Wyman, Quinn Mann, and online we have Frank Koepman, and we're waiting for one other person who we believe is coming but is not here yet. And also with us is Marlekeen, who's the Development Review Planner, and Betsy Brown, who's the Planning and Zoning Administrative Assistant or Assistant. So thank you all for coming. There's a couple of ways to participate in this meeting, one of which is to attend in person as some of you are doing. Another way is to attend online virtually. And if you do that, we ask that you sign in with your contact information in the chat room, and you can also attend by phone. And did we just lose our connectivity? No. Okay. Okay. Didn't appear to work. We ask that if you are attending virtually, please make sure your microphone and camera are off until you are asked to speak and are acknowledged to speak. And if you wish to participate during public comment, turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll call upon you during the public comment section. And we ask that you refrain from talking in the chat room other than providing your contact information because it's not part of the public record. And for those of you in attendance in person, we ask that you sign in on the sign-in sheet out back so we have a record of your participation in case you want to be a party to any action in the future. And if you're on attending virtually, please send your contact information to Marla at m-k-e-e-n-e at s-b-v-t dot gov, pardon me, or in the chat box if you're on a phone you can just email Marla and give her your contact information. Okay, evacuation procedures. There are two sets of doors in the back corner of the room in the event of emergency. Simply go out those doors and turn either left or right and you'll be outside either on the street, market street, or in the parking lot. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? There are not. Okay. Announcements and reminders. So we will not be meeting again in August because it's our annual recess. Our next meeting will be September 7th. Because there are five Tuesdays in August, it will be a few weeks before we see you all again in September. Any other announcements? Okay. This meeting is being recorded and I think I've covered all of that. So let's move on to agenda item number four. Are there any questions or comments from the public that are not specifically related to an agenda item? Hearing none, we will move on to our first project for review. And that is continued site plan application SB 22020 of Nagaly and Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 square foot office building create 2,160 square feet of outdoor storage and associated site improvements at 39 Bowdoin Street. The applicant has requested a continuation of this hearing until October 7th. So I guess we need a motion to continue that hearing. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thanks, Quinn. Any discussion? All those in favor of continuing SB 22020 until October 7th? Say aye. Opposed? No. Okay. Good. Okay. Item number six on the agenda. Let me read you a description. Page plan application SD 2211 of Gary Bourne to create a general plan unit development consisting of consolidating three existing lots into one lot, removing three existing buildings and fully redeveloping the resulting 1.39 acre lot with a 3,500 square foot financial institution, a 2,500 multi-tenant commercial building, and a three-story, 27-unit multi-family building at 760 Shelburne Road. I would have to say I'm glad about this proposal last winter on a very cold and snowy day after snowshoeing. A friend of mine and I went to Koto's to have Saki to warm up and we looked out and we had had a significant snowfall and there were these teenage boys who were walking up Pizza Hut with their snowboards and they were snowboarding off the highest peak on the roof into the parking lot and I thought, oh my God, their building's got to go. So this is a sketch plan and that is a very high-level overview of the project so that we can address issues that the applicant will need to think of in subsequent hearings or presentations to the board. So let me ask who's here for the applicant. Okay. And I'll ask you to introduce yourself and I will swear you in. No swearing at sketch. Thank you. That's absolutely right. I'd just like to say it that way. Yeah. No swearing at sketch. Okay. Let that be a reminder. Introduce yourself, please. My name is Jennifer Desitel. I am a senior project manager and licensed civil engineer with Trudell Consulting Engineers, also known as TCE. Thank you, Jennifer. And I'm Gary Bourne. I'm the owner of the project. Okay. Thank you. And someone else? Okay. And what is your role? Okay. Thank you. And I'm Lucy Thayer. I am a landscape architect with Trudell Consulting Engineers. Okay. Thank you, Lucy. Okay. So I wanted to start with public noticing. So it's come to staff's attention that there was potentially a defect in the public noticing. And what typically happens when there's defect in the public noticing is the state statute has a specific statement about defects in public noticing. And then we leave it up to the board to determine whether to proceed with the meeting as planned or whether to continue it out to another date to give the public an opportunity to participate. So do you want to pull up that state statute? I think it's just easier if people can see it. And what was the defect more or less? Oh, yeah. Why don't you guys describe what happened? So I will try to briefly describe what happened. But Trudell Consulting Engineers recently became involved with this project. It was initially with Lamarone Dickinson, another engineering firm. TCE recently merged with Lamarone Dickinson. And at that time in May, early June, we became involved with the project. The sketch plan application and sketch plan itself was mostly done by the time it came through our office. And we submitted that application in mid June. However, TCE, we weren't listed as the applicant on the project. So we weren't copied on the notification that should have gone out to the abutters, which we normally would take care of. So when we were made aware of that not happening, we immediately jumped on it and started hand delivering those abutter notifications. So the abutter notifications for a sketch plan is a seven-day notice. How far in advance did those go out? We believe it was done at six days. And then I just want to note quickly that the placard was properly placed at the site. So I think that always piques people's interest. So there was public notification in that way. And then additionally, there was an article in the other paper that listed specifically this hearing date. I know that's not an official notification, but it seems like there's some buzz around the redevelopment of this project. So I think that the abutters were aware, made aware of this hearing. So essentially, the state law says no defect shall invalidate the action where reasonable efforts are made to provide adequate posting and notice. What the board sometimes does is the board sometimes, well, I guess there's three options, proceed as planned. And if we get through everything and there's no outstanding things, conclude the meeting and we'll see them at preliminary. Option B, which is sort of in the middle, is do the meeting and then continue for the purposes only of taking public comment. If people want to come at the next meeting, and they wouldn't have to present anything if we're done. And option C is just not talk to them at all tonight and have them come back at the future meeting date. So am I correct in understanding that the only defect was you were one day short and notifying people but butters with a letter? That's correct. The paper, which is not a legal notification, but the seven day time period is that means you have to put it in the mail within seven days. It needs to be two people within seven days to receive it within right. So that's why we always, when we tell people, we say, OK, your deadline is 10 days before because it gives the mail two days to get out. Right. And the placard had the correct. Yes. And I think we also, I think I'll know that this is sketch and there's two other hearings that are coming up in this process and a knock to 50 application that will take place. So we sort of feel like we're really anxious to hear some feedback from the board. We've been getting and working with staff on answering some questions, but we really value the DRB's input and we would love to get a little input tonight. Of course. Can I ask the staff question? Is our agenda for our first meeting in September already have other applications? Yeah, it's pretty full. If we were to only take public comment, we could probably squeeze them in. But if that's, I kind of like that. I believe you call that option base. Yeah, I think for purpose of discussion, I'll make a motion to have this discussion sketch continue it to our first meeting in September, in case people want to give public testimony. So do we have a second on that motion? I'll second it. Go ahead. Any discussion? All right. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So we'll go ahead as planned tonight and then we'll have public comment in September. Don, can I just add that there will be an opportunity for public comment tonight as well? Sure. Of course. Yes. So we are going to allocate an hour to this discussion. Maybe it won't take that long. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And what we typically do during this time is go through the staff report and focus on the issues that the staff have, has highlighted and have you respond to those. So you get a sense from the board of what our thoughts are about the staff comments. So let me open this. When we have the opportunity to just give a little background on what we're going to talk about tonight, we're going to talk about the project that we're going to talk about right now. And I'm just going to say, if you could give us some introductory comments that would be very helpful. Thank you. So I think you have your packet describing some of this information, but I'll give a brief overview. We are here tonight to talk about the project located at the corner, Southeast corner of Shelburne road and Swiss street. We are currently occupied by gas station and the associated gas pumps and canopy, the born service center and some office space. And then as you mentioned the old Pizza Hut building, which is now abandoned right now, there are four total access points for these three parcels and uses. There are two access points on Shelburne road, one curb cut for pizza hut, one curb cut on Shelburne road for the gas station. There are two on Swiss street, one curb cut for the gas station and one curb cut for born service center. So we'll get into the proposed conditions, but just to let you know what's out there now is a total of four. The total area of the parcel is 1.43 acres. The project is located within the commercial one, our 15 zoning district, which encourages higher intensity, intensity residential retail and office space. So we're going to talk about the proposed project. We're going to talk about the proposed projects, mixed uses that serve or enhance a compact central business area. So we feel that the proposed project meets the intent of those zoning regulations as a whole. The proposed project, we're here tonight to talk about the project being developed as a plan unit development and consolidation of the three individual parcels into one. There will be three new buildings constructed on the single lot with the related site and utility improvements and associated amenities. The first building is just over 3000 square feet and as proposed as a financial institution, a bank at the corner of Shelburne road in Swiss street. And then there's currently a standalone ATM proposed at the southeast corner of the overall parcel. We would like to talk further about the ATM location, but that's where it's currently proposed. The second building is just south of the corner. That's a multi tenant 2500 square foot building proposed just south of the bank on Shelburne road that use will likely be retail or office space. The third building is a three story multifamily residential building on the eastern side of the overall parcel that's currently proposed to include 27 residential units. And that building is roughly 60 feet by 160 feet. So there it is. The architectural designs for the three buildings are in the early stages. Architect is here tonight for two of the buildings and we'll continue to work on that throughout the process and we're happy to share additional information as it becomes available. There's some limited architectural details included in the package, but obviously there's more work to be done. The proposed access points. So we are proposing to get rid of two of the four curb cuts. So there will be one access point on Shelburne road near the southern boundary and one access point on Swiss street. So that's the reduction of four curb cuts just down to two curb cuts. The density. There's 27 units proposed. We've described in the narrative how we get to 27, which is a 20 base units and then some additional offset units for the inclusionary units and some density bonus in there. The calculations are outlined. I won't go through describing those in words, but I'm happy to answer questions if you have any waivers. We are requesting a front setback waiver. The required setback is 20 feet and the proposed setback is 10 feet. This is actually, you can see a little bit in the overlay that the canopy of the existing gas station sticks out much further than the proposed bank would stick out into near Shelburne road. So we're pulling it back quite a bit and we feel this is consistent with some other development in the area and helps us provide that strong building presence along our frontage on children road. We are also requesting a waiver from the master plan requirement. Since it's a fairly small parcel and the landowner does intend to develop it within the three-year time frame, we are not proposing a master plan at this time or requesting a waiver for that requirement. There are 69 parking spaces proposed, 45 surface spaces and 24 spaces underneath the multi-family building. By parking we are proposing both short and long-term spaces and we will meet the current regulations with that requirement. Site amenities we're proposing both the requirement for the non-residential and the residential spaces, which is outlined in green there. So that's a total of 2,000 square feet roughly. Traffic and pedestrian connectivity. The existing PM peak hour trips for this project. I'm sorry to interrupt but you're getting to a lot of stuff that's in the staff report. Do you want to skip things that we're going to cover later anyway? These are just my last couple of sentences. Trying to be brief. Trying to go to the highlights. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry to interrupt. For 135 trips we're reducing that down to 82 trips with this development. So I will give a quick overview of the things we're improving. We feel like this project is obviously much more aesthetically pleasing than what's there as you had mentioned in the beginning of this discussion. We're proposing to improve pedestrian connectivity with all the way up to Swiss street. We're proposing to reduce the curb cuts as I mentioned and provide stormwater treatment. Right now there's no stormwater treatment for any of these parcels as it stands currently. We're proposing to actually reduce the impervious area of the overall parcels and provide some obviously improvements with landscaping and other features. So we're happy to answer any questions that you have related to staff notes. So remind me, a financial institution, an apartment building, and then kind of a mixed use retail. Retail or office space. So no more borne service station? Correct. Really? No service center. Okay. That won't go elsewhere? No. My brother Rainey has retired. Okay. All right. That's a loss. Yeah. But good for him. Okay. So with the staff comments, number one is regarding, you've already answered.  So thank you for. Yeah. So let's talk about what that means. So the board. Okay. I guess this one is more straightforward than I was remembering the board may waive this requirement for a PUD of less than four acres to be developed in a single phase of no more than three years. So the other thing that we're trying to do with the master plan is that you get vested in the regulations that are in place at the time. And then you can face the construction of the buildings. A master plan can only be for 10 years. But we just wanted to make sure that, you know, none of those things were tempting enough to go for a master plan because it does have some real advantages as well. In our current situation, this has already been delayed repeatedly. So we're trying to make sure that we have some real advantages. We have some real desires to move on this and move expeditiously. Now, if we find out that there's. Some. Unknown sourcing materials, but. I think for what we're proposing here with regard to the apartment structure, the other two structures, I don't see any issues. We don't see on our end why this can't move forward. Okay. Thank you. All right. Number two. I have a question. Go ahead, Frank. How many owners do you propose? Are you going to be a less sore of all these buildings? Or are you going to sell the buildings to. Someone else or several other someone else's. Right this moment, our intent is to hold all the entire structure. All the properties. And that's been a long-term. Way that my wife and I have operated. We did last year in fact sell our first property, but it was one that didn't fit anything we were doing. But it's been our. Our habit to buy and hold all these years and the development of this current plan fits our desires. With the ground lease to the financial institution. And the other two buildings. We currently have a number of rentals in the stolen morsel area. So this is not out of character with what we do. Currently. Do you have a financial institution lined up who wants to do that? Do you want to see? We do. Okay. And who's that? May we ask? It's a Chase bank. And they've been in direct contact with the board with the professional staff. Here in south. Thank you. That was my question. Any other questions from board members? Pardon me. Just on the master plan. Yeah, go ahead. The draft. The draft. Amendments for the TDRs. That are noticed for August 8th at the planning commission. With that, would if they were to be approved as. Written or drafted right now, would that allow even more density. Than the 27. It. Could potentially. Yes. Okay. Let's see the base parcel as a base density of 21 units. You can get up to an additional 50%. No matter how you slice it, either with TDRs or with inclusionary. Often, and you may be able to speak to this better, but three floors.  And then to go beyond three floors. You need a lot more units to make it financially viable. I don't know if that would. You know, you're sort of crossing over a threshold to much more expensive construction when you go beyond three. And right now we're at 27. And I think that maximum. 50% above would be only 30. Right. So it wouldn't get you a lot more. Right. We're three more units than we're proposing now. So we're, we're nearly at the maximum. Thanks. Any other questions. Let's move on to number two. This is about. How the development will fit into the character of the area. As it, as it exists, how you develop the project to take the character of the area. Into consideration. And this is really about the planned character area, right? So the context analysis, this is a totally new set of standards in this regulation. The board hasn't seen it before. So please be a little bit patient with us. But it's, if development hasn't taken place under the current regulations, then we're looking at the current regulations and what that planned character would be. So in this case, it's the urban design overlay because this area hasn't been redeveloped in a while. Right. Yeah. We, we understand that it's a new requirement and it is new to us too. So that was a little bit tricky because, you know, the, the project that we're proposing doesn't exactly match what's going on existing, but what we're proposing is in line with what the regulations, the intent of regulations. So regarding those characteristics of what's required, we feel like this project supports and enables affordable housing. You know, that much needed residential housing in the area or redeveloped redeveloping sort of properties that need work. Commercial strips and retrofits, contaminated sites. So we feel like the proposed project is in line with the redevelopment of that type of project. We're incorporating the density to provide as much residential units as makes sense for the site. And improving the physical appearance, walkability, access to the great part about where this, these residential units are going as it does provide that buffer from heavy commercial on Shelburne Road to some of the more residential areas on the east side of Shelburne Road. That transitions to an area that has, you know, public open space and public parks nearby that are accessible and public transportation. It's really a great spot to have kind of that higher density residential. So we fit, we feel that it fits. We did take a look at the comprehensive plan and I can get into how it matches there, but I really feel like this does sort of fit within the intent of of those requirements. Any questions or comments about that? I know this is not city center. But this reminds me of the debate about the unnamed pharmacy at the start of our city center. I mean, this is a high, I mean, it may not seem like it now is a high profile parcel. But if you think about it, it kind of is, because it's there at a major intersection. And so it'd be nice if, well, I realized banks are not the institutions they once were where the bank building was the dominant structure and it was made a brick and beautiful Flemish architecture like downtown Burlington from the turn of the century. And that being said, it would be nice if, if any of those buildings there could have a little pizzazz.  But at the same time, this is a rather high profile. I don't know. Just as a resident of the Shelburne Road corridor, the oft ignored Shelburne Road corridor, which is our city council has said is supposed to take most of the growth along with the Williston Road. It would be nice to, you know, it's not required, but nice to dress up the buildings. I mean, it's the same thing we talk about with, whether it's the auto dealers or others like, hey, can you make that look a little nicer? We, you know, so that's just, that's my feedback at sketch. Like this is a high profile parcel. Well, we share the board's concern on that. And some of the projects we've done in other places, whether we've done a few projects in downtown Morrisville, historic renovations on the main streets, and then even the service station downtown, trying to make as nice a service station as you can with a period facade. And we've got several sites on Cape Cod where they're in extremely high visible locations. And we followed that same design thing. So we're not, we're not, this isn't a hit and run. We build these things and own them, and we take some pride in how they go. Oh yeah, no, I know. I mean, we want very much what the board wants. And we tried to shape this project with that in mind. How can we make this nice looking?  It's the Deamer with a clock tower. And it's got some breakouts. Oh, the lights building. Yeah, so that, I mean, it's still modern, but at least it's got some of the brick to tie in. I don't, can't remember what's going to be actually built with the old Kegel sit go, but I start marching down the corridor there. And that was one of Greg's projects as well. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know, I'm not trying to get you guys to redesign, but I realized there might be a cost element, but boy, it is a prime parcel. We certainly appreciate those comments. And just to put your mind at ease a little bit, we have been meeting with Chase Bank on a regular basis. And I think Gary's been meeting with them on a, kind of a long-term basis. And they're actually listening in, I think to this conversation. So they're, they're hearing what you're saying. I'm sure they've got something in their wallet. Oh, wait. Any other comments? Yeah. If the board wants to delve into the architecture, Greg is here and Greg was the, at least your firm did the 510 Shelburne road building as well. Right. Yeah. In which building is that? The Kegel. Yeah, I like the next to the Kegel. Oh, okay. All right. That one. Okay. Got it. Okay. We don't have to belabor it, but I'm just saying that that's my feedback. Excuse me. Frank has a question. Yeah. Go ahead, Frank. This.  This is not, they have. Let me try it like this. How's that? Can you hear me any better? Yes, that's good. Thanks. Okay. Let's try that. I wouldn't. You know, tip toe up to the issue. Dan, I would say forthrightly that. These, these folks are proposing to have as a presumably long-term messy. A major bank. It's not exactly a startup. It's a big part of the business that I know. And if they're listening, I'll let them know at least for me, that we expect a beautiful building at that, at that. Very important intersection of city of South permanent. That's my comment. Thanks, Frank. Any other comments from the board? I did have one question about the building just to the south, the banks supposed to be at the corner, right? Yes. And then just south of it would be a separate retail. Is there. Is there a desire that just to have a cleaner lease with the, rather than having one building with a bank and most of it. And then empty space to be determined. Are you just trying to make it cleaner because the bank only wants a certain amount of space? Yeah, I'm sure this whole thing, it's been quite a long time in process trying to put this together. And this is, we didn't, I didn't have any desire. We've never built a bank. But never a bank. And when there was a chance to do a ground lease and incorporate with the other properties, that was attractive to us. We had tried to develop a different junctures, the pizza hut or to make it viable with what we already did. That wasn't permitted or wasn't feasible. So this gave us a chance to, to exit that. And then with my brother's retirement to continue to move forward and do the whole project at once, which is a lot more efficient. But again, this was started some years ago between permitting and then COVID. Yeah. And then we've been in discussions with the board for over a year or the professional staff over. So this is, so it's kind of backed into this, but our desire is to do the whole thing, but it's a separate building, separate business. Gotcha. Okay. It also allows us to put some nice green open space in the middle between those two buildings. So I'm not sure we need to hear from your architect at this point because we'll be hearing a lot more down the road. Right. So we'll look forward to seeing that pizzazz as Dan. So call it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Number comment number three. I'm not sure I understand this comment. So I'm going to read it and then maybe ask for help from Marla. Staff recommends the board asked the applicant to describe how in response to the planned development context in the planning area, the required modification better achieves the general PD, PUD objective above. Wow. Yeah. I'm reading this and I think we missed the like salient. Oh, here it's at the very beginning of PUD section. The applicant has proposed one lot for all three buildings. The LDRs do not allow one lot with three principal buildings or two principal buildings even unless they're related.  They could be on the same lot, but if they're unrelated, they have to be on separate lots. The minimum, this is very complicated. I apologize. The minimum lot size in this zoning district is three acres. They only have 1.43. So in order to subdivide this 1.43 acre lot into three parcels in order to get three buildings, they need a waiver of the dimensional standard for minimum lot size. So in order to get a waiver of minimum lot size, they need to be a plan unit development, which is how we get to this completely convoluted thing. And now plan unit developments are there's much more in the regulations about what makes something at PUD. Specifically, the LDRs say that all PUDs are expected to adhere to higher standards of design than subdivisions or site plans. So then we talk about, you know, what the standards are, and we're talking about how the students, so this is, we're getting the staff comment number three here, how waiver of dimensional standards can be to accommodate reductions related to infill, allow for more creative and efficient subdivision, create better compliance pattern and form of proposed development and create better energy efficiency. So the question here now that we're finding getting to it is how is this waiver of the standard for three acre lots allow the project to better comply with the PUD standards? So I think that it allows for that just because it makes for a much more cohesive project. I would really, as an engineer that that was in planning, I would really hate to be trying to develop these three parcels separately. And I think you've looked at doing pieces of that before. It provides for a much more cohesive project to be able to provide one curb cut in for instead of on each road instead of two on each road, things like that. It also helps us provide some cohesive open space and adequate area to treat stormwater runoff, which is also a concern when you have these disjointed tiny parcels trying to get them to work together. So I think that this has been a to get to the PUD from my perspective as a layman, it's been a trip through the rose bushes and from last year when we first met with you folks or the most recent period of time when we met with the professional staff to get to where we are today. The fact is the PUD enables me to give up the curb cuts and give up high use, high traffic restaurant, the gas station and step back from that and say, okay, we can go to a bank which we know the trip ends are very modest and we can get a high quality tenant that will give us the kind of structure that we all wish to see. We can do a commercial building on a good location but still only have one egress point out on Shelburne Road, which we've been there for 40 something years. We know the traffic on Shelburne Road can actually be anti-business because it's so jammed up. So by giving up this other and putting it all together, then when we turn to the people and say, we have to have stormwater, we're in a site where we know the soil characteristics because we've repeatedly put tanks in the ground. We know that there's going to be some hard sledding to get the engineers to say, yes, this stormwater will work. We can prove it. It's great. But to do that, we need some room to work. We might get away with doing it for one of the buildings, perhaps the Pizza Hut, but I don't know what you do with the current Howard Center where the apartment building would go or the service station because of the size of it and the setback requirements. By looking at the layout that we've proposed and there's some flex to it, we've been able to put large areas where stormwater can be put on a drive-by, and I've driven by it a lot in recent weeks, to look at that and look at the prints and say, how is this going to appeal to the people going 40 miles an hour down Shelburne Road when they look over, there's room the way this is spaced for them to really see what we're trying to achieve in terms of green space. If we chop this back up and back up to the battle days, then we need those curb pads. We have to keep them and we can't meet because over, you know, the station went into business in 1950. The rules were much different. In the 1970s, I sat in with South Burlington to learn how to write zoning and how to make it fit. Even then, it's a far cry from what we have today with these businesses preempt that. We're trying to evolve the site under the guidance of the professional staff. At PUD, it's a rose bush. There's some thorns in there, some good-looking stuff. You need to work with us or I asked you to work with us to allow us to put it together as one project to try to get as much as we can. Go ahead, Frank. Yeah, I wanted to say that this is a circumstance in which the dancing through the requirements of the PUD, in this particular case, produces a somewhat absurd result. For this concept, a single lot makes a lot of sense. Your treating as a single lot makes a lot of sense. I think we should convey to the developer that we'll consent to any readjustment of a lot of the lot sizes that are necessary to make the project flow smoothly. And that should be that and not mess around with that a lot. I think we should all recognize that this is really a one-lot development, and we're just trying to cross the T's and dot the I's. Thank you, Frank. Any other comments? Can I just know, and I appreciate Frank cutting to the chase as he often does. The alternative we were thinking as staff was that it could potentially, I suppose, not be this kind of project at all if there weren't a dimensional standard waiver. It would have to be one lot with one building. But I don't think that that diminishes anything anyone has said, but it's more like that was the alternative that we were viewing as we wrote this rather than, I don't know, three buildings that were related to U.S. or something. Okay. All right. Let's move on to comment number four. This is, I'm not sure I have a handle on this, but it's regarding inclusionary units and TDRs. Marla, if you could paraphrase that question, I would appreciate that. Yeah, and I think John kind of spoke to this already is that there's two ways. Well, there's one way to get density above what's allowed in the district right now, and that is through inclusionary housing. And it sounds like they are hoping to take advantage of the ability to use TDRs as well if that regulation is approved next week by the planning commission. Is that correct? I'm not sure that we need TDRs for what we're proposing. Well, we outlined it in the narrative that we submitted, but I will flip to that. And since we're at sketch, we have the opportunity to go talk as a team to make sure that we don't find a way to up the density. But I think where we are right now is that we could meet that requirement based on the inclusionary zoning regulations. You certainly can. Is that your intention? Yes. Okay. Yes. So there will be five inclusionary units. So a couple of additional than what we would be required to have anyway. It's sort of just an easy way to get there. And Gary was willing to do that. So, okay. Any other comments or questions? Let's move on. Number five. Computer is not cooperating. There we go. This is a required civic space or site amenities. The question is about you've only provided for approximately 21, 2,120 square feet of civic space or site amenities. And I guess more are required. Marla, is that your intent? Yeah. They had reached out to me. I think there was an error in our math. What was the number that you guys have come up with? We came up with 2,121 square feet of total site amenities space. Yeah. I think we cleared this one up via email with, we provided you with how we calculated that. I think that we came to an agreement. That's the number that we had was correct. Any further development in what you're planning on doing for those civic spaces at this point? We have been working on some tweaks to the site plan. And once we get that all settled, which we would like to talk with the board about, if we have a minute at the end, then we will kind of nail down what we're proposing for those open spaces. Okay. Thank you. Let's move on to number six. This is required standing conformity to the planned character of the area. We kind of touched on that before, but how to meet the standards for the new regulations regarding PUDs. So we provided in our narrative that we submitted some information about this, but we can discuss it further. We provided some, we can provide some additional information if that's helpful, if you feel like we need to discuss this further. Yeah. So I didn't put it in red, but the five bullet points ahead of that comment kind of say what the standard is and then say whether it appears that your proposal meets it. So buildings must have a street facing principal entrance with a direct connection to the street. It looks like the corner building meets that, but the other buildings do not. And then it goes on from there. Right. We put the entrance on the side. Right. And the alternative layout. No, this is on the secondary building, the retail building that would be south of the bank building. We had positioned it to put the entrance facing south. Just from a business perspective as you, because the traffic's coming from the side. So they would see the entrance to that particular business versus having it on the very, very front. And that's, I think that's the set of the drawing that we may have presented to you as that. Right. So we do, we do intend to meet those requirements as outlined in the regulations. So they will, we, there will be some changes in order to meet these five bullet points. Okay. Does that work for folks? Thank you. Number seven. This is regarding the connections to adjacent lots. So connection. So we are proposing pedestrian connectivity. It may shift slightly from the site plan that we submitted with our application back in June. But right now we are proposing connectivity to that southern boundary at Kodo all the way to the north to connect to Swift streets. Look at the site plan that might be helpful. Thanks. Sorry. But we are not proposing connectivity between the parking lots for vehicles. Primarily this is because of the, there's going to be some significant, I would say grading going on at this site in order to make this all work. You know, there's a lower level underground for parking. And that really drops the grade in the back corner, but it does require some retaining walls. And we just don't think that it's possible because of grade differences and retaining walls to provide that connectivity. And also the zoning regulations mentioned that you might provide that connectivity in order to reduce curb cuts. We're already proposing to reduce our curb cuts. I assume that the Kodo restaurant doesn't want to give up there. So I think that we're providing the pedestrian access in order to cut through our lot to get to Swift street only. So I, I think that we're providing the pedestrian access. And I, it sounds like it's not a hard requirement in zoning. And we would like to not provide that access between the different uses through our property. So the board has some recent experience with the standard 13. Oh, to F includes the statement, all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection, which we know there's a connection today to the Kodo lot. Then the board can allow an easement instead. But I would say that that if then statement does not apply here because the Kodo connection already exists today, is that out way up back. It's sort of where the right left arrow is. Yeah. Okay. All right. And just to know the Kodo parking lot does connect both to currently to Shelburne road. And then around. Behind that building. That's to our east. Of green mountain florist out to Swiss street. So they currently do have access to both. Shelburne road and Swiss street because of their, they have an upper parking lot. So they have an upper parking lot. So this would be providing. A second access for them on Swiss street. I'm just not sure if directing traffic to that location. For the Kodo restaurant is necessary in this case. Or a good idea. The cut through traffic at this location has been an ongoing problem. Forever. Currently Kodo doesn't actually have access to Swiss street. Via these properties. Giving them. Access. To the rest of it all the way to Swiss street when they already have it behind green mountain. Flores. Doesn't seem reasonable. We were happy to give pedestrian access and given. The likelihood of Kodo's peak periods being different than the peak periods for what we're hoping for for our tenants. If some of the Kodo's customers continued as I'm sure you saw last winter. Using the born's lots. As the Denny's people use the born's lots. We don't see that as a real problem. But allowing more people to get access to it. It kind of flies in the face. We've gone to great effort to cut the traffic count. Get rid of a service station. Get rid of. The pizza hut. Which when it was operating was successful to cut the traffic down. And we feel we can deal with the. What cut to traffic we will get from our only grass. To encourage more cut through traffic. To encourage more traffic. It's kind of like if we're going to do that, then we should back up and go to a Chick-fil-A or something. We're going to have traffic. Let's have traffic and make some money on it and make it work. But we're going. Trying to go the other way. Cause we think it's a better project. Sure. I hear that. Questions. Frank, go ahead. Yeah. The question is from Marla. I mean, well, let me preface it by saying. I think the developer. From a. Practical and use standpoint. I mean, this is not just commercial. It's a. It's got a very substantial residential element in the idea of commercial traffic.  Is quite unappealing. The question then becomes Marla really only a legal question, which is. What is our authority to. The requirement. Do we have it or not? That's it. That's what it comes down to. For me. Well, I can present all of the relevant pieces of the regulations for the board to make a determination. The board has. It made the determination of late that this. Access management and requirement. That requires driveway connections between commercial lots. Is not a dimensional standard and dimensional standards are specifically what are. Within the waiver authority of the board. So I would leave it up to you guys. I think that there's more. So that's, that's the technical answer. I'd be interested in hearing from other board members, whether they're. This connection is important or not. You know, our position is not staff's position is not that this should be. A. Alternative superhighway and I think that any connection should certainly be designed to. Be the sort of thing you really only want to go to when you are using both of these lots. You know, it wouldn't. We would never want it to be something that would be something that would be something that would be something that would be something that would be something that would mean that the catchway is. It's a simple, You know, it wouldn't would never want it to be something that would encourage cut-through. But a simple driveway connection when you are. You know, going from. The bank to Koto to. You know, the next property South. Is what the regulations contemplate and I think we've seen it be successful in other portions of the city. Okay. to echo that I think the regulation is pretty, not a little wiggle room there and it doesn't sound like it's something we have the authority to waive and it says in the regulation that it's not meant to be a cut through location to encourage traffic in that way. So the intent would be for those connections to be designed in such a way that it only encourages connection for users between lots and is designed in such a way that doesn't encourage connection for alternative traffic routes. Right, I think in this case it's just tricky. I think it's not so much even that one aspect is that the landowner doesn't want to provide this connection for safety and cut through reasons but also just from a pure engineering math standpoint that grade on the eastern side of the site of the Kota's lot is will be somewhere between 8 and 10 feet higher than the grade associated with the lower level of that building so it just doesn't work from a grade point slope standpoint to have that connection to cut through between the properties. That would force any type of connection to be way down by Shelburne road right along the right way which would be pretty obvious cut through option so if you get backed up in traffic on Shelburne road and you are going to cut through anyway why not just do it sooner through the Kota's lot it actually might be a disadvantage to the Kota's lot from that perspective. They would start getting additional cut through traffic. And I wonder if the regulation contemplates that the lot that we're discussing the Kota's lot is already connected to SWIFT which is an unusual circumstance admittedly but it is the fact that it is it is already connected up to and they don't currently have access across. I would argue that the regulation isn't to create an access point to get them over to SWIFT street that the regulation is designed to keep them to be able to access the adjacent property without having to go onto a main road. And a pedestrian access and allowing them to park on our side to go to their side and vice versa somebody from Kota decides after they have dinner they want to go to the E.A. camp they can walk with. That doesn't meet the intent or the good will of the lot. Does it say vehicular access? It says driveway so I'll just reread just because it seems like there's not a lot of flexibility so all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any other adjacent commercial lot. So driveway is pretty clear that that's meant to be vehicles and not the pedestrian. Again just reading the regulations. For what it's worth I mean it's a pretty clear statute but the location of that driveway access could be in the southeast portion of the parcel and meet the standard. It could force people to drive through the ATM and there's somebody who on occasion of living 20 years along Shelburne Road has confessed on occasion did cut through the gas station to try to get over to SWIFT. I just don't see it happening now because it's not, I mean first of all somebody have to make that conscious decision plus with the gas station gone the level of in and out traffic and hassle factor at that intersection is going to be much reduced. I think the problem for me is just the great, great standpoint and our problem is that's what the Planning Commission wrote so there's no waiver for undue impacts to residential buildings so it's a weird anomaly. I get the principle of it we're trying to get people to be able to you know if we had space out west we'd have a frontage road and everybody'd be happy we'd never get out of our car but you know we're not out there so I get the standard is the standard so that's what's that's what's hard we can't I guess the temperature you know it's sketch, maybe I'm taking words out of your mouth but it's sketch, the point is to take the temperature of the board you're saying it's not feasible the board has in the past not required connections between every commercial lot when a commercial lots bounded on three sides by other commercial lots they've said okay you know that one's not really feasible because there's a wetland or because there's a dense stand of you know really nice trees or because of great issues so I think that the board has found the room to not apply the standard to every single adjacent lot what I what I would suggest is that the temperature of the board seems to be provide the connection what you're saying is that it may not be feasible from an engineering perspective and what I can offer is that I will lay out at the next stage of review all the applicable ways that this could be looked at you know this is a PUD so we'll talk about what waiver of authority is available and how that might apply or might not apply so we'll kind of come at it from three angles okay great and then also the connectivity of the CODOS lot to other commercial lots does that apply oh because this is the end of the commercial district is the backside of this lot well so this is a requirement for this project one more one more comment yeah go ahead Frank you know dance point about having being able to do it in the extreme southeast corner did you mean southeast and the standard doesn't say where this driveway access has to be located in other words put this way it's have the tanner of the board is such that if this were driveway to be located in an extremely inconvenient and uninviting place so long as it satisfy the letter of the regulation it doesn't sound like anybody on the board would be terribly upset yeah and and and if the principal that the planning commission put this in regulation was to encourage people to park once and then you know or hop through or skipping a jump to the next parcel and do their banking or their whatever then yeah it doesn't have to say where it is so you can merge it right into the ATM lane and nobody's the wiser and then nobody's gonna see it from Shelburne Road and go I'll save two seconds by cutting through there the moment they do it once they'll go I'm never gonna do that again well I think that's kind of the idea yeah that's kind of the point it's supposed to serve people for whom it is truly convenient and not for people who are in a hurry yeah but if you had lunch or dinner there okay well I don't go back out to Shelburne Road or vice versa you know something so I'm speaking of the ATM the net the very last it's not in red but the very last comment is about the location of the ATM I'm sorry that should have been read oh okay it therefore recommends the board review the traffic generation estimates at the preliminary plat stage of review so I guess that's oh sorry you kind of completed two things so the first one was about they're proposing an ATM there's been a bunch of different ideas for the ATM and if you wanted to invite the applicant to talk about some of the ideas and then the second one was we'll review traffic at the next year a little concerned about time but if you can do it in less than five minutes and I know you have some questions for us so let's try to push ahead and great do you mind Betsy pulling up the latest site plan that I sent Marla the one you sent today yes please the rendering no not the rendering the alternate alternate sketch plan yep so as I mentioned in the beginning Lucy and I came into this project a little bit late and that was our first question why is the ATM far away from the bank and tucked in this back low corner behind the residential building so we have been kind of just back of the napkin sketching some alternative layouts and this is one that we thought was fairly similar to the previous layout although it doesn't provide the cool access via the ATM it is a layout alternative that we feel it makes a little bit more sense from the standpoint of where the bank is located and where the ATM is located we have you show me where that is where is the ATM or see where the blue cars are yes there's a little black box next to the first car closest on the Shelburne roadside on the inside of that island is where the ATM would be located so it was an inky little you know one-way driveway to pull in and go to the ATM and pull back out similar to New England federal cut yes so you're gonna have all you're gonna have the pretty lights like New England federal has because you know no when they're lobby for the regulations I mean the lobby is an eye-catching feature it captures a lot of light it's nice to go into the bank there you know it's flooded with light you know it works at that corner you know right we we were concerned about you know safety in the back corner it's just a little bit awkward and it there was some conflicting uses of traffic between people trying to go into the resident residential units is sort of in the same lane as the ATM and the previous layout so this is just something that is you know in the very early stages but we wanted to pop up and get some initial feedback from the board to see if you had a strong opinion one way or the other I had a quick question is the is the apartment building okay where it is or doesn't have to be next to Shelburne road I'm not just in the Swift Street sorry it depends on where the urban design overlay lands but actually I just pulled up my notes on this because they had sent it to us very kindly a couple weeks ago and the urban design overlay goes back probably to where the driveway on Swift Street is like just left of the driveway so anything within that frontage would have to be would have to meet the urban design overlay standards which means it has to have a direct pedestrian connection to the street and has to have 60% glazing along the first story so this wouldn't necessarily work with that standard and then the other thing that comes to mind is exactly what Gary was talking about with a cut through like this looks a heck of a lot more like a cut through to me than the other design I think I think Marla on a previous iteration of the site plan that we sent you there was sort of an L shaped in and out direct access but this modified layout that we sent today does sort of have the same meandering kind of cut through option as what the original layout that was reviewed today has so it's less of a concern I think and I think Gary is you know really sick of cut through traffic so he's more so than any other developer I've ever worked with pro traffic calming so we've been discussing what some options might be to further reduce any cut through and any of these layout alternatives and I like that this layout here gives us a lot larger green spaces to work with and if you think about if you were out in Schoenbrod even headed south or north your ability to look through I think it's going to pop in terms of the greenery and just the architecture for the buildings by pulling it back into the corner and then the resident traffic which admittedly is twice a day it's not a high count we understand that for residential but they're going to access right out on Swift Street and further up the street from the intersection which I think every foot you can get away from an intersection that's heavily used the better off I would second that as somebody who went in and out of your brother's business it was always like you come in you like I can't get in because it's all queued up it's a turn on everybody's queued up you can't even you can't get out of the denny's you can't go anywhere you're stuck yeah and I think from the residential perspective I think a lot of folks would wait and come through the light if you live there go up and around and come straight into your parking space and I like a lot of this setup we hadn't thought of it before with the Lamaroon Dickson had come up with the first plan which was very very good but this is more akin to what this type of apartment egress is something you'd see and some of the higher and urban centers like Toronto you know I've told the status this is a Toronto effect because the apartment building there's no reason with Greg's help it can't look great and granted it's only the folks standing in the Denny's parking lot that are going to see it but they're going to see it so okay you know the fact there isn't actually anybody on the other side of the road the visual but at least facing Shelburne Road where the high traffic count is I think the view is could be quite nice okay good so Frank was that you yes I'll try to be pretty quick I'm a little concerned about the point Marla raised in here somewhere about you know the facing having the principal entrance facing the street how do we do that with the residential building I mean I'm assuming that and that and that's facing Swift Street is really an underground garage entrance is that right or am I wrong you are correct so we would have to work to provide some type of doorway or walkway to that access point and there's that would force that significant grade difference to be on that side where there's really a you're really diving down into that lower level of parking from Swift Street it happens fairly abruptly well you know there's just for one you got a problem you got to solve there thank you for that comment thanks Frank okay let's give you an opportunity to make the few comments you wanted to at the end and then we're gonna have to conclude this for the evening yes thank you I think that you answered most of the questions that we had and I really appreciate the initial feedback on that layout alternative okay so do you have any additional comments I don't perfect okay thank you okay good thanks so let's see if we have any members of the public who would like to comment are they running online Betsy Keith Epstein indicated in the chat that he would like to make a public comment so I don't know if he is I see him on here okay okay yep hi Keith hello tell us what's on your mind yeah so again my name is Keith Epstein I'm not in a budding neighbor but I live in the in the general area and I'm really happy to see this type of development like you said that old Pizza Hut's been an eyesore for a long time and this is gonna bring some well-needed housing to the area but I wanted to offer some suggestions to try to and what I see as making some improvements to the project I don't know that they necessarily help that they make it meet any rules that it doesn't meet now but just offer some general improvements and one is actually regards to having a bank at that location just today I counted the number of financial institutions from Swift Street down to Imperial Drive and there's six banks and three credit unions for a total of nine and one of the characteristics of a PUD is that it introduces missing or complimentary uses facilities services amenities that are intended to serve the immediate and surrounding area and when I read that I don't see a financial institution as introducing anything that's needed in the area from my perception things that would be more needed in the area would be things like a bicycle shop child care a restaurant physical therapy dentist things like that and the more businesses of that type that can serve the local residents the less less parking you need less congested it will be so that's my first suggestion is to reconsider the idea of having a financial institution there another would be to include some electric car charging for residents as well as visitors and another would be to consider going over the minimum bike parking I see there's only eight spots for bikes and there are 69 for cars that's a pretty low ratio considering e-bikes are becoming more popular and South Burlington is gradually becoming less and less car dependent as work as we become better connected so I encourage you to think about doubling or tripling the number of bike racks you know they're pretty inexpensive and they have a lot of value to the people who use them and to the community at large another would be to consider putting a roof over the bike racks and make the more inviting and encourage people to use them a small one would be the South pedestrian connection consider having a ramp for wheelchair users and for bikes there's a connection that's not too far away from there that's a sidewalk connection and it's got a bump so if you're on a wheelchair you can't use it you have to be right out by Shelburne Road right by all the curb cuts and the final one if you do can keep the bank I ask you to consider eliminating the ATM you know as South Burlington becomes less car dependent it's okay to park your car and get out and walk to an ATM that's in the bank or if you bike up to put your put your bike on a bike rack and go into the bank you know I when I go to any FCU I don't use the drive-thru and it just seems like an extra expense you know it costs you more to pave you've got more impermeable surface that you have to manage the stormwater and less less friendly to non-car usage that's it just wanted to share some comments thank you Keith welcome any other members of the public who would like to comment okay I just like I like to compliment Keith for his comprehensive comments that's were awesome thank you okay I think that excuse me I don't seem to have I can't get my camera to come on for some reason I don't have video is this Donna yeah did you want to provide public comment Donna yes okay just very briefly sure I was I was looking at the two layouts and the last one just from a perspective of pedestrian bicycle access just ease of access and ease of ease of understanding the traffic flow on the site I thought the second plan was much preferable and it also provided a lot more green space you know I think the building was set back from the street a little bit more and if you could solve the you know the public entrance issue which doesn't seem which doesn't seem to be impossible to do that that that one I think solved a lot of the issues of the of the previous layout you know whether whether or not you have the ATM drive-up which I happen to like driving up to an ATM on on my bicycle so because at least those those those it'll serve me and also I think for people with handicaps who you know are can who have vehicles it does make it a little bit easier for them so I don't have a big problem with that but yeah just from the bicycle access and it just that this is this is going to be a pretty prominent corner you know very visible corner and everything and I like the fact that there's a you know a decent-sized residential property there and just to make sure that there's there's there's good access for pedestrians and bikes there and good access to the bus which should basically stop right right in front of it right now or there's a bus stop pretty close to that and I believe thank you Don that's all thank you very much any other members of the public who would like to comment I have one last question there was something that we didn't talk about the significant architectural element if the board or staff and is any direction for us on what we should be looking at as an example that would be helpful I know that Chase Bank in particular has a specific architectural feature that involves their logo symbol that may qualify but we weren't sure if there were some specific requirements for that are you asking us to define pizzazz yes please besides the work that Greg's doing of course to make the buildings our board architect is not here whether was the comment that you had made about the corner element or was on the five bullet points there was something in there about the regulations just say a significant architectural feature doesn't define what that is we've seen actually you'll be seeing a couple hearings from now an application that does the inverse of what we've seen recently usually people go with something bigger on the corner you know the the the one farther down the shelf anyway there are a few that have done something kind of big and tall on the corner we have an application that just is going to be hitting my desk this week that actually made it like a different it was like all glass and the rest of the building is actually taller and it's smaller but because it's all glass it kind of creates a significant architectural feature so it's really up to you guys okay doesn't necessarily need to be bigger to be significant okay great thank you thank you very much we will see you back here at some point wait so we're continuing them to September 7th for the purpose of taking public comment if there were any emotions that effect nope it's sketch so we'll see you on September 7th feel free to attend remotely if there's public comment we'll take public comment and if not we'll just open and close great thank you very much madam chair can we have a two-minute recess before we start this long yes we will do we stop tape for it's fine okay we'll just you know ourselves I guess okay we're going to resume this development review board meeting for August 2nd 2022 and we're going to pick up with agenda item number seven which is a site plan application sp22032 of UVM medical center to construct a one-and-a-half story 84 thousand six square feet medical office and up in please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury thank you thank you okay let's just jump right into the staff report and take these comments in sequence just one other quick thing we do have Corey Mack with a wall consultant group who is online we don't anticipate that he'll speak tonight but he is part of our team okay thank you okay the first the first comment is the need to we need a mechanism for restructuring further growth times ten years I'm looking at my notes here I mean restricting the remaining lands from future growth for ten years that would be represented by a master plan Marla help me out here what does this mean so projects that have the potential for future growth are required to be reviewed as a master plan because this project is only developing the front two-thirds the parcel oh they would have to either have a master plan or as discussed at sketch somehow find a mechanism to indicate that they don't that they won't be pursuing okay development and then read the recommendation for ten years is something that Paul had suggested because a master plan is only good for ten years mm-hmm so it doesn't make sense to restrict it any longer than okay if they had just gone ahead and done the master plan anyway so do you understand that we do one thing that we want to say though is we consider the site a hundred percent built out as we had presented at sketch plan we have really maxed out where we can put a building on the site there's we have no intention the medical center has no intention of doing anything on that back piece of land of the northern parcel of the land rather and in addition further comments in the staff report require a connection from barn barn road or barn lane in the east view development to come across that portion of the site which is going to bisect it and not make it buildable or anything anyway so we we have no intention of doing anything on that back lot I'm not sure we need to do anything more but we just wanted to really make that pretty clear so you're you're you're good with the limitations of yes okay thank you so yeah not quite what we're saying here but I think gill's other point about additional limitations maybe what we're saying right because what we're saying is it's not just their word it's a something that restricts it more than just we don't object to that I mean whatever language you come up with well no so we're saying you should come up with a language but then gail made the suggestion that perhaps these additional incumbrances will be enough so let's let's revisit that and see where we land with the additional incumbrances and it and whether that covers it okay Frank has something yeah wait a man we we could just make it with our consent they would consent to a condition of the permit shall not develop the remaining land for a minimum of ten years that's that's simple yes is that allowable I guess if they consent to it you can put anything you want in the decision it doesn't have to be in the regulations right you probably have to make it clear that it allows for that future public road connection and and we'll be talking more about that okay number are you good Frank yeah I mean I think there's a couple of ways to you know get that accomplished but that's a very straightforward way that's okay thanks okay number two we need a plan for paving striping and signage and yes we are prepared to do that okay and we'll make sure that all the pavement markings are noted noted and 88 compliant thanks board members were we're kind of moving through this quickly but stop me if you have questions or comments okay number four did we just do three I'm on comment well we just did two and three well I think three actually had to do with the proposed walkway that comes up along the entry drive and ret goes behind the proposed for ADA parking spaces to the main entrance and we we understand the concern and we'll move the sidewalk to the front side of those parking spaces so there's no conflicts okay good and we will pull up a site plan as you're going through yeah that would be very helpful if you could put up the updated one that we submitted today that would be very helpful yeah that ADA that didn't seem safe okay Frank it we're on number four just keep in mind that as we're looking at this updated one it may you know you may have to highlight the differences between what it says in the staff report and what's on your revised sure okay how this this comment is about how to create a street facing presence and make it oriented to the street this is something that we discussed at sketch plan yes in great detail and based on how the whole design of this building and this project it is and given the physical limitations of the site the entrance really needs to be on the what they the west side of the building but we have a glass facade on both the west and the east and sorry the west and the south side of the building to give the appearance of the entry and do you have an elevation to show us of that there's a perspective sketch that was submitted as part of our site plan application and again I did submit that again today we're looking I believe it is a perspective yeah page 55 and 56 of the packet so this is the view from the west not from the street so that's the actual front so this is the actual front of the building and again it's got the canopy over the entrance on the south side of the building is the main entrance for people going into the facility and the entrance the build the doorway on the north side of the building where you see a person coming out that's for people leaving the clinic so that is a separation of those two uses and then this is a view of perspective view of the entry as you're coming in along the drive so that's the south elevation yes so you see the south elevation which we have the glass area and then the actual door is on the west side underneath the canopy so that area a little further back with a little canopy is not a door or an entrance that is the courtyard area for patients and visitors to use that you can get through from this walk the walkway as well as once you get into the building you can come out to that area okay thank you so I guess the question is does this do it right does it get to does the building is the building oriented to the street board members what do you think or I guess we we wanted to go back to the actual language right because it's not it doesn't exactly say building oriented to the street it says maintain or establish a consistent orientation building placement comma orientation period maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and where prevalent pattern exists continue in the manner in which sites existing building foundations relate to the site's geography and grade so it doesn't necessarily say there has to be a door facing mystery it just says that there has to be an orientation to the street and the sidewalk that would be coming from Tilly Drive that will be going in front of these lovely vehicles that are parked here would connect to that front entry so again as whether you're driving or coming up as a pedestrian you would clearly see where the entrance is to the building and would have a street presence in that respect board what do you think does this do it I mean to me the yeah the southwest corner of the building with the patio and I mean and for practical purposes everybody is heading east on Tilly Drive nobody's coming from the west unless they're coming from their other appointment at the medical industrial complex that is that most people are probably going to be coming from the west right so I think visually it yeah it draws them in that way and it's not a blank facade it's like something's going on there that interesting yeah well it's our goal I should say the medical center's goal as well is that they need the sentence to be visible from Tilly Drive so that people know where to go Frank are you okay with this okay thanks okay moving on to number five this is completion of the pedestrian path so I have to say I'm totally confused and I wonder if we could go to a map of this area and I'm confused about what O'Brien is proposing what we might be asking the medical center to do and what this road on the city plan I forget the term official road or something official map I'm confused about those could we look at something and could Marla could you walk us through what these various paths can you go to page 23 of the packet I was reading a public comment that we received two weeks ago in writing and I just I'm realizing I really don't have a handle on this and I think this is an important issue and I'm just please flip it so that north is up because north is always up and that's one of the reasons I was really I know when I first I wait a minute yeah I know I know can we flip the yeah working on it all right okay you could zoom out to show more please okay so I'm going to draw this orientus to Tilly Drive Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road please great I'm gonna start with yellow for the roads Tilly Drive Hinesburg Road is off the picture off the map actually it goes it's on is it oh yeah it's off the edge of the map yeah but just the very I'm sorry so that last one was wrong but it touches this is the entrance and then it kind of goes off the edge okay and then old farm road is oh yeah old farm road is here okay perfect okay so then I'm gonna change colors to let's say pink and pink is gonna be the map the official map roadway that is planned to be on what to here and then and so that goes from Tilly Drive to the O'Brien East View development okay and if you could my annotations aren't gonna stay but can you scroll down a little bit the other direction down yeah so you can see the east view development at the top of the page now switching again to a different color for wreck paths the colors back please and take a minute but this is important it's important for for us to really have a handle on this for two large projects sorry guys thanks for your patience okay so if I go back to a new color for the O'Brien East View wreck path connection they were talking about having a wreck path connection oh I think that was maybe where the let me undo that one I think the barn road oh dear the barn road wreck path or the barn road comes in here ish and I think this is one of the staff comments is that like we don't actually know exactly where it is but fortunately they have the same engineer so it should be pretty easy to get it shown on this plan and then the O'Brien wreck path connection is somewhere in this vicinity I'm sorry I mean my green lines are slightly off really confused where so where does old farm road continue so what do those two why are there two green lines and where do they come from so and what's the purpose of them the barn road green line I want to say it does something like this and then connects this way okay and then this wreck path line goes down to this industrial road and along the industrial road which I switch back to the pink this industrial road will continue all the way out to Kimble Ave and so the everything that's off the page is proposed on the east view development so those two green lines just end and is that yes that part of the conversation about where can you do that for us I mean is that is that where this problem lies yes okay well I wouldn't call it a problem challenge discussion discussion where do you want the connection to run for so the LDR say that all roads need to run to the property line and all roads on the official map need to be provided so I get this kind of embedded in the staff comments but if I switch to a different color green I guess because I'm doing the green stuff now one comment is that there should be an easement to create this connection what at such time as the pink road is made and the second comment is that this rec path should be extended to Tilly Drive so the first one that I drew the curvy one is the suggestion is an easement because there's not a pink line yet and then the second line that I drew is actually make the connection in terms of the connection of barn road through that northern part of the site to the future official map road we are working with O'Brien brothers now on that connection and should be able to have that on a future plan as an easement for or for the city to be able to have that in terms of the shared use path connection again we are talking with O'Brien brothers about that connection as well and I think the concern is just how and where that can work as shown on that eastern side of the lot so when you say shared use path that's the one that would go down in meander along old farm road no that's this is the one that I believe O'Brien originally as part of that Eastview development was originally proposed it to come along that future official map road that would connect from Eastview over lot to to Tilly Drive am I the only one confused about this let me try to just the lines that Marl drew on her are actually pretty good lines so pretty what they're good lines okay all right so the one the path that comes I don't know what their term was but the one total total left as I'm looking at it for the easement that's not a problem we'll negotiate what are easement requirements are needed to facilitate that connectivity I would say that does fairly well encumber the area that people might be concerned about future development on the second point we've had discussions with the O'Brien brothers about the path from the property down Brian property down to Tilly Drive and we're going to look at that and try to see how we can accommodate that and then have discussions with the O'Brien brothers about how who's going to pay and how we're going to pay for it okay so those are discussions we have not had except to introduce the topic to the O'Brien's and we've committed to working together to figure out how to do that there are some we believe that weaving the path down just to the east of our stormwater gravel retention areas may be a challenge but we're going to be looking at that engineering so we have no problem and concept with what you're discussing here okay we'll be able to come back out of next next hearing and talk about that okay so hang on a minute I have a question when you say you're providing when you say you're providing these but you mean across the pale green path on the left as we look at it is that right that's what I understood is the easement would be required to connect the the west there's an easement and then there is a path to be built who's going to build the path and have you and a Brian brothers made an agreement on that no we haven't come to agreement on it but we did based on the last public you know hearing here understood with her he says we've had conversation with them and we committed to figure out how we can make that work and we bring it back to this body to describe what we're talking about you're both big projects being reviewed about the same time so this is very important for us we haven't got an agreement yet we're evaluating recording in progress we're evaluating the that green a vertical path that Marla put on there to see how we can do that and we were committed to making it happen and working with the O'Brien's to make it happen so thank you Marla quick question what's the required width of that path hypothetically squeezed in between the eastern edge and the stormwater treatment right path city standards is 10 feet okay thanks okay does anyone else does anyone else on the board have any questions about these rec paths and road connections and whatever yeah I'm not through with the cost question because let you know let being candid here we know from our last meeting that the O'Brien is adamantly resistant to paying for this and my question to the current applicant is will you pay for it yes no well Frank if I may just add I think oh clarity and correct me if I'm wrong Marla I believe O'Brien has offered to pay up to the property line we're only talking about from the property line to wherever it intersects the pink well and I think that what Dave is saying is that it's none of our business who pays for it right as long as it gets on the plans then well give them the time they're asking to figure it out the question is who's obligate on whose plan well this is the site that would have it so it would be on this we will show it on the next six next site plan iteration once we've had an opportunity to review the engineering and figure out how to do it we are committed to doing it we have been proposed to work with O'Brien's we've had discussions with them and they're willing to talk with us and figure out how we can get it done we're just not prepared now to talk about the detail of it all right are we ready to move on thank you so I think that kind of covered a couple of stuff comments we might have to do a little improvisation yeah that's my forward so number six this is regarding the roof meeting solar ready zone standards the roof of the building will be solar ready but just wanted to let the board know that the medical center cannot add additional solar per state statute right now on the building because they've already maxed out under states when they're co-in no under state statute no there's a certificate of public good limitation for net metering okay I believe it's 500 kilowatt hours per individual entity the UVM medical center being one entity even though we have 50 sites yeah so we've already used up our allocation we have solar fields in three locations now probably well over a thousand kw and so we're not able to add anymore and that's the way the current statute was is written okay but we will make the roof solar ready so when that statute changed you know we'll get solar panels ready yeah thanks for that explanation I'll write that into the decision for sure any questions board alright number seven this is the recommendation that the board approved the parking let's see parking between and old farm road meet the standard of I I above that the lot has unique site conditions such as utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking but not a building to be located adjacent to the public street so I don't want to get lost in the weeds but I should probably show a figure of what this is about okay yes please we have we have two front yards right on this site and one of them is on old farm road and this has to do with the little jug handle piece of the lot that goes out to old farm road right okay I'm gonna do some arts and crafts again so hey I can use the same schema that I use before oh you engineers look at this this is old farm road again yeah until he drive again the property has frontage on old farm road you can't have parking to the front except under all the various exceptions that the board is well aware of obviously they also have frontage on tillie drive and they do not have parking at the front so staff is suggesting the board allow the exception that they have unsuitable conditions because they have a wetland they have a 65 foot residential buffer and that would only allow them to build a building that's about yay big and that would kind of not be oh that's terrible color sorry about that oh you guessed our future plans just kidding yeah so if they were to have to meet the standard they have to build the building that was about that big yeah I'm good with I'm good with this does anyone not good with it can we put a bank in there no just a new drive-through okay thank you for your patience when we get to see our updated site plan we have provided additional landscaping in that area to screen parking from farm road okay number eight the question is can you define the area of the site amenity the perimeter yes we submitted today there's two plans on site site amenity areas if you can pull those up that would be super the powerpoint or the other no in the files that we've provided and there should be one called landscaping it's called site amenity areas thanks super we are we are providing two areas for site amenities for the site and none of the definitions of your of site amenities quite fit perfectly for what we're providing that basically we're providing the first area shown here falls under the definition as best we can for a courtyard space and this is at the front entry that we saw in the perspective earlier with the entrance that comes entrance exit that comes out of the building right there and part of the areas paved which has a low seating wall as well as bistro chairs and tables for visitors and patients to use as well as that's got the lawn area that surrounded by landscaping so this whole area is what we're calling our courtyard space and again this one is designed for patients and visitors to the patient surgery center under the definition of what we need to provide for site amenity we need a minimum of 5,040 square feet the space is 6,800 square feet so under that definition of the square footage we meet it under the definition of a courtyard space it does say that it should be surrounded by three sides of a building we don't have three sides of the building we have two sides of a building we have a low stone wall but the space is the public amenity that we're providing for both the patients and the visitors to the center if you can go to the next one we also have a site amenity that best fits under your definition of snippet parklet space and this is on the north side of the building and this is for employees staff of the facility this you see that just to the upper part of the image here is where the existing the proposed parking area is with a path connection to this snippet but the employee entrance to the building is through this space or bordering this space so again I believe the snippet parklet is a 600 square feet to 4,000 square feet this is proposed at 1,200 square feet again having tables and bistro chairs and spaces for employees to use for whatever in addition there is the northern part of the site that we've talked about that will also be part of a you know future path connection that we have shown kind of on our sketch on as a sketch on our plan for a future connection from whatever the north south path connection is to the site quick quick question sure what is that rectangular feature immediately north of the lawn and west of the purple tech saying proposed site amenity oh that lovely that is handicapped ramp so that due to the grade of coming from the the parking area there are a set of stairs that go directly through and then there's the handicapped accessible route around okay that that whole green banded area there the lawn area that showing there between the parking area to the north and the parking area bordering this the building and the driveway here is where the green mountain power and yeah Champlain water district easements are and we can't change the grades under there we're very limited in terms of what we can do so in order to make that handicap accessible and be able to get okay well and the one more quick question are there regulations around how close to the to the building people can smoke a cigarette 50 well we're a non-smoking organization we don't permit smoking on our property okay so that's often that's why I see people like on Pearl Street smoking cigarettes there I just it's something I just yeah so people are going to go to Tilly Drive then yeah if people want to you know they want to violate rules and you know break regulations that they do that we have security and our staff will intervene we we're a non-smoking facility for the entire property okay the entire property yeah okay so the staff comment number nine I guess is that as Gail said they don't quite meet the type for a courtyard a courtyard needs to be surrounded by a building but the suggestion was maybe this is a not this one but the other this one's really cute maybe the other one gets to stay kind of how it is with a little bit of tweaking and become a pocket plaza there may be a better type that still allows you to use the same space with a little bit of tweaking so that's kind of what we're getting at here is that it would still be a side of men yeah I like what I see I like what it see let's label what it needs to be labeled and if it needs a little bit of tweaking in terms of like hardscape or seating or whatever to make it meet tick all the boxes for that type that's where we're able to that yeah I like it yeah okay I think so we just facing covered 10 let's move on to number 11 which is regarding the wetland impact so I'm going to read this staff recommends the board discussed whether they consider the impacts to be minimized staff considers the least impact would result in oops I lost it here and accessing the site from the east and lower impacts if the western driveway is retained as is retained could result from removing the landscaped area and directing both through traffic and drop off traffic along the building you've had a chance to read this what are your thoughts as we presented at sketch plan we really can't have the entrance to this building and the site access from the east to make this work the way this building is designed is it's it's built into the hillside so that the main level that you access from the main driveway is a full level the lower level is a partial level and it's down lower and it conforms to the site we had submitted a sketch plan a cross section showing that we didn't submit that now but we can submit that again to show that but if we had to flip this and put the entrance on the lower part of the site again the site slopes from from the west to the east there's at least a 30 foot drop so it's a considerable drop all the site drains to the east that's why the stormwater wetlands are all on the eastern side of the site to be able to have the access come in and have an entrance to this building on that lower level we would have a very hard time making it ADA friendly and work for the site great deal of care was given on how we are patients arrive and depart and what the circulation is for our pre-operative surgery and post-operative if if we were restricted to use an east side for the site would not be viable for this project I'll just add what the applicants overviewed is what I recall from sketch and that they had revisited and minimized impact so I don't have any concerns as is but obviously here from other board members yeah I think that the concern is regarding the wetland impacts and how how you can minimize the impacts we and what I think you may have information or you can present and review again how we believe we accomplish that and we review during sketch plan yeah so this sketch the board talked about you know working on the driveway to minimize the impacts you know could there be one driveway could you move the driveway over so that's what we were really hoping you would talk about okay so the originally the driveway was proposed instead of curved as it's shown right now in front of the building it was all the way over to the setback line right and so there was considerably more wetlands impacts it was over 5,000 square feet and we went back and we looked at that we have the main driveway that goes to the site and then we have a separate driveway that is the drop-off area that we really need those two separate in order for this facility to work as designed so we have minimize those impacts we have proposed retaining wall is a four-foot high retaining wall that goes along the edge of that driveway to minimize further impacts on the wetlands and the wetlands buffer and there was some question about what the material of the retaining wall and the guard rail is and again we have provided that information to you that hopefully to make it more consistent with the agricultural yes the posed wall would be a concrete block wall but it's what the finish of that wall would be we haven't quite got that defined but we're proposing vine plantings that will eventually go up on that the proposed guard rail is a standard that the Medical Center uses on other campuses so we provided an image of what's being used right now currently in place up at the Medical Center campus in Burlington so it's a you know kind of a brownish color metal guard rail and looks it's the same railing that the state Vermont uses in their parks and their state forest okay access roads I mean it's a there's a depiction that we submitted okay we think it's you know a traditional design it's not you know a farm well we think it farm type agricultural fence but it does have the protective durability we need for traffic and it's you know it's it does have a I would say a quiet Vermont aesthetic to it okay have to be the judge of that great okay good thanks so we've gotten through the board have any sorry did the board have any comments on the wetland impacts no I'd echo what Quinn had said we worked through that at sketch and I feel comfortable that they've done the best that they can to minimize those impacts I'm sorry okay are we good are we good Frank so that's an example of what the wall I'm looking at I'm looking at this wall is that the is that the is that that waist block no it's not waist block it's a concrete segmented concrete retaining wall so that's something similar to what we would be using for the site is that what you currently have is that a picture of what the bridge that goes over to community no no ignore the bridge and the railing up there that again we just trying to find an image of the wall to be able to show you but Dave you said there was an image of the guard rail in here I think there should also be an image of the guard if you flip to the next in that same in that same hang on a minute there's way better looking architectural block than that on lots of walls around South Burlington okay I mean you know I just I don't know while I thought when you wrote agriculture I guess you meant agricultural I thought you meant to say architectural but that's my comment on the wall you would like improvements to that Frank it sounds like okay anyone else way in on that I think the wall looks fine as it is okay well so are we directing them to change it or to keep it I think they need some feedback Dan doesn't have a problem with it Frank thinks they can do better what do other folks think so this is the industrial open space zoning district so it's intended to have a mixture of sort of light industrial and commercial spaces and open spaces and keep in mind sort of the setting and that's where we were coming from using the word agricultural right other folks I don't have a real problem with it I'm gonna be honest yeah I don't I don't have much concern either all right so I guess we're not directing them to do anything differently okay number 13 there's a question about redesigning the roadway provided in the right-of-way provide in the right-of-way I think we already talked about this I think this is the connection from barn road which is on the east to you development that would connect through that northern part of the site to the future official map road okay on what to okay so we're working on that thank you number 14 is a suggestion that we invoke technical review of the traffic impact analysis does that make sense and would someone like to move make a motion I'll go ahead and move that we the board invoke a technical review of the traffic impact assessment or analysis second any discussion about that all in favor of invoking technical review say aye aye any post okay number 15 this is the connection to the north south roadway on the official map I think we've covered this this is slightly different and this is sort of what we were talking about with the last hearing actually this is just a different place in the regulations where it says the same thing the reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting property owners or to improve general access and circulation in the area can you pull up the map again this is the best map we've ever had we're using it all the time so with the north south roadway what I had drawn in as pink at the last hearing we talked about whether there should be a connection from this project to that roadway I guess I'll draw again yeah getting good at this so pink roadway and then whether there ought to be a connection from this project to the planned roadway obviously doesn't make sense to connect it hope that was a bad location because that's where their chillers are maybe it goes here or something obviously no reason to build it now because there's no roadway that'd be silly but should there be a plan showing how that could be done in the future should there be an easement should there be a surety to actually create the connection what level of encumbrance is appropriate here and I apologize for not knowing but could you give an overview of like a surety versed in easement and how those function differently in the situation yes an easement is typically from a property owner to the benefit of someone else so I'm not sure that that really makes sense here because who would the someone else be a surety would be they would put money in the bank that could be used for construction of this connection at such time as the pink road were built and that would probably be a bond because bonds are relatively cheap and it could be 10 years and then I guess the third option would be I guess it's not really a third option it's a it's a separate track would be to show how that would be built and either provide a surety or not provide a surety but to show that it is a feasible thing for at such time is when the pink road does go in and again the pink is supposed to be a public road at some point yeah and it would most likely be built if the property on which it is located gets developed and then it would be forced to build the road and then the city would take it over it might be built before that point I mean that property is severely encumbered by wetlands and with the O'Brien east view development if that IC district really takes off there may be an or exit 12B takes off there may be need for a connection of that pink road before anything happens on the parcel to the east remind me where the pink road ends up Kimble Ave no yep okay left okay but there to the left of the pink road there will also be we hope a recreation path yes okay I'll throw in my two cents that I'll probably dead before exit 12B gets built and then be I just I mean I would just say reserve the land reserve the space there so that the connection can be made at some point but I think it'll be at least at 10 or 15 years before anything gets built on that pink thing that's just I would I can I make a suggestion sure we would prefer that that this is a secure medical facility loading dock traffic we wouldn't really believe that be a location for that interconnection which we'll believe we heard in the last testimony that you required half we'd rather see that on the north end of the site up towards the O'Brien property and happy to work with granting any easement to get connectivity probably in a more conducive area as opposed to there okay that makes sense that makes sense to me yeah it's kind of like the previous discussion doesn't make a difference where that location is by the time we're done with there's there's nothing we could ever build there to begin with piss many roads and paths no I think that's a good point and one of the other things that I wanted to bring up is that one of the reasons that might become important in the future is if 12B goes in or if that pink road gets built without there being a 12B traffic on Tilly Drive might be such that it's not such a great idea to have a driveway to a major medical center that close to the intersection so it might be better a little bit around the back but yeah I think what you're saying makes sense we could look at that thank you okay number 16 regarding the Department of Public Works update did we get it from them you know I didn't I got a note from Tom and he said oh I thought I missed my window of opportunity are you saying I still have time to give comments and I said if you have any comments please provide them by Tuesday and I did not so I'll poke him again just because it is a relatively major site you know we're gonna continue I'm not gonna invite him to change the design but if he has things like you know the fire hydrant should be ten feet over or whatever I think those are probably good to include great and we'll be happy to address whatever his comments are okay number 17 this is compliance with the the South Burlington Water District and they have their there are seven comments above yes with those have already been addressed we've submitted the revised sheets that reflect those changes what happened was the plans that got submitted with a site plan application the comments came in to that our engineer after they had been submitted so anyway the plans have been updated we've addressed all of them okay let's take one more comment and then I want us to do a time check and figure out where we go from here number 18 is we need information about the enclosure and screening of the yard composters so if you could pull up the site plan because there's a lot of things all back in this area with the yard compactors actually they were miss the this comment had to do with the yeah I guess it's gonna be easier to see we have a bunch of yeah we have a bunch of mechanical electrical plumber equipment all out in the back area so oxygen farm and yeah oxygen farm which does have an eight foot high chain link fence around it we have a generator that does have an eight foot high chain link fence around it with a gate I think both of those do the yard compactors are at the service entrance to the building are they compactors or composters okay I misread that I'm sorry right and there those will be right there they're between those two retaining walls and the retaining wall to on the west side thank you has a eight foot high screen which we provided an image of what that would be proposed to be and then the other side is a retaining wall but these are they're enclosed in that that area as well the chillers we have that there's the two chillers that are out between the stormwater wetlands ponds those do not have anything surrounding them but we have proposed landscaping evergreens along the east side of the site to screen them and this whole area is considerably lower than where the residential properties are which was a concern about screening from the residential properties we did provide cross sections to show what the what from those properties what they would see and they none of this area is going to be visible from them at all okay questions from the board okay it is 20 past nine so I'd like us to take a pause and give you an opportunity to get anything from us that you feel you need to do before you come back the next time so what are the big outstanding comments in other words yep and then we'll use additional available time it's available yeah I think one question we have has to do with has to do with landscaping I don't know if you can pull up the proposed excuse me the updated illustrative plan we can at least quickly talk about that yes we've added additional landscaping addressing a series of comments that were in the staff report many maples but yeah we haven't we haven't revised that yet but yes we will revise that's an easy one so we just want to we did provide information to clarify that we believe we do meet a series of those requirements one of them having to do with the islands and landscaping related to the square footage of parking area so I believe we're in compliance with that requirement but I did want to point out one thing on that when we're looking at the landscaping and the requirement some of the comments about some of the screening we wanted to maintain as much view for the neighbors to the east that's in discussions with them they thought that was valuable we have the windmill and some other things so we were strategically placing some of this landscaping to ensure that the views really weren't encumbered from the neighboring properties and that maybe had some influence on the spacing and we're the placement of the landscaping but there's some calculations in there to get into great detail about what the what those those calculations are and I think it demonstrates that we meet or exceed the standard given that consideration of trying to you know keep the views open for our for our neighbors if you fill up that area behind with trees they're not going to be able to see the you know out to the east and we were sensitive to that yes and see the windmill that we relocated we did provide landscaping along the western portion of land that borders onto old farm road we provided additional landscaping along the eastern side of the property we provided landscape additional landscaping along the northern edge of the parking area of that northern large northern parking area as well as long the northern property line bordering with east view and then there was a staff comment about landscaping in the front yard setback we have really tried to keep the front yard setback the front yard with some trees but it's going to be planted with a meadow mix really wanted to kind of keep that agrarian feel to the site so that's why we purposely did not plant anything there and in addition there's ledge outcroppings in that area so that's that was our intent I think Gail makes a really interesting point about the front yard that we hadn't thought about and I'd like to get the board's temperature on whether that makes sense because the standard is in the case of non-residential uses the required front yard and or the frontage along designated collector street shall be soon suitably landscaping maintained in good appearance landscape elements shall promote stormwater runoff does given Gail's point about the agricultural setting does their proposal to instead of doing a more formal landscaping to do this agrarian landscaping well flowers and that does that fit sit well with you guys I like that I do but there are existing street trees all along till we drive by the shared use the standards of the district the standards of the district specifically say agricultural or is that something we're making up I believe the it's in the purpose statement to reflect the agricultural character or something something something of the district what district is this again is the IO the industrial open space okay can you I just want to be sure that's all I just want to okay okay Frank do you have any comments I do while flowers are great but they leave nothing but a vessel with that space in the winter time that's true that's true I'm a tree guy for some for a development on the scale yeah I would just say thematically just I would offer that we've had quite a bit of discussions with the neighbors and one of the important attributes that they felt valuable was to to the extent possible preserve the agricultural characteristics to the extent that we could given the development there so that kind of our design decisions around that everything on a well everything on the on the far side of the trees can be agricultural so the IO district says established to provide suitable occasions for high quality large lot uses with access to arterial roots in the airport the IO district regulations and standards are intended to allow high quality plan developments that preserve the generally open character of the district might as impacts on natural resources and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the city so it doesn't actually use the word agricultural it just talks about generally open character of the district okay thanks I mean I I kind of hear Frank's point I get the point about like not covering it with trees but I don't know some balance some shrubs or some other things along the front well we do have shrubs and plantings all up at that courtyard space and yeah you're not I mean it's yeah it's I don't know what crosses the line like when do you have enough they're meeting the landscape budget right can we see the streetscape on here I mean there's there's substantial trees on tillie drive now I'm not sure if they're shown here though no they're not if you can kind of see them in the existing yeah the street trees are there and there's shrubs there is there rendering that you could maybe send in at some point okay but I would also say there's mature I don't see them on here maybe you can see them but there's mature trees all the way the length of tillie drive in front of the building that's correct yeah okay there they go yeah the other thing is that the building as it faces south is designed to provide as much natural sunlight into the spaces which is pretty critical for the patient-centric criteria for this project so we would prefer not to fill it all up with trees and have that shaded we do some up there but yeah and to me the open space characteristics are being captured by the northern and eastern side of the parcel yeah the business about blocking sunlight is solved by having relatively short street trees that's all I don't think that that has a lot of weight well there are street trees currently existing all along tillie drive they're mature they're very nice and Marla again the standard for landscaping in front what is the standard language so this is in the case of non-residential uses acquired front yard shell I'm paraphrasing shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good condition good appearance so the board in the past this is actually before my time but I understood that the board has leaned pretty heavily on this standard on things like Shelburne Wilson Road so yeah with the courtyard and the plantings near the building and looks okay to me that standard is pretty broad so it's not okay um do we need to discuss this any further or we have some feedback and guidance as to if this is acceptable or if we need to do something different I personally don't have a problem as it as it's presented and I do know that wildflowers meadows do die back in the winter but with all the other trees and shrubs around I think there's enough vegetation for my taste other folks I was waiting to see Frank was gonna say anything um I am that is my mind as of right now as well but I think just to echo I think it would be helpful when you guys came back to put forward the elevation so the board can see how that visually looks I think that would help us absolutely thanks I just have one quick question as I'm looking at this and we were talking about the path along the eastern side potentially coming in here to make that pedestrian connection you know I see a row of trees kind of where that path would go and so is would the intent be to relocate some of those to provide the screening or how would we kind of weigh that path versus well that's a good question that's why that's the piece that we need to evaluate we haven't started that well we started we haven't gotten into it in detail but we will be needing to be coordination there to weave that path down provide for the necessary screening and we will do that Frank any final comments before we move on I would like to see the elevations to really it depends I'll leave it at that the elevations I think are important before we make a final judgment on this point okay we'll look forward to those thanks for your input okay I think given the time we unless you have anything burning that you need us to address I think the only burning thing and I don't know if it's really burning is any feedback you have on the mechanical electrical equipment screening that we've proposed yeah um I and I apologize if I miss this but I didn't see a lot of information about how some of these things were going to be screened um like I didn't see a detail on what the fence was um here we provided a detail for for the fence but we can provide that okay again as I said the chillers we don't have we're using landscaping a couple of these things were provided yeah elements were provided evergreens for screening for the compactors we have the metal screen which we did provide information on that today um so yeah like how tall are the how tall are these features versus the plants or fences um that kind of information I think is probably necessary because some of these things are pretty big yeah we had provided again if in sketch plan and I did submit it again today that the okay sizes of these equipment so we'll incorporate that into the next set of staff comments um I didn't want to go back to sketch because I wasn't sure that it was the same still you know so I didn't use that same material again um and then the I guess this really didn't make it into the staff report but did these things make noise the chillers they'll they'll make some noise similar noise that you find in other commercial buildings in in in South Bromlington the emergency generator would be the loudest component typically that would run once a week for an hour for testing and then uh you know we usually would have that so it's not the first thing in the in the morning per se and then there would be uh you know only in the event of a major power outage which we don't anticipate they would run you know like our last ice storm we had right a decade or so ago uh the rest of the equipment is you know commercially used used in you know everywhere's in in the city of South Bromlington so it's nothing unusual okay thank you so I think we're going to turn to public comment now um there's no one in the audience I know there's someone um virtually how many I have a couple people virtually um Donna Donna yeah I've I've been asking if I could make a public comment via the chat and I haven't I haven't been able to get the attention right so we um if you didn't if you didn't catch it at the beginning the chat is not part of the public record so we don't use the chat function during drb meetings I know I was just trying to use it to say that I had a comment that and I know you couldn't get your camera to work so and I do see is it Brian Armstrong yeah okay uh okay so it's just the two of you why don't why don't we start with Donna and um please tell us what's on your mind about this project yeah um so this um this particular site not not um not the project per se has come to the bike and ped committee's attention regarding the O'Brien property and we know that there was a resolution um between the city and the O'Brien property about creating this um this linked uh two-tilly drive so for much further east from the old farm uh road uh and I just in looking at the site plan I thought well you know it is a surgical center there will be people bicycling to work um uh potentially a good number of them so why not create a connection from the south end of that O'Brien um uh shared use path uh directly to the north eastern corner of this of the parking lot on this property um so that you know it wouldn't be all that much paving and it would be a real convenience because if you connect to a put a future road on the east side of the property you're actually forcing people to go down quite a lot of hill just to get to Tilly Drive to have to go right back up a pretty steep hill and we know that hills do tend to discourage people on bikes um and that having a little bit easier way to get you know through the um you know even along the driveways you know you don't necessarily have to provide an extra shared use path but even through the driveways will allow people to much more easily get to the um the the food service business that's on the corner of Tilly Drive and Heinzburg Road which we anticipated would be a pretty popular place for people from the O'Brien property to go to both walking and using their bicycles um and so that's why we thought that you know having to go having to have somewhat further down Tilly Drive to have to go up a steep hill isn't ideal I mean in the future it would be fine because it would provide access to all of the businesses further east uh on Tilly Drive as well as over to um across across the the bike pedestrian bridge on to and to uh to other industrial sites so that's just a consideration not hard to do but a consideration for employees of the UVM surgical center as well as potentially some patients as well um I don't know if you're going to have um well as well as just making it a lot easier for employees to walk and you know pleasant places to walk to because the O'Brien development is that is going to be quite pleasant um you know the whole walkway over toward Kimball Avenue I've seen earlier designs and I think that's going to be quite nice so a more direct connection to that shared use path would be very beneficial to the project I think and and it would be great for us to have a little bit closer look at the bike peg committee meeting of the project later on okay um are you suggesting that the applicant reach out to you um well it would be great if they did but if not if they could certainly just you know add that connection to the northeast corner of their parking lot and I'd be I think that would satisfy our needs quite well Marla did you want to offer anything um if if the scheduling works out the applicant can certainly meet with the bike pet committee I wouldn't want to slow this project down I know the bike pet committee only needs once a month um and I think that you know the purpose of having a committee liaison attend the DRB meetings is to represent position of the committee so um you know the board it's ultimately the board's decision what to do with feedback from various committees and so um I think Donna's feedback is that the suggestion is to create um a connection directly to the parking lot rather than requiring someone who works in who lives in east view and works at the surgery center to go all the way around and let's take a look at that at the next meeting hopefully I mean if it's a sidewalk that's not a huge add to the project but let's take that comment seriously and have the board advise and feedback at the next meeting okay well attend what shared use paths would be what would be preferred didn't we just spend 20 minutes talking them all about that hypothetical layout of where the path would go right so Donna's suggestion is that instead of having that path go all the way to Tilly it should in fact connect to the project itself um so just being sensitive to look at that you mean a spur to get your bike into the parking lot yeah so I'm sure that I'm sure they can figure that out in the interest of time well we've gotten this information about labor this okay and we've got a we have a keep in mind a road rights of way and paths to figure out and we'll come back and great yeah thank you exactly the committee's not the board um and keep in mind you haven't heard the feedback of the board on that and so they may say no big deal you don't need to do it or they but just we'll talk about it we'll take a little bold creativity there and see what okay great thank you and thank you Donna um okay um Brian Armstrong has Brian sure go ahead Brian first thank you for your name Brian Armstrong the resident of old farm road you guys know me well from the O'Brien project uh and first and foremost I want to applaud the UVM medical center for how they've approached this with their neighbors how they've approached this with the town so as far as what could be developed there I know that I'm not the only one old farm road that appreciates their approach including how they laid out the path to the easterly side working with us on the landscaping so on the record I support this entirely with the lot or the path being located at the easterly most section I appreciate the bike paths uh committee's perspective I think if they actually count the number of buildings and number of offices the path being located the most easterly side actually serves more workers more pedestrians to get to the majority of the offices on Tilly Drive as opposed to having them you know buttonhook east towards the lake and then have to go back down Tilly Drive to those offices I would further argue if you add the people that work at technology park the look the path located on the easterly most side serves the majority of people's interest I would also like to politely challenge and ask the board if there seems to be a harmonious effort being happening between O'Brien's UVM you know Doug Dickey, Barbara Neff, Brian Armstrong to find this this fit that works for everyone delivers housing units delivers medical office needs that happen why would they want to potentially reopen the location of the path that's going to get more neighbors involved potentially cause more delays debate so forth so on so I think we've got a great proposal to have the lot located on the most easterly portion I'll also politely remind everybody when this development at O'Brien's finished there's going to be more access to Williston Row there's going to be commercial I believe there's going to be some eateries coffee shops stuff like that in the red barn belly is only open Monday through Friday I think from eight to six thirty so the pedestrians that we're talking about are probably going to be at work are probably going to be at school some of them will work on Tilly Drive yes but again I think this is a make sense project as it's stated by the applicant with the path to the easterly side and I applaud them how hard they've worked on wetlands on screening short terms and long terms views for the neighbors and to make it a win win win so thank you to UVM and for the board for listening to my comments and considering my perspective thank you Brian are there any other comments from the public okay thanks Betsy so um I think it's time to entertain a motion to continue the hearing do we have a date certain September 20th sorry because the recess I moved to continue the hearing to September 20th a second does that work for you guys getting all your other stuff done it's plenty it's like a month that's plenty thanks we'd need stuff two weeks before that hearing still plenty time great any discussion about the motion fall in favor signify by saying aye opposed okay we will see you back here on September 20th and thank you thank you have a good evening you too okay one more agenda item the minutes of July 19th so I got a note from Frank saying that he had some significant edits to those minutes um that were more significant than could be handled on the fly okay so actually I kind of cut I've kind of cut them down I think we can do it okay um Betsy you want to pull them up please actually Betsy you want to go crazy and pull up the word doc I know the word document so you can make edits on the fly yeah yeah let's let's live dangerously so I was not at the July 19th meeting is it okay if I skedaddle and abstain or do I have to be here to abstain you can still vote if you weren't there can't you but she's asking if she can skedaddle I think you could skedaddle okay thank you get out of here okay all right hang tight Frank hang tight guys I'm about to pull them up here okay I tried my best to get it converted to word but I no it's fine I if I had gotten your note earlier I would have just sent it to you okay so here we have the minutes in word format so first page third paragraph in the bottom this is uh miss filbert noted that currently the applicant is in violation of the zoning ordinance insert the words on jurisdictional grounds comma after zoning oh sorry after the after zoning ordinance after the period after the start to start to sentence with on jurisdictional grounds comma I'll fix the typos later okay as small t the board what do you say as what the board lowercase t lowercase the oh you raised the other right oh I see new okay I've got it the board had revoked approval the administrator the administrator's approval that's kind of important straight this is helpful Frank we were not administrative officers approval that's fine all right and then in the last set line are to remove it or apply to the board to add it or apply to the board to that's it then on page three okay go ahead should this be a paragraph which something there's a couple of weirdnesses here the top of that page I just picked this up and passed here not to make third line down from the top mr gill said the one exception is the barn what mr gill said the one exception said the one exception is the barn and one trail near the barn the barn area it should say oh the barn area right okay and then continuing in that line uh and then it's instead of there will be an agreement with the city I'd say mr langfeld said they are working on an agreement with the city yeah now go to the beginning of that okay you see that yes you got it stated that and they are working they are working on an agreement with the city okay and then the next and then the next slide over the open it's singular open spaces opens see that strike the s space and then down open singular no he had opens it said it was opens spaces so I took that that's off and then next to the last paragraph from the bottom but there's a couple changes I would say this and hear me out before you maybe you don't want to make the change I would say in the in the third sentence middle of the third line the portion of the path uh the applicant now proposes to build has been redesigned so in this area you would start it different is that what you're saying I would say the portion of the path the applicant now proposes to build has been has been reasoned has been redesigned got that the portion of the path do you want me to actually type it yeah see you guys and see it okay so the portion of the path of the path the applicant now proposes to build do I leave this yeah the applicant now proposes to build has now proposed to build to build period has now been redesigned I got you you don't need the second you don't need the second now has been redesigned you only need one now on the sentence okay that ought to be enough now I would say the next sentence is on for it's unfortunate where it's placed I don't know if you want to do anything about it then Sue goes on to talk about the sidewalk but then comes back to the path in the next paragraph it's not wrong it's just odd out of sequence yeah I've I've caught that sort of thing too and then I go back to the tape and I'm like huh that is the order it was discussed in yeah so Sue's minutes are an accurate representation of the order in which things were said even if they don't make sense and I and I wouldn't I wouldn't want to have Sue's job so we