westerly direction and with nothing else really significant as far as uses there that if we were to shift that to the south side, at least you would get one street in an entry. It would require that we reorient the entry coming off the parking to the west to basically, you know, refocus on that south side but that would allow us to represent to the board at least one less variance from the standard expectations of applicants. Yeah, basically what I was trying to get baited to do. I mean, you've got the opportunity there and it does draw the aisle a little bit and it's obviously wouldn't be tucked in the corner the way the current one. So that, I mean, that would be great if you can do it. Well, the other thing you could do is you could do something like OnLogic has where they have their plaza where they've got some seating and stuff like that. You could now go towards your public amenity space or the amenity space. That's exactly what... That is a nice south facing that's probably relatively quiet. It might be a nice place to sit on a sunny day and... The civil engineer, scary as it may be. That's what I had envisioned as the opportunity to really dress up that area and make that a visual improvement or at least a focus point. And nobody's going to want to have lunch on the north side of the building, you know? It's like, yeah, you got all those offices and so the people who, yeah. This OnLogic doesn't... I don't think OnLogic has an entrance door on either street and it's on a corner lot as well, but because of that plaza and the way they configured it, it has a nice street presence. Yeah, and this street, keep in mind, is a dead end.  So you are seeing that west facade. Yeah, I mean, do you have a site there's... I mean, is that a drainage swale there? Yes, again, something that can be relocated to basically kind of broaden, help that particular corner. Or I've got, I don't know if you can put a rain guard in there, you get the amenity in to get some minimal stormwater treatment because I see you've got two chambers there, that's not cheap. I mean, just saying I'm not a stormwater. Where are you sending your stormwater? It's subsurface. Yeah, there's two. So be the subsurface. Thank you. Yeah. So, yeah, that whole southwest corner has an opportunity to catch the eye and make amenity for the employees and make us happy and say, see, they put an entrance facing the street. So... You'll just have to make sure we schedule us before them next hearing, that's all. All right, so staff comment number three was about the retaining wall. So we talked about that. Four was talking about the trellis. Just the side amenity, I think we've covered it. Side amenity, your discussion, right? Okay, keep going. Shh, shh, shh. Five and six are about traffic. Just have a number five and six traffic. Thank you. Number seven was the... About the driveway configuration. Grading, right, so that was a page nine. Number eight, this is about the sidewalk. Do we want them to require the widen the sidewalk? Yeah, it's... So an oddity of the original Meadowland Business Park approval was that as you can see on the site plan here in the east-west direction along paralleling Meadowland Drive is essentially a recreation path equivalent, it's eight feet wide. It's not the 10 feet that we do today, but nonetheless it does get used a lot for people walking during lunchtime and things of that nature. As you head in the north lead direction out to the GBT building, it's actually a five foot asphalt sidewalk. So I don't know the history of that. I guess in regards to again where most of the... And in the north lead direction, unfortunately today there is no connectivity to that particular feature. There is an easement in favor of the city running in the east-west direction that takes you all the way from Hinesburg Road down to points in the northeast of the Meadowland Business Park. That's actually was not part of this project, it was part of the Dynapowers subdivision. So there's at least easements in place, but there's no infrastructure that basically allows people to go in the north lead direction and complete their loop. So most of the traffic we're seeing as far as least on the pedestrian end is again moving in the west lead direction. So we felt that the comment was one that we felt that the existing conditions were good for those particular, that situation. That's perfect. So you've got the recreation path on the left, the heads in the west lead direction, and you've got the sidewalk that essentially services the, am I allowed to use who the tenant is? We'll call the GPT properties. Their building is again the one serviced by that particular sidewalk. As well as anybody on the opposite side of the street. Yeah, they don't have a sidewalk. But if there was a time to ask somebody to make improvements, it's, as far as anything further to the north, it would have been then. And the question ultimately is, is when we're doing the work here, should we improve this particular sidewalk at least within the property? Yeah, but it doesn't appear to be required to do it. And I mean, I would say, since you've got at least one whole side of the lot and of people were coming in on biking or walking, that South entrance there is adequate for them to, Great. Okay. Especially from the context of a new beefed up pedestrian entrance to come in there, people won't even in theory go to this corner to walk north to get into this particular building. So, okay. Number nine was the stormwater. Water comments. Water, water, sorry. Yep. Number 10 was the easement document. Something you were able to work on? Okay. We will do that. Number 11, page 12, turning movement information. MIA. Fire chief. I'm sorry, what'd you say? So anyways, we promised that we would include that with the other turning movement studies in order to create a full package of turning movements through that area, through the entire property. Okay. And then comment number 12 regarding the bike racks and the... I don't think that's a major issue. We will find a way to satisfy the needs on both sides of the building. Page 14, shade trees. Here you go, working with the landscape thing. Snow storage areas, we'll do that one. Staff comment 14, staff comment 15. Again, you're working with anything grows. Supplemental and reordered landscape plan. Okay, you're doing that, that's good. Number 16, landscaping budget. And then right there in the middle of page 16, staff supports the inclusion of some perennials, grasses, and entry sign planning, but as noted above recommends, the board required the applicant to improve plantings in the front yard along metal line drive, even if it means a small reduction in the number of perennials. So, all right, so you'll be working with the landscape. I think that ultimately becomes the whole package along that particular side of the building. And staff did ask the applicant to confirm the estimate and Mark Nicely did confirm that that is the number that they're working with right now, despite the COVID craziness that it is what it is. Right, number 17, this reminds me of our discussions in Shelburne, Dave, about the state permit versus the local. So you're working, how much you put it? So I think there are a number of items here that are house cleaning items that have been taken care of or there's also some issues as far as interpretation of what type of stormwater management facility complies with the rules. So ultimately the people that get to make that decision is the state of Vermont because we are required to get an operational stormwater permit. So all we're asking is that there be a condition of approval that we demonstrate that we have acquired that particular stormwater authorization from the state. And if it's, and if we are successful with what we have in front of you, then it'll mean that the state agreed. And if it's something different that comes back before you or gets required by the state, then it'll be something we have to come back with you and the staff as far as an amendment to reflect that. But ultimately we have no problem with the condition of approval that indicates we have to produce that stormwater permit before we can hold. The state GP 9050 permit, okay. All right, number 18, wall-mounted fixtures, lighting, et cetera. Why are you proposing these particular wall-mounted fixtures? I just, I'm not sure why, but the applicant indicated that they would be very comfortable of reducing the amount of wall washing as far as that's concerned. So there's appropriate places for it, but I'm not sure if this is it. So anyways, we will retrench on that. All right, number 19, removal of the parking space striping from the outdoor storage area as a condition of approval. Confusing and potentially misleading. Yeah, so in this particular case, one of the applicant responded directly to staff in regards to the concepts for this particular land use and the fact that a certain amount of outside storage is a component of that land use. So in the far northeast corner at the top right of that particular drawing, you'll see an area that almost looks like it's got a chain-link fence around it with a gate that occupies what ultimately was originally identified as six parking spaces. So that becomes the contractor's storage yard outside. And the question comes up is, should we remove the line striping off of that? The answer is absolutely yes. So just to eliminate anything. So it looks like six spaces there. Those six spaces in the northeast corners will not really be six spaces. That's right, it will go away. But one thing that we did want to make sure is that if there's a change in land use and we revert back to the need for those particular spaces in the future, that we also have at least demonstrated compliance with the LDRs as it relates to the interior green space and things of that nature. So we just want to make sure that we don't trap ourselves in a position that makes a future land use more challenging. So the request is that the decision reflect that no additional demonstration is needed for if you were to convert it in the future. I think that makes sense, we can do that. And then staff comment, 20. Last one, discuss with the applicant how the roof will comply with the standard. The applicant has no problem demonstrating it, but I think, bottom line is it comes down into a lot of making sure there's adequate room in the electrical area of the building, conduit to basically move stuff back and forth, but staff's recommendation that it be a condition of approval will allow them to at least demonstrate that on the final plans before they come back for the zoning permit. So we're comfortable either way, we can either provide a narrative that ultimately is the obligation or we can have it, we can kick the can down the road by it as a condition. Okay. Any members of the public? Sorry, board members, any more questions for the applicant? Sorry. Okay. Any members of the public here? Anybody online, want to testify? Just Dave Marshall's clone. Do you want to say anything online? Yeah. He's double, he's double billy. Yep. Yeah. Okay, thanks. So, continuation to. Yeah, so I can put you on July 19th. I would need stuff two weeks before then. That might be tight. Okay. Yeah. If we can push that out, I think that would be a better use of everybody's time and planning. August, third? Third's a Wednesday. Hang on, standby. I seem to think it's a third. Schedule. Almost done. August second. Second. All right, can we get a motion? Make a motion that we continue site plan application, SB 22020, nagling chase construction to August 2nd. Second the motion. All right, motion's been made in second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thanks, minutes of June 7th. We're not available now. Okay, any other business? Yep. Just a reminder, the next meeting will be July 6th, which is a Wednesday. All right, everybody. Thanks a lot, John. Welcome. They did great. All right, we are adjourned at 929 p.m. Thank you. Thanks in the back there for your help.