This conference will now be recorded. Review Board for March 3rd, 2021. My name is Don Filibert. I'm the clerk of the board and I'm chairing tonight's meeting because our chair Matt Cota was successful in his bid for election to city council. We're happy for Matt, but sorry to see him go. He was a great chair. Vice chair Brian Sullivan is with us tonight, but recused from several projects on tonight's agenda. And so with your grace and patience, I will proceed. I'm very new at this. So bear with me please. And I'll have a lot of help from Marla and from my fellow board members. So let me introduce them with us tonight is Brian Sullivan. Mark Bear, Alyssa Eyring, Jim Langan, and our new member Stephanie Wyman, who's taking John Wilk former board member John Wilkings place until June. And then that position will be up for appointment. So in attendance from the city of South Burlington are Marla Keane, our development review planner and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. Looking at the agenda. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? I don't have any. Okay. Hearing none. Are there any announcements that the board members have or staff. I would like to make two minutes. One is that the warning or not the warning, but the solicitation for a new board member will be going out to the other paper for location in next week's paper and then also posted to front porch forum. If you are a member of the public and are interested in being on the DRB please do apply to all your friends. It's a challenging job, but very rewarding. We are targeting to have that new member start not the next meeting but at the first meeting in April. Because Matt, our chair has been elected to city council. We will be having a reorganization meeting on March 16, which means we'll elect new officers. So board members, please think about who you would like to nominate. You're welcome to nominate yourself. If you are going to nominate someone else, please talk to them in advance to make sure that they will accept the nomination. Thank you Marla. Thank you for those of you in attendance tonight. And those on the phone and those watching online, couple of reminders for tonight's meeting. This meeting is being recorded. And anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the virtual sign in sheet in the chat box. Anyone that would like to sign in can send an email or a snail mail to Marla Keane at mkene at SBURL.com and provide your contact information. And the sign ins are important because that will allow you to be considered a participant should you want to obtain party status at a later date in order to appeal a decision made by the board. You can submit comments and writing. I think I already said that. And I would like to ask all of you to mute your phone or computer, unless you have something to say so we don't catch the ambient noise in the background. I have one question. This is John Bosange. I'm planning to speak at the end of one of the agenda items. Do I have to sign in or can I wait till then? I mean, should I email Marla right now and tell her that? How does this work? I've never done this before. Marla. If you speak during the meeting, that will count as you signed in, but it is helpful for me if you write your name in the chat box as well. Can I email you that right now? Sure. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you very much. Contact information. Yeah. Okay. That's understandable. Thank you very much. So the next agenda item is, are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? You can indicate you have a comment by saying your name or write in the chat box that you would like to ask a question or write your question in the chat box. And I'm going to check the chat box now. A lot of people signing in. I don't see any questions or comments. Last call for questions and comments. No. Okay. So I think we will proceed with the agenda. So the first item on the agenda is a continued site plan application SP 2035 and conditional use application. So this application was continued from 12 15 2021. And the applicant had not yet received a state wetland permit. So this application was continued from 12 15 2021. And the applicant had not yet received a state wetland permit. And at least as of yesterday, Marla, they had not received the permit and I permit and I think they were wanting to continue this application to April 6. Is that correct? They had requested April 6. I would actually recommend April 20. And the reason for that is because I anticipate the item SD 2106 for 550 Park Road need to be continued. And I expect that one to take up some time. So I think we are holding space for that one. I think we are full on April 6. Okay. But we are on April 20. Okay. And you will be in touch with the applicant. Yeah, about that. Okay, thank you. Any other comments about this application. Okay, agenda item number five. You do need to take a vote. I'm sorry.  Oh, just Marla was going to say, we do need to make a motion to second them and vote on continuing it. Would you like to make that motion mark? I move that we continue site plan application SB 2035 and conditional use application to you. Okay. And then we move to a rearch to April 20. One other, just another point of kind of just a minor thing. The applications continue from 1215 2020. That's 2021. Oh, okay. You're right. Thank you. I second. Did I hear a second? Yes, I second. Thanks, Brian. And do we take a vote, Marla? You can do a voice vote. Okay. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed. Okay. The application is continued. Number five on the agenda is a continued site plan application. The amendment consists of expanding the fence outdoor storage. And a one of the granite group to amend a previously approved plan. For a 16,000 272 square foot wholesale use building. The amendment consists of expanding the fence outdoor storage. At 20 Gregory drive. Who is here for the applicant? Peter Missouri. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are there anyone else here for the, for the applicant? I'm here, Daniel Cotter for the granite group. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. You're welcome. I'm just calling it up on my computer here. So. This. Let me read you the staff comment. This is a notice of condition reflecting their proposed maintenance procedure for the previous gravel storage area. Staff notes. It may be simpler to incorporate this procedure into the plan sheet rather than as a separate notice and recommends the board. Ask the applicant, which condition they would prefer. Also, there was a question at the last review of this proposal. It was about a wetland permit, state wetland permit. And after the meeting and prior to this meeting. Staff did receive the permit. So. Has grabbed. She has drafted a decision by the board. Now, not quite accurate, but. So the question about wetland impacts, they are not subject to a state well and permit, but there was, they had not the efficient evidence to demonstrate that they were meeting the city wetland rules. They have provided sufficient evidence and I have incorporated that into the draft decision, which is in the packet. Now, in this case, do we vote on the draft decision at, at the open meeting? Nope. So the draft decision is available simply because. In the case of something where there's not any outstanding questions. People are for me to write one thing instead of two things. Okay. So what we need is we need feedback on the question on the cover letter about which, whether the applicant would prefer to record the notice of conditions or incorporate their maintenance procedure into their plans, which will be then reported. So either way that maintenance is being recorded. And then the board will deliberate on the. In. But because it's already written, that tends to be a little faster than it's. So Peter or Daniel. What are your thoughts about a staff comments on the cover? I would prefer to put the. The directives on the plan. So I can adjust the site plan to have the maintenance. Procedures. And did you have any other, did you read the draft decision? Did you have any other questions or comments about it? I did read it and I didn't have any questions or comments. Okay. Any other comments from the applicant? So I guess this is where I entertain a motion to close. I would check for first check whether the board has any additional discussion and then ask if there's any public comment. Okay. Board members, are there any additional questions or comments you'd like to make? Nope. Are there any from the public? Any comments about this application from the public? Hearing none. I'll entertain a motion to close this hearing. I'll make a motion that we close site plan application. SB 2101. Thank you, Mark. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. All in. Can this be a voice vote, Marlon? Or do we need a roll call? I think the voice vote is okay. Okay. All in favor of closing. No. I'm going to close this. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So the, um, SB 21, 001 and, um, Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. So the, um, the hearing is closed. I should just clarify when I say, I, it's okay to, um, state law allows voice vote, except when there is disagreement and then it should be done by roll call. Okay. All right. Thank you, Peter and Daniel. Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is, um, Number six, continued remanded conditional use application. CU 1812 B of Paul J. Washburn to amend previously approved conditional use permit. CU 1802 for construction of a 14 foot. 17 foot to test accessory structure to be used as a 186 square foot accessory residential unit. The application has been remanded due to changes in regulations, governing accessory residential units. The amendment consists of reducing the rear set back to five feet, increasing the height to 15 feet and increasing the size to 248 square feet, 30 Myers court. So that's here for the applicant. Attorney Alexandra Larosa. Paul and Paul Washburn is also here. Okay. So you all have the staff reports. Make sure there's no disclosures or conflicts or recusals. Okay. Are there any. No disclosures. Any recusals or conflicts that people would like to. Um, acknowledge. Yes, I am recused from this item because AJ Larosa is my partner. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Any others. Okay. Um, So let's proceed through the staff comments. The first one relates to applicability of, um, act 170. Um, the act that was passed last year and modifies, um, an existing statute. Um, the essay 24. Section four for one, two. So the comment from staff is staff recommends the board provide feedback on this topic for the applicant's benefit prior to proceeding. Um, And the reason for this is because the last hearing, um, the board continued in order to deliberate sort of understand more fully what's going on. Um, and so. Comments were sort of set up to reflect. Um, where the board. Does the head after their deliberation. Um, so the first question is. Does act 70, 179 apply to this application. Um, And so there's a couple pieces of evidence here, um, to assist the board in making the determination on 70, 179 applies. The first is title one of the Vermont state statute. Um, and the full text of that is exerted. That pertains to, um, What happens when. An act of the state is amended or appealed. Um, and then the second thing is the statement of the environmental courts remand, which is. I'll read out loud. We hereby remand the pending application to the DRB. So that may receive and rule on in the first instance, the applicant's suggestion that the revised. Subsection 4412 should govern his pending application. The interpretation. That's applied in this question is, um, Does act one 79. Actually apply before we proceed to reviewing the application. Under 40 under a 44 12. Should we be reviewing under the revised 44 12. Um, Board before the act ask the applicant for any comments. Does anyone on the board have any comments to make. So I'll turn to the applicants. Do you have, I mean, we've heard. We've heard a lot of testimony from you in the past hearings. And I'm wondering if you have anything to add that would be helpful for the board tonight. Yeah, I only have two sent, two sentences and one might be a run on. So don't make the two periods. Um, so. We covered most of this before. Um, The, um, Case law in Vermont indicates that when a statute has been amended during the course of the litigation, the applicant has the ability to take advantage of that by remand and reconsideration. Um, at the DRB level, one VSA two 14 doesn't apply in that situation. So I think that's a good point. Um, I think that the amendment application fee and or amendment application has to be filed. We did that. In January. Or maybe December, I forget the exact date. We did that with a new app with an amendment application. And application fee. That was rejected by the city. The city sent it back with a note, not necessary. Um, so. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments. Um, From Mr. Washburn. No. Okay. Thank you. So moving on to number two, do we have a discussion? Do you want to have a discussion about this before we move on? Or should we move on to two and then discuss the whole thing? What is, what is your thought, Marla? Okay. Okay. Thank you. The board determines at 179 applies stuff. There's that they should. Findings on what they would do. If it applied. Um, and the reason for that is. Um, as Mr. La Rosa indicated. To some degree. The board's. Review in this instance is. A technicality. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if I've said that before, but, um, You know, the, the court has to send it back to the board because the board, the court. Cannot review new evidence. Um, this new act is new evidence. And so in order for the court to make a decision on it, the board has to first make a decision on it. So if the board says. If the board doesn't make a decision on it, then the board, If the board doesn't make a decision on it, there's not result. In the amended 4412 applying to this project. Then it could potentially go to the court and the court could say, yes, it does. Now you have to send it back to the board. And then determine if the project is now. In order to circumvent one more iteration. Um, I think the decision is to say, regardless of whether act one, 79 applies. The court and saying what we think it would happen if it did apply. So, um, I think the board can. Make their decision on whether act one, 79 applies in a private deliberation. Um, but I still think we need to make a determination on if it does apply. What the decision would be. It's saying you should talk, you don't need to talk about one, but you still need to talk about two. Yeah, I would agree that with Marla's general perspective there, which is. You know, not perspective in procedural perspective. Obviously we share some disagreement over. Merit perspective, but, um, the procedural perspective is, you know, it's, it's a real pleasure to speak to all of you. I just don't really want to do it very much more on this project. So, um, let's, let's, let's consider it, you know, do, do your thing, consider it, um, answer all the questions you can so that we're not, uh, coming back here again. Okay. So Mr. LaRosa, one of the comments by staff was that the board invite you, the applicants to provide testimony in the staff notes of January 20th in support of this analysis. Um, but, but, um, we're interested in new testimony, not, not, um, reinventing the wheel in terms of testimony we've already heard from you. So what are your thoughts about the January 20th notes? I think we've provided, um, all the relevant testimony that's necessary for the board to make a decision. And I think Marla's analysis is correct. I think the staff notes, additional testimony beyond which is that has already been provided is not necessary to make a determination. Okay. Thank you. Uh, so the third staff comment is that recommends the board include in the decision, a determination on whether the structure is clearly subordinate to the single family dwelling, given their relative sizes and heights. Again, for the purpose of facilitating environmental court review. In the case of an appeal, Marla, could you tell us a little bit more about what you had in mind, please? Sure. So one thing that the board discussed in deliberation is one of the elements of the revised subsection 4412 that was not discussed on January 20th. Is this part that says a accessory dwelling unit means a distinct unit is clearly subordinate to the single family dwelling and has provisions for independent leaving, blah, blah. Um, so on January 20th, we focused on part F, but we just wanted to make sure that there was no additional testimony needed on demonstrating or that the board felt like they could make a determination on whether the accessory dwelling unit was clearly subordinate to the single family dwelling. Okay. Um, so does anyone, I guess, I'm comfortable with the information we have on hand to be able to make that determination with, during our deliberations and provide that information in the decision. Thank you, Mark. Other board members. So hearing none, I would open it up to any members of the public that would like to speak and I'd ask you not to repeat things, not to repeat testimony we've already taken from you, but to add any new information you'd like us to consider when deliberating about this application. Are there any members in the audience who would like to speak? Yes, Jeffrey Massina with Bergeron, Paris and Fitzpatrick on behalf of Gary Kutrow, Susan Jones and GF Kutrow family investments. So not to, not to beat the dead horse. So I'm happy to just make a record and reiterate. That there is record of our historical. Argument before. We don't think it's applicable. If it is applicable, it's still, still fails for the reasons that we've outlined in the past. And I just said, just to, say that I think procedurally it does make sense as Marla has just outlined it and attorney LaRosa has suggested to consider it in this context as if it does. Unless it, especially if there can be some sort of note saying a footnote saying that even if we don't, we're proceeding as if it does for procedural purposes rather than for procedural purposes. I'm not going to say that even if we don't, we're proceeding as if it does for procedural purposes rather than just giving an example to the court that said specifically that. You do agree that it does. I think that's the only thing I would add. Was that too convoluted or did that make sense? I thought it made a lot of sense. Marla and other board members. What are your thoughts? Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to speak. Thank you, Mr. Masina. So hearing none. I would entertain a motion to close. This remanded conditional use application. Do I have here a motion? Thank you. I'll move that we close. Move close conditional use application 18 dash 12 B 30 Myers court. Thank you, Mark. Do I have a, do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Alyssa. We'll maybe we should take a roll call vote for this. Okay. Let's go through the roll. Brian Sullivan is no, Brian, you're not refused from this. Are you? Brian's refused. He is refused. Okay. That's right. Of course. Mark Bear. Hi. Alyssa Eyring. Hi. Jim Langen. Hi. And Stephanie Wyman. Hi. And share votes. I. So the hearing is closed. And it will be taken to deliberation. Thank you. Thank you. Somebody say something. The next item on the agenda is. Number seven final plat application SD 2106 of black rock construction for the 6.91 acre wheeler parcel phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and 354 unit residential development. The plan use development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, a public road, a public road, 22 dwelling units and two family homes and 10 units in single family homes at 550 Park Road. Now I'm just going to kick this off by saying that this is a. A long staff analysis and report. And it is the next to last agenda item. to make sure we get to the last agenda item. And we would like to adjourn this meeting by 10 o'clock tonight. So I'm suggesting that we go ahead, get as far into this as we can. And at some point, I think what we'll do is entertain a motion to continue this hearing and take public testimony, because I understand there'll be a considerable amount of testimony and then continue it at a later date. Anyone have any problem with that? I would just note, Dawn, that we've reserved time on April 6th. If anyone cuts out early, just know that you should come back probably on April 6th and feel free to email me to confirm that. M-K-E-E-N-E-S-D-U-R-L dot com. Okay, thank you, Marla. Who is here for the applicant? Good evening, this is Benjamin Avery with Black Hawk Construction. And also speaking this evening will be Chris Roy of Downs-Rackland-Martin, Brian Currier and Paul O'Leary potentially, O'Leary Burke and Roger Dickinson of Lamarrow and Dickinson Engineering. Thank you. Don't forget to do disclosures. Yes, thank you. Does anyone have any disclosures or does anyone want to recusal because of the conflict? Yes, once again, I'm recused. Okay, thanks, Brian. Anyone else? Okay, so this is a final presentation of that application. And what that means for those of you who aren't familiar with this process is it's the final step in the approval process which started out with a sketch plan and then a preliminary plat and now we're at the final plat hearing stage. As I said earlier, we probably won't get through all of this tonight so it will be continued. But we will have a brief overview by the applicant and then we'll start to go through the staff comments and have a discussion about each of those comments. So we've heard about this project several times. So I'm wondering, Ben Avery, if you and your team could just do a brief overview of what you are proposing, please. Sure, just thanking the board again for a time and consideration this evening as well as I know there's a number of neighbors who got time and effort into inquiring about the project as well. To reiterate the chair, the brief refresher is the project is located on the Wheeler parcel which is a 6.9 acre tract located at 550 Park Road which is the northeast corner of Dorset Street and Park Road. Our proposal is for 11 duplex buildings and 10 single family homes for a total of 32 units of housing. And we feel that our application does a good job of adhering to the specific guidelines set forth in the SEQ NRN zoning district, which is the board is aware as a district unique to this parcel born of a land swap between the city of South Burlington and Jam Gulf who is the master developer of the Vermont national community. I thought what might be helpful this evening prior to getting into this staff comments with O'Leary and Burke responding would be to ask Chris to give us just a very brief overview of how this parcel came to be. And I know the board is very aware as a staff but I thought it might be helpful for community members to understand sort of how this parcel got here today. And with that, Chris, do you wanna just give us a little background? Sure, Ben. Yeah, this is born of an agreement that the city reached Jam Gulf going back a decade of 2011 and that agreement occurred in the wake of some litigation that had to do with the Vermont national development. And over the last 10 years has been a very public process that has led us to where we are now as folks may be aware in August of 2015, there was an amended agreement between the city and Jam Gulf. And that resulted in sort of the specifics of a land swap involving this 6.9 acre parcel which was made available for development in return for conveyance of 22 acres of land between Butler farms and the neighborhoods that the city could then conserve. So the city got 22 acres of land that it wanted and in return this 6.9 acre parcel was made available for development. But it wasn't simply just made available for development as folks understand the agreement contemplated a very specific zoning process taking place and from the enactment of that agreement through January of 2016, a very specific set of zoning standards unique and specific to this parcel were developed as part of the normal zoning amendment process so that you ended up with what is now section 9.08 in your land use regulations. And there was an agreement by the parties that the design standards and other provisions of that zoning amendment satisfy the requirements of the settlement between the city and Jam Gulf. And it's important to note that all of this was taking place within the context of a neighborhood very much as it exists now. And the three condominium associations that we've heard from making comments about the project were in existence during this time. Certainly we're aware of this absolutely had an opportunity to participate in the process and what came out of it was a very, very specific set of design standards that were in many respects a recipe for if you're gonna develop this parcel this is how it's gonna have to be done including a figure 9-2A that is quite literally a diagram of this lot and various requirements that apply to it. I think that one last point I'd like to make and then turn it over to the folks who can speak to the substance of the project is also there have been a number of comments about the potential for access onto Dorset Street as a preferable access point to Park Road. And I'll leave it to the engineers to talk about the reasons from their perspective that Park Road is a preferred location but really going to the intent underlying this whole agreement, the city owns a strip of land between the Wheeler parcel and Dorset Street and that's where the bike path goes and the Greenland either side of the rec path. If the town had wanted another curb cut on Dorset Street in this location would have been very easy for them to facilitate that they would have deeded over an easement to go across there and put it very easily been incorporated as part of their design standards and their requirements for this project and nothing in the specific regulations that were enacted or the diagrams that we see have accommodated that in any way. So it's not a matter of the Wheeler parcel budding Dorset Street itself. There is a strip of land that's owned by the city in between and the city did not choose to facilitate an access on the Dorset Street there. So that's just intended as sort of the reader's digest version of how we got to this point and how this project was designed with a very, very specific set of design standards enacted by the city in mind. And given that, I'll hand it over to folks who can speak to you about the substance of the project. Is it likely that the comments that you just referred to will come up as we go through the staff report and the questions and issues raised? Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. No, this is intended. Most of our response, hopefully you're not gonna hear much of that all for me the rest of the evening. The rest of it's going to be folks responding to the substantive comments. This was as much as anything as Mr. Avery mentioned was for the benefit of some of the neighbors who are new to the process or others who might be viewing just to give them that background that this is an application in isolation. I appreciate that. Well, my suggestion is let's proceed through the comments and if you still have other comments to make, you can certainly make them. No, I'm done with me and now I'll hand it over to people who you're more interested in hearing from. Okay. So Mr. Avery, has your team said enough that we can move forward with the staff comments? Yes, and I think Brian Currier will take lead on addressing those with me chiming in where necessary. Great, thank you. Would you like to hit on anything that's changed between preliminary and final plot or do you feel like that's pretty well covered in the staff comments? Hey Marla, this is Brian Currier from Larry Burke. I think you've touched on most of the changes, especially the, I guess probably the biggest change with the rec path going through the middle of parcel. Obviously we got rid of that, but I think the essence of it is pretty similar and I'm okay to jump in the staff report if you guys are. Okay. So let's start with comment number one on page five. Since the board has already determined adjustment of pre-construction grade is not allowed in the single story area, staff recommends the board require the applicant clarify their plan to show existing pre-construction grade and requested pre-construction grade. And if necessary amend their request to only request adjusted pre-construction grade outside of the single story area. Yep. So Marla, if you wanna open up sheet two or whoever's controlling the screen, site plan west. So what I'm showing on all of the units I've labeled it the single story units which are shown in the plot has them all the same color but I'm a site plan the single story. Do you know what page that is in the packet? Ooh, 66 or 67 down one more. Yep. So you'll see here the darker shaded units we're proposing a single story units the which are dictated by the zoning regs. The lighter shaded units are the two story units. The single story units when we came in for preliminary we had requested pre-construction grade elevation changes. We were not allowed to make those changes for the single story buildings with the thought that single story building shouldn't need any adjustments. So I changed those labels to GFE which is a garage floor elevation and those are basically just for construction purposes setting the finished floors of the homes. So those are not to be conceived as pre-construction grade changes. Now on the two story buildings those are specifically labeled pre-construction grade elevations and those are the requested elevations. So I think when we submit a revised site plan for the next meeting I'll be more clear how those are labeled. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board? Carla? No, the next quick staff comment is about height. So, I'm just gonna jump ahead. It looks like there was some information provided in order to calculate height but it just couldn't get there. Yep, so we're jumping to number two. Number two talks about it says staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed house types in the single story area will not exceed 18 to 20 feet and that the proposed house types in the other areas will not exceed 28 feet. So if you look at the single story homes as I've just indicated on this sheet too they're the more darker shaded ones. If you zoom in a little Delilah you can read that units one and two the two closest to Park Road are single story single family buildings and the duplexes three through 10 are also single story but the two in the middle we have voluntarily provided those as single story duplexes. The zoning regulations in the NRN are specific. There's three areas that are required to be single story units. Duplex units three through six again are not in that zone and the reason we're proposing them as single story units is because they abut what's called the high use rec path on Dorset Street and also they are obviously within the Dorset Street corridor they're very visible. So for those units we don't anticipate having an issue with a 20 feet height requirement without adjusting the pre-construction grade. Now the elevations some of them have labels to what is the height from the finished floor basically in South Burlington it's the first story plus a second story and then it goes all the way to the middle of the roof line. So we'll be sure to revise those elevations for the continued hearing. I would like to draw your attention though to the two units. Delilah if you could go to the next sheet in the packet. Yep and zoom in on 16 and 17 or 17 and 18 at the bottom. So these two units are a little bit different story than the ones along Dorset Street. They're in a required single story zone as part of the zoning regs and they will be proposed as single story units. However, the existing contours on this site slopes significantly downward from Dorset Street to the eastern end of the site here. The roadways proposed about two feet above existing grade and the land slopes an additional six feet down as you get to units 17 and 18. So when you add those together we're losing about eight feet of height on those units. So if you measure height from the average pre-construction grade on the existing contours and we lose eight feet right off the bat if we're held to a 20-foot height standard we can only build those units 12 feet high essentially from that pre-construction grade elevation. Now the only way to really make that work given the configuration we have is to lower the units significantly below the road and that creates various issues, drainage, visually it's gonna look like a mistake. It will be significantly below the road. So what we're asking is for the board to consider allowing us to construct two the regulations that are 28 feet high structure from the pre-construction grade elevation. However, we will still be constructing single story units. The only reason that we'll need to construct a unit higher than 20 feet is because the units are essentially in an existing hole. They will look very uniform with all the units around them. Whenever a new road is being built typically the units are constructed off of that road. They're surrounded by a very robust landscaping buffer on the eastern side. If you wanna zoom in a little bit more Delilah it's kind of a wavy green line and the standards require a very specific dense planting within that landscaping buffer. So what we're asking for is the board to consider allowing us to set the driveways of these units half a foot, a foot above the existing or the proposed road elevation. So we're not asking for any waivers. We're just asking for the 28 foot height standard to apply to these two units specifically while maintaining single story units. Marla, what do you think about that and other board members? I think the request is clear and I think that I would be happy to prepare an analysis of the results of their requests for the next hearing. Okay, great, thank you. Any other comments from the board? No, I'm comfortable with their proposed solution. I mean, clearly the intent is to have single story structures there but given the great existing grade constraints, the way it's calculated, it's a funky way of doing it but the ultimate end result is two single story houses out on location. Yeah, okay. Okay, I just want to review it more closely because there was a specific preliminary platforming thing that the single story buildings should be 18 to 20 feet or maybe no more than 18 to 20 feet from average preconception grade. So that was the specific finding. I just want to make sure to see what the effect of changing a specific finding. Yeah, I think at this point, what we're looking for is that the board is okay with us setting those driveways about a six inches a foot above the road. And then I think we can take care of the details. Obviously we need the height of those structures in order to determine our max height. So yeah, that's something we can definitely work out afterwards, Marla. Thank you. Moving on to staff comment number three, staff recommends the board consider whether to require the applicant to modify the maintenance requirement for the wooded area to include removal of invasive species. So Delilah, if you want to skip to the plan, the previous plan that will show the area better. So go down a little bit behind units, the duplex units on the eastern side of Park Road and the interior of the loop behind units 32 and 31. You'll see there's a wavy line that is the clearing limits proposed for the site. At preliminary, we came in with a rec path that split the center lot in two. And based on feedback from the board, they requested that we look at trying to save more vegetation within the middle of the site. And if getting rid of the pedestrian path going through the middle of the site was a viable way to do that, then we could potentially move forward. So we did remove the path. We shifted the units around a little bit. You'll see the community garden is now up at the intersection of the road. But the question refers to whether or not we should be required to remove invasive species on the site. And we're not necessarily opposed to that. However, we would just remind the board that one day this HOA will be turned over to future residents of South Burlington. And whether or not that's something, obviously there's this expense involved and whether that's something that the board wants to saddle future homeowners with. The area involved in that. I think I phrased it poorly. My intention was to allow for removal of invasive species. The way it sounds like you can't do anything in there. And I just wanted to make sure that you were allowed to remove them if it became a problem. Oh, okay. Yeah. But you're right. I'm reading it now and you're right. It's not clear. Yeah, okay. Well, Marla, or the rest of the board, I guess one thing I should ask is, do we want to make it that they have to remove it as part of the initial path of site work and then allows the option going forward of the HOA of removing it if they so be. But at least we start with a clean slate of invasive species removed from the site. Board members, thoughts? Marla, do you have a thought? I think that sounds like a great idea. Brian, what do you guys think? I mean, it's only two-tenths of an acre.  It's mostly shrubs and, you know, smaller trees that have been growing on ledge. I don't think there's a huge benefit of it given the size and the location. But it's not a deal breaker, but obviously we would rather not be subject to that. I mean, it's not a deal breaker in my mind either because last thing we wanted to do is take a nicely wooded area and start to go through and clear cut it to get rid of invasive species. And some of you have this, you know, wide open clearing again. I'm just throwing it out there if we wanted to have them work with the city arborist or somehow, you know, clean up the site as the applicant pointed out, it's a very small area. So we need to do it once to get it cleaned up. But, you know, I don't want it to be something where they go through and start heavily clearing, clearing out this area that our intention was to keep it natural. Why don't I get some feedback from the arborist prior to the next meeting? Yeah, so if you want to do a site visit and see if it's worth it or, you know, how much work there would be to do then, you know, that's definitely a consideration. Okay, great. So number four, this also relates to a wooded area. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify this plan to indicate that the wooded area extending to the outer edge of the root zone is not to be disturbed. Staff understands it is somewhat unconventional to have a no disturb island in the middle of the construction site but considers that damage to existing mature trees is irreversible and therefore extreme precaution is warranted. Staff considers such limit of disturbances should be reviewed by the city arborist prior to approval. What does the applicant think of this? So can you zoom in on that wooded area, Delilah, a little bit? So you'll see that there is one tree that is specifically shown within that island and we are here for preliminary. I believe it was either the board or a neighbor asked if we could potentially save this large oak tree that was in generally the middle of our site. So that is the drip edge of that oak tree. So when we do clearing limits, we typically don't run down the clearing limit and shoot every single tree that's near the clearing limit and add the drip edge.  So what we're showing here is the clearing limit. If the trunks of the trees are inside that limit, they will be attempted to be saved. If they're on the outside, then they will be cleared. There's another plan that shows all the existing trees within that area above six inches. But the only one that we're identifying to be saved specifically is that 32 inch oak tree. And you'll see the drip edge does extend a little ways outside of that wooded area. And there's a few grade lines next to it. We made sure that those were fills. So we're not gonna be cutting anything near that. We're not gonna be digging down near that tree. But in our opinion, we think that saving this specific drip edge is important. And the rest of the clearing limit should be treated as such. So I have a question. Thank you for that. I have a question. I think it was during sketch overview. A man provided testimony about a tree that he wanted to see preserved in this area. And I believe your response was we can't guarantee anything at this point, but we will consider it. Do you know, is this the same tree that he was speaking about? I think at sketch that was an apple tree if I remember correctly. And I think that was right where one of the units that could have been the road was proposed. Okay, okay. Thank you. All right. So the thinking is that the city arborists should review this prior to approval. Marla, is that your thinking? Yeah, I'm just reading. So part of the subtlety of this comment that was missed in our discussion just now is that someone has a very pleasing clock going off for eight o'clock. Is that the EPSC plan shows a construction fence but doesn't call it out as a no. A construction fence is an object. A no disturbed zone is an action. So the nuance there is that this be not only construction fence, but a no clear zone. Okay. And then the other part of it was, I think the question about whether the no clear zone was adequate to protect the existing mature trees. And I think that given Brian's testimony, I would just like to have our city arborists review the proposed couple feet of fill in the zone of that large tree and make sure he agrees that that's not going, that the methodology proposed is not going to result in damage to that tree. Okay. Okay, you can live with that. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Okay. Don, can I just make one comment? Sure, go ahead. I just want to respond to Donna Leven has put in a few comments in the chat that I think should be addressed at this time. One thing I want to clarify is when I did say cleaning up the site, I wanted to say I agree with her. She said it's not desirable. I just wanted to give the option if removing invasive species is beneficial to the long-term of the site. I would say we should ask that it be addressed or looked at, but I also agree. I don't want the center of the site to be sort of gone through and clear, clear cut or cleared up. And also I would like to say that I would like those. Yeah, I agree the city arborist should definitely weigh in on the 32 inch oak tree and any other sort of mature specimen trees to make sure any construction protections are put in place as a condition prior to our approval. Thank you, Mark. Any other comments from the board? Moving on to page seven, staff comment number five. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to closing the hearing. Yep, wastewater has been issued. The request for water has been submitted. We're waiting for that to be signed off on, but we'll have those for the continued hearing. Good, thank you. Next comment, six. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments of the water department as conditions of approval. And we will work those out with the water department and have those revised plans for you at the continued hearing. Perfect, thank you. Number seven, staff recommends the board require the applicant to reduce the width of the recreation path to 10 feet and remove its designation as an emergency lane. The development has two points of vehicular access and a third is not needed. Okay, so we don't have any issues with reducing that down and removing any annotations that it's emergency use path. We would like to take this opportunity as all the preceding staff comments are relative to public works and the traffic impact assessment to have our traffic consultant, Roger Dickinson of Lamarone Dickinson give testimony about the letter we received from the neighboring associations regarding our traffic impact study. At preliminary, we were not required to submit a traffic study for final. However, with some talks with the neighbors, we knew traffic was going to be a significant issue.  Is this the appropriate time to do that board? And Marla. Yeah, I think this is the time in the stuff. So the staff comments do the traffic and the traffic impact assessment at this.  Oh, thank you. Then applicant, please tell us what your thoughts are about the traffic impact study or tell us about the traffic impact study. Hey, Roger, you might be on mute. Okay, good evening. I'm Roger Dickinson and I wanna speak primarily to the issue of safety. That seems to be the focus of many of the concerns that have been submitted to the board. Our traffic impact study analyzed both traffic congestion and safety, traffic congestion that really isn't any on Park Road. The levels of service were excellent, being at A and B levels of service. So we don't really anticipate any problems with traffic congestion. With regards to traffic safety, Park Road is a city street that was constructed perhaps 20, 25 years ago to city public work standards. It is a local street. It's paved width is 24 feet. In the bottom of the hill where the guard reels are, there is actually 31 plus feet width between the guard reels on either side. The grades on Park Road are approximately 8% maximum. Grades going up the hills on both sides. The city standards allow a 10% grade. There's no reason to expect that Park Road would be an unsafe road. It is built to the proper geometric standards for its function as a local street. And indeed, we checked the five-year crash history of Park Road and its intersection with Dorset Street. This is a five-year history of crashes that are reported by the South Burlington Police Department. Or the years 2016 through 2020. And that history does not show any reported crashes on Park Road or at its intersection with Dorset Street. I think the primary problem that the neighbors are experiencing or concerned about is it's not a function of the design of the roadway necessarily. It's a function of people traveling too fast. And I just wanna read just one sentence from Attorney Seff's February 22nd letter, top of page two of that letter. This winter as in all winters, cars have ended up off the road there because they were going too fast down the hill either way. That really sums up the issue here is people traveling too fast over the 25 mile an hour posted speed limit. There are also adequate site distances. There was concern expressed by the public works about the site distance to the east from the easterly access off from Park Road towards the bottom of the hill. We stated in our traffic study that the site distances exceeded 280 feet. I've measured that site distance to the east going up towards Golf Course Road. And actually coming down the hill there is 460 feet of available site distance. And that's the site distance that's probably the most critical one. I think the others are even exceed that 460 feet. So there's, in summary, we have no reason to expect that this development would cause unsafe conditions or that unsafe conditions exist today. The concerns about safety are mostly related to maintenance issues and not the design of the roadway per se and related to people traveling too fast for the conditions. I think that's all I wanna say at the moment for traffic. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson. Yes. Any other comments from the applicant? Nope, we're good to move on to eight. Okay. Any other comments from the board? Okay. Number eight, the fire chief reviewed the plans on 1-22-2021 and requested clarification on location of hydrants and the street profile. Staff recommends the board direct the applicant to coordinate with the fire chief prior to the close of the hearing. Yup, so I went with the fire chief, Terry Francis on Friday with a Zoom conference and he had a couple of follow-up questions he wanted us to submit, but they were relatively minor and we'll be sure to do that at the continued hearing. Thank you. Sorry, I need to pause. So Brian, I received Terry's comments by email. You were copied on them as well. I was going to include them as conditions. And if they include the misdemeanor, you can read them into the record. If you would prefer to address them before the next meeting, then I don't need to read them out loud. Whatever is easier, either way, like I said, they were minor and either way works for us, so. Perfect. If you want to, before the next hearing, then that's fine. I'll just make a note to make sure that that gets into the staff notes. Okay. Thank you. Moving on, comment number nine. This comment relates to residential design. Staff recommends the board confirm this is a correct interpretation of the quote design narrative layout key, unquote plan. If this is not the case, staff recommends the board obtain a clear understanding of what is proposed and continue the hearing to allow review with the clarified proposal in mind. Yep. So the design key that was submitted is exactly as it's described in the comment. I think for clarity, I'll probably add the names of the units that correspond to the elevations on my site plan as well. But Marla has it correct. Great. Thank you for that. Next comment number 10. Well, staff considers the improvements to be modest at best. Staff also notes that the LDR requires a dense vegetative buffer between the homes and the streets. Staff recommends the board consider whether to require the applicant to make significant improvements to the street-facing non-front facades. So board members, what are you thinking? And Mark, this is where your expertise comes in. This is where we're talking about the Dorset Street facade of the buildings, which will be between Zoey Circle and Dorset Street. So there's some examples in. Yeah. Yeah, Don, I'll weigh in at this time. Sure. These designs really need some work. I mean, they're very, very generic. Very little sort of interest.  They're quite nice. But the single family, but the single story in it really needs to be addressed. You know, I'm looking at the Bolton and the Apple, you know, in the packet.  I don't need to be harsh. I'm just being very honest that, you know, this is not something I would expect to see in this sort of residential neighborhood feel. Other comments. Thank you for that, Mark. Any other comments? So we'd ask you to take that into consideration when you come back to us. Yes, we can look at, you know, certainly in feedback, I've noted, Mark, you specifically called out the Bolton and the Apple plans.  You know, with the amount of trim detail, you know, there's no columns and overhangs and porches. You know, it's what I'm seeing, you know, at least in the packet are those two examples were long, linear, with almost no inner out, in and out. It's, you know, it looked, honestly, more like a storefront design than a residential design. So just to clarify, the Apple is a single family design. Okay, well, whichever one we were looking at. I know what you're speaking of. I think you're talking about the single story duplexes. Oh, yes. Yes, I'm sorry. The Bolton, the packet has single family model Apple right underneath that. So, yeah, I mean...  And, you know, with a single story design and limited height of the painting in, painting into a corner, what we can do with the duplex. Now, the way we've attempted to address the, you know, the design considerations is with variation in dormer type, with variation in siding effects, porches, different window configurations, things like that. So, I mean, I think that we can look at, you know, I think that we can look at trying to spruce those up a bit, but at the same time, I think that it's very difficult to take a, what is essentially a rectangle in its design that is limited in height and depth and so on and so forth and get it to look substantially different from one another. So, you know, I do, I still feel like architectural details are the answer as opposed to a wholesale redesign. I am hearing your concerns. So. The thing about like, you know, I'm looking at the Bolton, you know, in our packet, which is the gray linear one on the top and the green one on the bottom. I think the green one is what's facing Dorset Street. You know, the little sort of shed roof covering over the slider door, the French door, it honestly looks like a storefront entrance to a retail building. You know, like sort of an entrance in, it doesn't have any kind of residential scale or feel to it.  I just think that you can definitely get it so it doesn't have this long linear feel with even the windows all at the exact same size, you know, same type and same size across the whole length of the building. And those two little covered porches, shed roof over the door, Jeff has like way too much of a retail feel to it. Completely understood, you know, this is just a function of me telling an architect to make them look different and keep adding details. So it's certainly not anything that I am married to in any way and on that one, I can't disagree with you. So, you know, let us keep working around some of those details and see if we can't. Some of the window configuration challenges in these, so you know, has to do with the layout of the master bedroom on the inside. We've looked at moving windows around there and adding windows and we wanna be cognizant of in an effort to make an exterior look one way we don't make an interior uncomfortable. Right. I would just say that the Apple is a single family, but it does, it is also has two friends. You know, also is what Marla? It also has two friends, it faces on Zoe's circle and Orson Street. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We have comments from board members, go ahead. Mark, did you try to speak? Oh, I was just gonna say, I think Brian's heard my comments and sort of I guess say has marching orders in terms of home design. Okay. Any other comments from the board? All right, moving on to number 11. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow 30% of translucent surface oriented to the south for the duplex units, but has proposed to meet this criterion for the single family homes. Staff recommends the board determine whether to accept the requested waiver. Would you tell us a little bit about the rationale for this request? Yes. So a few things. So the standard is 35% translucent windows towards the south. So there's a couple of things that consider with this development specifically, the density is such that the units are close enough together and the horseshoes kind of opening towards the south. So there aren't too many elevations to have a clear view of the south with them being so close together, it makes it difficult. The purpose of this standard is obviously solar gain and with the efficiency of the windows these days, there isn't, there's not much opportunity for heat to leave, but at the same time, there's not as much opportunity for the heat to come in. Privacy comes into play. If there's a bathroom proposed on the south side of the unit, that can come into play as well. Specific to this comment in our waiver request, we are requesting the standard to be reduced from 35% to 30% for the duplex units and we're proposing to meet the standard for the single families, but it's specific to just the units along Park Road. So that would be units, let me give you a second. 132.19 and 18. And that was directly in response to, I believe Mark, that was something you were looking for as part of our preliminary application. Sorry, Brian, can you rephrase that when you said it is specific, the waiver request is specific or you're meaning- The waiver request was specific to just the units along Park Road. So the way the comments are written, it sounds like we're gonna meet that standard for all single families and all duplexes, but it's specific to just the units along Park Road. So it's- So you're not proposing to meet it for the other units? Correct. Yep, exactly. Yep, and obviously the duplex facing north wouldn't be included either. So it's just the units 132.19 and 18. Okay, any other comments from the board about, or the applicant about this staff comment before we move on? I got one comment. So you're proposing on meeting it on the south facing or the spaces of the building orienting to the south on those units, but what about on the units that are in board of those, like north of those, that are the same unit? Are you changing the window design where you don't start sort of bordering the applicant edge of the site? Yes, so it's correct. So for the units that may be the same footprints, they will be, they won't have the 35% or 30% translucence on the southern end of the units. Part of the problem, Mark, is with the layouts of these buildings where kitchens and stairways are located, in order to hit that 35%, we're putting a lot of glass in odd places, if you will, in order to hit that percentage, which is hard to do. Okay, ready to move on? Number 12, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide more variety between the proposed facades to include different housing styles and also to include more variation between homes of the same style. Board members, do you feel like we've covered and the applicant has addressed this already? And Marla, do you consider they've addressed this already? Yeah, I would just clarify, I think this came out a little bit later with so many pictures. This was just specific to the duplexes, I think. Staff, come on, are we on 12? Yeah, so this is just specific to the duplexes. We thought that they were okay on the single families. Okay. I was gonna say, yeah, I think, and I can't disagree with the board when we talk about these four single family single story duplexes lining up. And Marla, I do think I submitted to you the alternative two-story duplex which could sit along Dorset Street, which would go a long way to honestly to varying the facades on Zoey Circle as well as Dorset. But given feedback from neighbors, concerns about the view corridor from Dorset Street, we had altered the design to all be single story. My position on it is completely neutral. I am more than happy to build the two stories in my personal opinion. I think it would look better with the two stories there, but we also wanna be sensitive to public input. So what I would say is, I sort of kicked that back to the board of what the board feels should be there in order to best meet the standard, meaning a single story versus a two-story on units three, four, five and six. And we're happy to comply. So Ben, if I could have Delilah pull up page 95, I believe this was the alternative two-story that you would submit in. Yes. So I just think that was based on how tonight's going, of how to make this a little easier than that would be for next time. But then this sort of alternative for the two duplexes that are not in the single story area, but are along Dorset Street. So instead of having four of the same duplexes, it would be two of the same and then two of these. And I think this is sort of just a, when we made the change, we didn't keep progressing with this particular plan, but I think that, I mean, just again, a personal opinion, I think that with a little help, this is a more aesthetically pleasing design than the single story. Mark, I welcome your input there. Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the quality of this design is far more residential. It's got the residential detailing and feel to it. Personal opinion, I still think you need to work on the fenestration, the window layup a little bit, but I understand as an architect, the nature of interior dictating exterior, but I'm fairly guilty of sort of saying, I let my interiors get a little funky if it makes the exterior work a little better. But you can find a balance there. I'm wondering whether I'm somewhat indifferent, I think it would be a better feel if we allowed, I didn't allow, but if you did the two stories in the center where you're not required, then I'm also respectful of neighbor considerations of keeping them as one story, but I think you could sort of do like a hybrid of some of this massing feel and some of these detailing on the one story and still achieve it, just like this seems to have a layering of design work that wasn't done on those other ones that I think if you were to apply it to it, those one stories would be spruced up significantly. Okay, any other comments? I'll just add, I like the idea of having mixed two story and one story, if you're not really limited to picking one or the other, it might add a little bit more visual interest to the neighborhood in general. Thank you, Alyssa. Other comments? Okay, moving on to number 13 in conjunction with the building design criterion, one above, staff notes that the homes facing Dorset Street also face toward a public recreation path, further supporting the case for additional architectural detail on these facades. Seems to me like we've really covered this. Does anyone else have anything to add or Marla, do you need more feedback? Oh, I'm sorry, I muted, I was wrestling, we're okay. So you think we've got this covered? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, number 14, I'm gonna read this and I'm gonna step out for a minute while you discuss it. The criterion does not appear to be met for units one or 18, the single family units nearest Park Road. Otherwise, this criterion appears to be met, staff recommends the board, recommends to the board, recommends the board modify units one and 18 to meet this requirement. What are your thoughts? Yeah, we can now work with staff to make sure that the dimensions are correct. It seems like a pretty minor garage setback issue. So, the staff comment was about flexibility in the actually constructed homes. It sounds like from your design narrative, you are requesting that the homes be built exactly as shown in the provided architectural drawings. Is there any flexibility you would like the board to delegate to the zoning administrator so that you can accommodate requests? Just, if you want something to be written into the decision so that you can switch from vertical to horizontal or you can switch from shutters to no shutters, if you don't include that sort of thing or propose a general statement, you're gonna be stuck with exactly what you're showing us. Yeah, and thanks for bringing this up, Marla. I think this is definitely important to not have issues in the future. So, specifically, you can see there's a fair amount of grade across the site. So, we would like definitely some flexibility within the type of unit, whether it's a walk out garden style or traditional level foundation, colors, obviously, siding, and then variations of the porch and the deck. So, those are specifically what we'd like in a many condition regarding. Can you see the first part again, a walk out a garden or what? Oh, well, there's a fair amount of grade throughout the site. So, a traditional level foundation, basically you have the one foot basement windows garden style we call. When you have four foot windows in the basement, typically it's a finished basement, and walk out is like a sliding door, obviously like you can walk right out of your basement. So, and all the elevations here are shown as traditional level foundations. So, just wanna make sure that's typically not an issue, but since we're at this discussion, we thought we'd bring it up. Okay. So, Talayla, just to help me understand, can you show one of the single family home plans? Yeah, not the grouped one, but there's some that are individual for that unit. I think it's a little farther along. Yeah, those. So, for instance, this apple, and I guess that's a bad example because that's a one story, but you've got this sort of all the views. So, you would wanna be able to change the back. Right, so like that back, like the rear one shows an at grade deck. Well, maybe there's four feet of grade that goes across the unit and that deck's gotta have posts, and maybe there's a window in the basement, stuff like that. Okay, I think I would like to draft something. Actually, let me turn that around. Can you draft something for the next year? Yep. No problem. Okay, any more discussion about 14? Number 15, if the applicant is seeking flexibility in the actually constructed homes, staff considers they should make a specific request to the board as to what authority to modify. They are asking the... That's the one we just did. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that. Okay, 16, staff recommends first that the limits of clearing area be modified to exclude any areas within the crown of the 32 inch oak tree and nearby Shagmark hickory trees. Okay, could you go to sheet? Sorry, I don't know what page and document it is, but sheet L, I think it's one up two. So this is similar to the discussion we had earlier about the drip edge of trees and how that relates to the actual clearing limits. So basically the way the clearing limit shown now is we're not gonna impact the trunk of the trees within the clearing limit. However, if their drip edge extends beyond the clearing limit, there is potential for impact. Obviously the only tree that we've identified specifically and show the drift edge is that large oak tree in the corner. Now what staff is saying in this note, I believe is that sheet L 102 that I was talking about shows two Shagmark hickory trees shown just the west of that existing oak tree. They're within the clearing limit and they're only 12 inch diameter trees where the oak is a 32. So we expect their drip edge to be within the drip edge of the oak tree. We don't expect these to be a problem. However, we really wanna avoid naming specific trees to be saved. There's been some issues with saving specific trees on projects that require ledge removal and we really don't wanna get into a case where we're saying we're going to save a bunch of specific trees except for this oak tree that we are specifically designing some of the project elements around. So we would not be in favor of naming more trees that specifically be saved within this clearing limit. I'd like some feedback from the board and I can put a pin in this if the board won't go take a site visit before the next hearing or if anyone has any feedback now. I just like some direction on where to go with this. Don, I'll offer just my opinion on this subject. Yes, please do Mark. Well, in my opinion, just that I'm an architect where I definitely do site design and find sites extremely important in the consideration. I think that this site is clearly one that we've looked at and we addressed specifically the rec path being removed through the center of the site specifically to preserve the foliage and the trees in the center of the site. So I'm definitely concerned about just identifying a single tree that we're gonna make sure we protect and then put a sort of a clouded area saying limits of clearing but if a tree comes too close to that limit we're not gonna guarantee we're not gonna impact the truth structure. I think we want to take the time to identify and prioritize what's happening in the center of the site. And I'm not saying we need to redesign the project, but I think that if the additional protection need to be put in place that was the whole point of this re-looking the center of the site. So I'd like whether the site visit whether it's the city arborist to weigh in I think a little more work than identifying a single tree that's gonna be protected needs to happen. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. I was just saying if it's specific to the clearing limit itself identifying some of the trees around the periphery obviously again, we're not using any of the trees for landscaping buffer purposes. I did do a count on the amount of trees to be removed on the site and I counted 82 trees that are six-inch diameter or greater that will be removed but we're planning nearly 200 trees and 170 shrubs as part of this project too. So, although I agree with Mark we did specifically remove the rec path in order to get a more robust vegetated area in the middle. There is some ledge outcroppings there. There's a lot of kind of shrubs and smaller trees that will grow up into bigger trees but just counting the trees that showed up on our survey of the six-inch diameter and greater there's the two shag bar kickeries that the staff indicates and then there's a couple small ashes towards the eastern end of the limit but definitely the 12-inch shag bar kickeries are the most robust trees within that clearing limit and we could extend that clearing limit a little further towards the west. You see there's a little bit of area closer to the community gardens. We could bring that limit a little further that way to try and grab more of those hickory trees. Now, we are required to specifically put in this 27 foot I believe it is in this area landscaping buffer that is very specific about what trees need to be planted there, what shrubbery needs to be planted there, how close apart they can be, all that stuff. So we'd have to clear the existing trees in order to put in that landscaping buffer that's required in this district. So just to keep that in mind when we have this discussion. What other comment? Brian, that is all Bill there, correct? So we're not, when I look at the area immediately west of where those shagbarks are, none of that is slated for excavation, correct? Correct, yep. Yep, we're proposing to fill, to level out the area for the community gardens just a little further west. And I think what we want to be careful of here is another project down the road which has been challenging and working with the city arborist. You create a clearing limit and there seems to in many occasions be a tree right over the line. And so what we want to do is that we make sure we're being mindful but we're also not creating a quagmire in the permit where we're saying here's the clearing limit but you have to watch out for the roots. We run into that on other projects and it can be challenging because when you're holding an approval that says this isn't the case in this particular location but you're holding approval it says you can put a sidewalk here and there's a tree six feet away, there's conflict because you have an approved feature that's part of the project and that is in conflict with the location of the tree. I don't see that being an issue with these couple of trees. I think we're going to be able to work around them so overall my comment is somewhat moved but it's just a slippery slope. Thank you. Any more comments about number 16? The only other comment I would offer is that while yes excavation is clearly damaging to trees still can just as be damaging if it goes higher than the existing grade against the trunk of the tree. So that has to be also carefully monitored. Okay. I don't think we have any fill running to the trunk of these trees and really the only project feature that would have any supposed impact to those is the community garden. So I think we can make it all work. Okay. Okay, any other comments about that? So I'm doing a time check and it's quarter of nine. And in the interest of time and fairness to people who want to make comments and to our applicant at the end of the agenda I would like to stop reviewing staff comments at this time and open it up for public comment. Is that? Yes. Hi, John Boson here. Sorry. So we're going to proceed in an orderly manner with public comment. And we're going to take everyone's name who would like to comment and then we'll work through them in order. That's fine. I just want to say that there are at least a half of those of people here who will see their time to meet. And I think it'll be very efficient and informative to the staff. Okay. I'm allowed to go first and then that way they don't have to go. Okay. So what I was going to suggest, Mr. Bosage is that I take a look at the chat box and figure out how many people want to speak or speak on behalf of groups and then see if there are any others and that way we'll have a sense of how much time people can have. So if you will bear with me give me a minute or two to check the chat box and I'll come back. Can you help me? Tell me where I find the chat box. The chat box is at the top of your screen. You'll see the number 37 and two little silhouettes. That's how many people are on the call. The chat box is the circle next to that. And if you just click on those or that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'll be, I'm looking. I agree. Don. Yes. I, this is Delilah. I counted four people who signed in, into the chat as seating their time to John Bosage. One more at it, John. So five. Okay. Let me see. See my time, see my time. Okay. Thank you, Delilah. Are there any other parties who would like to speak tonight other than those seating their time to John Bosage? Please speak now and let me know your name. I like the option to speak. I'm not really sure, depending on what John has to say. And it is Ann-Marie Plant. Thank you, Ann-Marie. Sure. And now we have, we have six seating their time to John. Okay. Hi, this is Donna Laban. I put a lot of messages in the chat box. So I'd like to briefly just kind of mention a couple of those. Sure. Okay, Donna. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Well, Mr. Bosage, since you asked to go first and you're speaking on behalf of a number of people, please tell us what your thoughts are and who you represent. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for giving me time and organizing this in a nice way. I'm John Bosage. I live at 579 Golf Course Road. And I'm going to speak on behalf of three homeowner associations. One at Nicholas Circle, another at Inverness and Glen Eagles Associations and probably many other individual homeowners in the surrounding neighborhood. And I want to thank those people who ceded their time to me. I'd also like to be sure that staff has the following documents in their packet. Almost a letter from Attorney Seth that's been referenced already tonight. Multiple letters from many residents, concerned residents. A general, the general neighborhood flyer that was distributed to 125 homeowners in the area. A cover letter that was dated October 15th, it was sent to BlackRock Instruction Company and a public comment memo dated October 5th. And lastly, some photos that I sent recently showing the curves and hills on Park Road taken three weeks ago. I'd like to begin by getting a few critical points on the table. First of all, you need to know we do not want to stop this housing development. We understand housing is needed in the area and we support it. We're not to use a well used phrase NIMBYs because we understand the need for clustered housing in density as it opens up open space, much like the homes that we live in now. In fact, I live in a duplex here, but we do want to see responsible development built into the landscape and constructed tastefully and affordable to families and those who may be on a fixed income, moderate and even low income. And most of all, we want the housing to be safe and not a dangerous place for walkers, runners, bikers and drivers in the cars. Now, given that what has been proposed and what we heard twice now from the Wheeler site does not really meet our definition of responsible development. It probably represents what's allowed and what's been zoned or what's been permitted by previous agreements, particularly with the land swap was approved by voters, I guess, 10 years ago. But as we see it, just because one has the right to do it doesn't always mean it's right to do, especially 10 years later. And that's particularly true with this proposal for the property at the intersection of Park Road and Dorset Street. We have three issues that fly in the face of responsible development as summarized in the neighborhood flyer that's in your packet. The first, and by far the most important concern for us is traffic and pedestrian safety. This is our biggest concern because it is a public safety issue. An attorney Seth's letter sent to you clearly outlines the dangers of having two access roads into the development intersecting onto Park Road. The major error of listing the percent grade as zero in the traffic study and cited on page four of attorney Seth's report to you is inaccurate and a critical, critical mistake. As written in several of the documents in front of you this steep slope and winding curves make any entrance or any exit from the development on the Park Road very dangerous. The photos I sent to you show you the curves and the slope of this road in the winter with yet another car indentation in the snow having slid off the road. By the way, several years ago, the city snow plow slid off the road as well. Cars slide off in both directions and are routinely pulled out and towed out. Fortunately, as has been mentioned tonight, there have been no accidents, no collisions. And that's because it's very challenging as you come down the road to steer your car to the left if you come down either hill from either direction. So people end up simply sliding into the snow banks on the right side of the road. And we do drive slowly and it's still an issue with most people having shown their caution here. It does not take, I don't think too much imagination to envision residents in this new development trying to break and make a left turn on the hill into oncoming traffic. Trying to either enter the development off Park Road nor does it take too much thought to see the dangers of people trying to make a right turn and get up the steep hill in the winter conditions and then attempting to actually accelerate up that hill. Clearly the potential for car accidents during the four to five winter months, up and down that steep hill with icy and wind blown conditions will increase. Those two intersections that are proposed off Park Road will be treacherous to enter and exit. We drive up and down that steep road when Park Road is covered every day, many times. Right now with no intersections off Park Road, it's a crawl up and down for safety, especially when Park Road is covered with wind blown, snow and black ice. Further complicating matters is the pedestrian path that now parallels Park Road and Dorset Street. If built as proposed, traffic will need to cross the bike path at two new locations before entering the actual intersections onto Park Road. That means stopping 10 yards from the road to first check for pedestrians, then inch up to the road and attempt to make a right turn to exit onto Park Road. That's frightening. And it's a real public safety issue. Then once on Park Road, drivers like all of us now will need to cross the bike path to get on the Dorset Street, which has always been very, very dangerous because of the wind blown snow and black ice that forms at that intersection. We all stop now to check for walkers, bikers, runners, and then we move into that intersection slowly. So it's not to slide onto Dorset Street. It's really that dangerous. So what this proposal does is to create two new treacherous pedestrian pathway crossings, adding to the existing safety concerns on the pathway at Dorset Street is a third crossing. Attorney Sef's letter outlines a reasonable solution one way in, one way out, further north off Dorset Street. Similar to the eight new developments recently constructed nearby, just tells on Dorset Street and listed in his letter to you. In fact, I drove down Dorset the other day. There are 44 driveways and other roads creating intersections off Dorset Street in the one and a half miles between Park Road and Cheese Factory Road. So we see no reason why this development cannot be accessed the same way. One way in, one way out, a closed loop. One safer entrance, one safer exit built north of Park Road just before the tree farm area to safely accommodate the new homeowners. And if the city owns the land on Dorset Street, then they can certainly make a change for public safety. It will be easier and it'll be less dangerous for all drivers, walkers, runners and bikers and especially for the new homeowners who want to enjoy their new homes and new surroundings and not worry about family safety. So traffic is our concern number one by far. Residents here are also concerned with two other issues and I'll quickly go through them here. One is density and one is aesthetics. 32 homes are proposed to be built on 6.9 acres. For us, that's too dense. Across the street, there are nine homes, only nine homes on 12 acres. This dense development in such an exposed and visible space on Dorset Street should be redesigned. We don't expect homes to look like ours, nor do we expect a few spacious mansions. We do expect single bedroom, carriage houses and some affordable homes spread out with more space between them. Packing them in because it's allowed is no reason to build that way, especially on top of a hill visible to wall driving by. Quite frankly, it reeks of maximizing profits in the face of responsible development. Secondly, we expect to height the materials used and the colors to blend in through the surrounding landscape. And we heard some nice comments from staff about that earlier. There should be no two-story homes along Dorset Street or Park Road. We expect the colors to coordinate with the colors of the surrounding homes and quality materials to be used during construction. Again, that was addressed this evening. So again, this is a very visible parcel of land. You want it to be attractive, you want it to be affordable. We don't want it to look like some of the homes already built just south of us on Dorset Street, popping up in open fields with no trees planted, no landscaping or vision barriers. In conclusion, you should know we have met with BlackRock with the representatives and shared our concerns. You have multiple letters from concerned residents which have also highlighted the issues that I'm presenting now. Other residents are here in attendance in support of these changes that we wish to see. So I'll end as I began. We wanna see responsible development, not quick shoddy construction, construction with materials and colors that are not well integrated into the surrounding landscape, squeezed into a very small parcel on a highly visible hill. And not designed, so homeowners need to drive through two newly created, very dangerous and treacherous intersections off Park Road. Again, traffic and pedestrian safety is our number one concern, as explained in Attorney Seth's letter and written to all of you. We are hopeful and confident. You'll make all the changes we recommend and consider them carefully. But most critical are the safety concerns recommended by Attorney Seth and endorsed by all of us. You must move the access road onto the development away from Park Road and onto Dorset Street. Failure to do so will create a very real possibility of a serious accident. And that would be a tragedy because you know, we'll have the opportunity to prevent that from happening. So thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your work, staff. Thank you for Black Rock for listening to this and thank you to those who seeded their time to me. I'm done. Thank you very much. Nobody heard what I said, because I was muted. I said, thank you, Mr. Vosange. We appreciate your comments. You're welcome. Emory, do you want to add anything to that? You're muted. Emory, you're muted. We can't hear you. Emory, can you hear me? Not yes. Okay. You're muted. There we go. Thank you. I'm never muted. Well said, John. Thank you so much for that. The only thing I would add is about the trees, more information about the number of trees and the size of the trees. I do know that there's been some disappointment in the recent development off Park Road with Black Rock, where a number of trees were, more trees were taken down. I think it was because of the ledge and there's been, it's been slow to have them replaced. And I would just like to know what the plan is, types of trees, number of trees and size of trees. Thank you. Thank you. Emory, sorry, I'd just like to respond really quickly. Emory, I can help direct you to the right page in the packet that shows what's proposed at this time. It sounds like there might be some modifications to that. I'll make myself a note, but if you want to shoot me an email, if I don't already have your email address, that would be helpful as well. Happy to do that. Thanks so much. Thank you, Emory. Donna Laban. Is that how you pronounce your name? Yes, Donna. That's me. Tell us what's on your mind. Well, I was the person that first called out the, the large oak tree. So I really appreciate the extent of effort that's going to save that tree. I would like to make sure that I'm glad to hear that an arborist will be reviewing it because you, you know, because I don't want to see the compaction of construction, you know, making that effort to not pay off in the long run. So I'm glad to hear that. A couple of other issues I just had concerns about. I am, I am on the rec path committee. Or the bike and Ted committee. Now it's called. I've been on it for a while. And. I think it's unit. Number 18. Is comes closest to the curve where the, where the bike path starts. And I think that has been improved somewhat from the original. From the, from the last go from the last plan. But it's still a relatively steep bank. Down to the rec path from there. And I just wanted to make sure that. Well, if that, I don't know how steep that bank is. And how much erosion protection is going to have to happen there. So, so that there's not a negative impact on the rec path. From the construction right there. Cause it is, it is getting really close at that point. So that, that's, I don't, do you want me to go one question at a time or all of them? Cause I have a few questions. Okay. Why don't you give us your questions and. We'll decide what to do at that point. Okay. I think my other questions are largely about the home designs. And. One, one problem with having North South facing roads is that your homes are not ready for solar panels. You know, you're not going to have the units here. Considering that. I think the requirements are for net zero ready. Homes or. You know, very high efficiency homes that are ready for solar panels. It would definitely be, be better if you had. More South facing roof area. That would be better for the, for the entire area. So I think there are, and I think that there would be some largely electric, um, heating systems, uh, high performance heat pump systems and that, that they, that they have the ability to utilize photo hold take panels. Um, For that. Um, I, I'm sure that the energy South Burlington energy committee. really this site has probably some of the best solar access around because it doesn't doesn't have a lot of trees except that you know except right in the middle of the site so the solar access is really great you just have to design homes that can take advantage of it. The units at the north and I think there's about 11 units at the north end of the site on both sides of the road those do have a lot of solar access potential and as well as the ability to have 30 meet the 35 percent of the windows on the south elevation. The comment that I made about Homestead design neighborhoods because there's Homestead design did a lot of the neighborhoods in this area and John Hausner I don't know if he still lives up there off of golf course course road but you know he did a lot of the design of a lot of the houses in this part of South Burlington and he had a sort of he had what was called the Homestead look or the Homestead design features that really made for some very attractive neighborhoods and I don't know who's doing the design of these units but they are very uninspired and you definitely need some architectural advice on to make them look better and just just less less boring. You know certainly you're in the middle of some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in South Burlington and it just doesn't make sense to put up ugly units which these are not not nice and Village of Dorset Park where I live you know there's some very very attractive detailing on the homes there just take a look and you know add some design features to make them look nicer so that they fit in better and I think that's the bulk of my comments and I hope that's helpful and thank you for taking out the rec path it didn't belong it didn't belong in the middle of the neighborhood and the trees the trees will be much more appreciated than the rec path in people's backyards. Thank you. Thank you Donna. Does anyone else want to make any public comments at this time? So Marla is it appropriate to have the applicant respond to some of these comments briefly? It is at the board's discretion so public comments are always welcome and it's up to the board to decide what to do with them. If any if the board would like any feedback from the applicant on any public comments that's the board's decision okay um I would remind everyone that conversations are directed or comments and discussions are directed to the board this is a meeting with the board the public is commenting and the applicant is throwing testimony so if there's anything the board would like to ask for more information feel free to do so. Don can I for my opinion? Yes Mark please do. I was just gonna I was just gonna say that I think given the fact that we know that we're continuing this application just to even continue the staff comment I think that we should table the neighbors comments directly to the applicant tonight and sort of keep them I guess put a pin in them we've they've all been submitted the testimony's been provided we continue the applicant's testimony and the staff comments that the next continued hearing that we make it and keep these you know the neighbor comments open as a period of time open at the next hearing as well and we'll just do that as often as we need to so we get to the end and we can discuss them as a whole. Okay thank you Mark for that input. Other board members thoughts about Mark's suggestion? Sounds good to me. Okay Jan here. Okay good all right so I think that I think that makes a lot of sense. If it would please the chair if I could just ask one question is just in the interest of Mr. Dickinson's time if there are any comments that he would like to make regarding traffic that might save him the the need to be here for another evening. I have no problem with that Mr. Dickinson. Thank you the one comment that I would like to reply to uh pertains to the assertion uh in attorney Seth's letter regarding the grade of of Park Road that was used in the intersection capacity analyses and in his letter on page four of his letter he reproduced uh part of the intersection capacity analyses that was actually included in Appendix B of the traffic study and he highlighted the percent grade and Mr. Passange an attorney Seth alleged this is a critical mistake. This is not a mistake. This is a very accurate assumption because the intersection capacity analyses that was contained in our traffic study uh is is at the intersection of Dorset Street and Park Road and the grade here that's being referred to is the grade of Park Road as it approaches Dorset Street and if you're exiting Park Road you come over the top of the hill and you're actually going down a very slight grade to Dorset Street and this is the distance within you know 150 to you know feet of Dorset Street and for us to assume a grade of zero percent is actually conservative it's going downhill which increases the capacity a flat grade actually reduces the capacity so we've made a conservative assumption here it is an accurate it is accurate for the purposes of this analysis this is not an analysis of the grades along Park Road the length of Park Road this is just of the Dorset Street Park Road intersection and I just want to respond to that and I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on this uh that is not a mistake uh at all thank you Don Don may I uh just ask thank you Mr. Dickinson may I ask a follow-up question is that appropriate yes um so thank you Roger for clarifying that um that was a little bit deceiving for us to read because we assumed it had to do with the whole road not just the intersection but for all of the members of the board um nothing changes about our concerns that I wrote about the steepness of the road that's still a major concern not that intersection but the whole steepness where the proposed intersections from the road are going to come on the Park Road so thanks for that Roger we didn't know that but the issue is still the same for us thank you Mr. Bossange any other public comments or questions at this point so hearing none I would um like to move that this hearing be continued to uh what's the date Marla April April 6th 6th that's right um do I have a second for that motion was that Jim no mark oh mark okay thanks um okay um so we'll just do a voice vote all in favor of continuing um this application which is sd 2106 to April 6th say I all right hi opposed so this um this application is uh we're done with this for tonight we'll see you on April 6th and thanks for your patience thank you very much the next item on the agenda is is a sketch plan and um as you may or may not know a sketch plan is a very high level kind of conceptual overview of a project that allows the board to have some input into the project and allows the applicant to understand what some of the board's perspectives are in in view of the LDRs the regulations that guide development um this is not a hearing we don't swear people in um but it's a great opportunity for us the board to get a sense of what you have in mind so um I would like to ask who is here for the applicant or um let me read the description of the project sketch plan application sd 2107 of Brendan Connolly to create a plan unit development of three lots by dividing a 7.98 acre lot developed with an existing single family home onto lot one seven point oh two acres lot three point four eight acres lot four point four eight acres for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots three and four and retaining the existing single family home lots three and four would be accessed off Stading Lane one Johnson Way so who is here for the applicant uh Brian Currier O'Leary Burke thank you and Brendan Connolly and Alexandra Connolly property owners thanks Alexandra did you say correct thank you so tell us don't forget to do disclosures Don even for sketch yeah oh okay all right um do we have any disclosures or any read any people who need to recuse themselves hearing none thank you um Brian is rejoin just for the yeah they're Brian's yeah I see you yeah um tell us what you have in mind what would you like to do Delilah do you want to go down to the the site plan the overall plan should be last page sure well less pages in this one uh so now we're looking at the same thing so as uh Don said it's a proposed two-lot subdivision um it's in the uh village residential district in the seq um it's adjacent to the newly recently constructed Sadie Lane uh which is accessed from Dorset Street um the two lots being proposed are both just under half an acre uh the original lot size is just under an acre and a few years ago the previous owner of uh what was formerly 1700 Dorset Street or the existing home on uh on Dorset Street subdivided off uh two lots to the north as you can see in here they're drawn in uh the ortho wasn't captured when those when those homes were built but that subdivision uh required a small private road that's now called Johnson Way that was built and constructed and uh there is a significant class 2 wetland as you can see that was delineated on the property and uh we'll get to that um later in the staff report the two lots are accessed via a shared drive off Sadie Lane um and they're both proposed with municipal construct uh municipal um utilities um the building envelopes are situated to be outside of the the uh 50 foot wetland buffer on the site um I'm okay to jump into the staff report if uh the board has any questions or if you want to keep keep going in the staff report I think that would be fine please give me a minute to call it up on my computer so I can read the comments on my laptop I mean on my um no iPad okay comment number one though no particular order of approval is needed staff recommends the board urge the applicant to apply for city council approval prior to proceeding to preliminary plat no additional plans beyond those submitted for this sketch are required and if the council chooses not to approve any drb review will become meaningless yep so we are aware uh the sec was still under interim zoning we uh expect to apply for interim zoning consideration with the city council hopefully within a week um so we are aware and we will submit an iz application prior to preliminary okay thank you number two staff recommends the board give deference to this possible future element of the ldrs while providing feedback on the proposal to the applicant so um as part of the draft ldrs one of the pieces that are likely to come out of it again that that haven't been adopted but some of the uh one of the aspects that the planning commission is working on is not allowing subdivisions within a wetland boundary um so as you can see in our plan uh the rear of lots if you can zoom in a little bit uh Delilah the rear of lots four and five the subdivision boundary uh for the rear of those lots is outside of the wetland buffer or sorry outside of the wetland uh that was delineated the class two wetland and that's that's the reason um the lots are situated the way they are um we'll get into how that affects the lot ratio um later on okay um any comments from the board or Marla staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant their management plan and request they provide a written management plan suitable for recording in compliance with 9.06 b3 at the next stage of review yeah and we're fine providing a maintenance plan uh the the major component uh since we are surrounded by a wetland on three sides typically is to delineate that wetland buffer with a do not disturb uh split rail fence and that's likely how we will um that will be the major component of our management plan okay to the wetland okay any comments from the board uh next staff recommends the board ask the applicant whether they have had discussions with the state wetlands program regarding access to the southeast side of lot one if such an access may be permissible staff recommends the board require the applicant to design the project to allow for such a future connection if no such connection will be permitted by the state wetlands program staff recommends the board direct the applicant to substantiate this claim at the next stage of review I would like to just kind of clarify this um Delisle can you zoom into the location map in the top right of that page give me a second so you can see here that this um let me see this is Sadie Lane oh that's a terrible choice of color let me take a different color um so Sadie Lane and then wind swept um and then farther up obviously there's the potential to connect to sider mill and then sider mill connects on up um so the idea being that this was sort of these other roads were designed to create a secondary corridor um and then there's this big wetland complex sort of in this area so if this project is built um it will preclude if these homes are built here it'll preclude this connection from being made but that may be okay because of the wetlands um so the question is just um what's what's been the applicant's conversation with the wetlands program is that clarified yep yeah I would the only thing I would add to that is the the end of dorset heights that cul-de-sac that ties into sider mill that's that's currently a bike path I'm unsure whether that's an actual right away or not but um you know I don't believe a future connection is planned there so um you know I think I'm sorry you're right yeah you're right it's actually this road I think oh not drawing anymore it's got a link road probably this one yeah yeah you're right good but uh regardless so we haven't uh met with the state um about crossing that wetland you know it is a pretty extensive class to wetland it is very wide at that point um you know we are crossing the same wetland uh or we are not but the same wetland has been crossed on Sadie Lane um autumn hill road windswept road that's three significant crossings of the same wetland within a thousand feet so I'm not uh I'm not hopeful that they would allow us to cross that wetland um um but we're willing to make the uh the contact and uh provide evidence of that at the next stage of the process okay moving on number six staff recommends the board asked the applicant to describe why oops they selected their proposed lot configuration and if no connection across the wetland is possible whether a configuration of two narrow north to south oriented lots with homes near to Sadie Lane would work staff consider such a configuration would result in better compliance with multiple provisions of the ldr including lot ratios and building orientation other advantages include that the homes would be able to have living spaces instead of garages facing southwest likely to have the best views and the home on lot five would be within 150 feet of a public road avoiding the need to install a sprinkler system yep so uh the lots are oriented the way they are they're both facing uh Sadie Lane not only one only has frontage on Sadie Lane we understand that but this lot configuration maximizes the building area of the two lots there's very little building area because we're bound by wetlands on three different sides and in our opinion uh orienting the lots north south um the way the buildable area um that we're showing here is is situated the lots would be facing kind of the curve of of Sadie Lane but but more facing the single family lots on the eastern side of Sadie Lane and as well as you know in addition to that they are uh you know they are they would be very narrow uh lots you know obviously there's single family lots that will have setbacks to deal with and uh those typical you know issues that that eat up space and in our opinion uh doing north south lots here doesn't work as well for us Marla thoughts um you know this is sort of a genuine question wondering what the thinking was okay it does solve a lot of the issues but I think Brian kind of outlined it creates some others what does the board think about you know the balance of this like you know the homes facing on the street is going to be in the new regulations um for all zoning districts not just the sq right now it's in the sq um obviously you know there's some other advantages that are described in staff staff comments but then there's some disadvantages that Brian just described as well I would say also is is oriented the street I mean that they are oriented towards Sadie Lane they just don't have frontage or not you know directly I would consider lot five maybe a flag lot you know something you might see you know that's that's in south village you know where um you kind of have a lot behind the other one it doesn't necessarily have frontage but it's still oriented to the street and and another issue that the staff report raises is the one to two uh lot ratio that that typically likes to be seen in a PUD in the sq and I know in the past we've uh or the drp has allowed um that to be met on an overall basis um and we we have plenty of area behind these lots to make the one to two lot ratios work and our earlier renditions of these plans did show much deeper lots towards the cider mill um but we're also trying to um comply with these draft planning commission regulations and I think this is one of those things that will have to be worked out with the board if in fact this is an adopted regulation is how does that affect these lot ratios um now you know now that you can't well now that you're you're not um not not required but you're you're not you know uh supported to subdivide within the within the wetland area you know that can severely affect lot size even though obviously we have plenty of land that we would be happy to include with these lots but um we're trying to do our best to satisfy frankly draft regulations so that that's the purpose uh for that so question um Ryan you mentioned that one of the reasons for orienting the houses the way you've shown is to avoid I think you said a view corridor with the houses on the east side of Sadie Lane is that correct yeah not a view corridor is in like an overlay district but they would be facing the homes I feel they would be more facing the homes on the eastern side of Sadie Lane than Sadie Lane itself especially uh the eastern or would be an eastern of the two north south lots could we see either on this site plan or something else where those houses are oh right yeah okay they're not in the uh let's see if we look ahead so this ortho was taken in likely 2013 or 2018 I think I tried to look for this too and it wasn't in the yeah it's recent construction so I don't know are the uh are the butters is uh is Catherine uh uh on the call or I guess I'm less interested in seeing an ortho than I am just having an indication on the site plan of where they are right yeah we can definitely add those um for sure or even even just now if Marla or Delilah could sketch um the homes huh yeah honestly I didn't have a chance did have you been out there Delilah I was right I mean I approved I approved a home on this lot last year so I'm here right up at the front constructed um and up front there's there's some home spacing this way um this is a pond um but yeah it's it's I wouldn't want to draw to get it get it inaccurate Delilah can you move your cursor a little further north just to the eastern extent of what I'm showing for Sadie Lane you can see one of the houses that has been controlled yeah right there so yeah I know there's a a wetland to the east there too so I would anticipate you know extrapolating where that home is um you know something similar the the two lots that I am showing one they and Brian's correct because they they all have to be sort of forward in these lots because of um some there's some preserved space back here in that development am I correct in interpreting this that there is not any foliage in between that would screen the views that would be correct yep I believe there's a hedgerow right now you can see there's a bike path that runs on the south side of Sadie Lane all the way in the Cedar Mill so there is a bike path and just looking at Google Earth it does look to be some um some sort of hedgerow there but I couldn't tell you the extent of it I think that would be helpful information this is Brendan Connolly so in that section of our property line there there's a split rail fence with bob wire currently and there's the vegetation consists only of brush so there's there's no substantial trees that are in that location okay thank you and then to speak on the the house sites there um it is in that the front so to the to the left of that text box is is where that the homes would would be located okay thank you thanks any other questions about that Brian where were you headed with that thought with those questions and your thoughts on it Brian yeah well just you know I think that if there was some screening I would be less persuaded by the need the Oriental houses this way to you know kind of mitigate visual impacts to the existing houses but if it's just brush and I can see the need to mitigate those impacts good point yeah any other questions of the applicant before I move on I got a comment or question more of a comment I guess I guess one comment I would say is that you know given the fact that these two new lots four and five are bounded on three sides by wetlands this pretty much is the extent we can imagine or assume of development for this this section of the the site one thing that concerns me is that with the the houses sort of having this kind of orientation and I know you're just showing a building footprint or building envelope but if this is sort of the intended orientation it kind of goes against the rest of the pattern language of the development on city lanes you know turning it sort of 35 or 40 40 degrees they're going to feel like I guess anomalies in that little pocket development and there's no further you know chance to expand on this so part of me wonders if you know doing more of the two to one and going into the wetlands and orienting these so they sort of feel like they're more extensions of the the other houses on city lane continuing down here but on a private drive might tie this neighborhood together a little bit better yeah that's something we'd be fine with mark have them facing uh west you're saying yeah yep yep so they kind of continue down you know the which one is um you know the property of Catherine Marcella you know the houses sort of continue down in that sort of you know pattern i'm not sure if you're going to be able to have it be in line with it given the wetland buffer yep you know at least in that orientation so it's sort of just continues down to the south yeah yeah that wouldn't be a problem that they'd match the ones that were just constructed on jobs johnson's way also on the other side of the wetland too right you know i think you kind of need to look at this as finishing off whatever can be developed and they're not as its own little standalone to your development yep yep yeah that would work okay um any other discussion about that staff comment okay comment number seven staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant what protection measures will be provided to prevent encroachment of lawn areas into the wetland buffers yeah i think i touched on that already so we're uh we're we're gonna propose split rail fence like the state and the city likes to see on the wetland buffers okay can i ask a question about that yep um my question is for Delilah no sorry yeah Delilah how has that been working have you seen a lot of violations or anything um i haven't seen any violations i've seen them you know when they're they're installed and going in they also typically have signage that state that you know this is the wetland natural area um to communicate so i haven't i haven't gotten complaints that that they're missing or or you know not keyed it concludes the staff comments um so i would turn to the board first and ask if anyone has any other questions or input or comments for the applicant and then we'll see if there's any um members of the public who want to comment board no i'm good don't okay all right uh anyone else have anything to say speak now okay are there any members of the public that want to make comments about this project proposal i don't see any in the chat box for this so um hearing none i think we can uh conclude the sketch plan and um ask you to go back to the drawing board and think about some of the feedback you've been given and look at the ldr's and uh maybe we'll see you again in the future thank you very much thank you to the board and uh everyone have a good evening thank you you too yep appreciate your time thank you made it before ten thank you so much thank you okay um we have um a couple more items on the agenda uh the number nine is the minutes of the february 17th 2021 um drb meeting has everyone had a chance to look at those i will move acceptance of those minutes do i hear a second a second and all in favor of approving the minutes of february 17th 2021 say i i i opposed okay thank you are you abstaining are you i um if i can vote then i'll say i the last agenda item is other business so can we uh can we go back into deliberative sessions for two minutes after this i just had a thought on what we were discussing that brian brought up before okay uh do we do that by using the former link or do we just stay here we'll just stay here um so if there's no other business we can conclude the meeting and stop reporting and then i will lock the meeting and go into deliberations okay i'm looking although that are not members of the board that are showing up as being in the meeting now right so once the meeting is closed i will kick them out and then lock the meeting okay it's like they're vacating hey what did you say it looks like they're vacating as we speak well it's such riveting content you know it's voluntarily or involuntarily it's gonna happen only marla knows the answer to that all right so we are concluded at 945 thank you everybody we have to have a motion to conclude are the meeting of no okay okay we are now in deliberative session now just a second while we stop recording