and accessories structure for licensed non-residential daycare use expanding the parking area and changing the mix of uses 916 Shelburne Road. This was sketched last time right? Okay who is here for the applicant? Robert and Trisha Davis are here and several other folks. Okay anybody else here for the applicant? Just for the applicant first. Catherine Lange, architect at Freeman Frontryman. Thank you anybody else for the applicant? Yep Paul Bovera engineering ventures, site engineer for the project. Okay thanks anybody else for the applicant? Yep Paul Simon. Yep. Alright thanks who would like to start off with an overview and then we'll get into go walk through the staff comments. I think Robert or Teresa would you like to give an overview of the project? You can do it. Keep in mind we have a pretty full agenda and we have seen this in sketch. You know it's um existing educational facility with child care use and what we're looking to do is expand that to the actually going to demo the carriage house and then replace it with a new structure approximately the same size but we're going to actually move that new structure accessory building three feet west so we can get it out of the setback and then expand the parking area and then add plantings and you know provide the program for the Davis Studios there. The program is already there from what I understand it's already in the current building with approximately 20 students but it'll it'll move from that building to the accessory building and have I believe 26 students if I'm not mistaken. Okay so we got quite a few staff comments so what I'll card to do is go obviously I won't read them in the board here. Okay first comment page three regarding the traffic overlay district again there's the we had the traffic reviewer temporarily without a public works director. I'm gonna interrupt for just a second while Delilah pulls up so around noon today Paul sent us eight his responses and writing. Okay so again this PM Picar of the D Appendix B so there's the response I guess if you want to summarize that you don't need to read it. Yeah we can actually let's read at least this is the first time we've all seen it let's let's take 30 seconds to read that here so take a minute here. All right I see the comment there members you've had an opportunity to read it Paul you want to add anything to that comment I'm I guess my quick question was how does I get the point that the earlier closing in pickup time is the IT 565 say have standardized pickup times and now this is a slight deviation there. Yeah so it's usually PM peak hour that we're looking at so the PM and AM peak hours so if you're off-center on the peak hours you would make an adjustment to that. Okay right and although it is a licensed child care facility and they have you know that age range the pickup is like a school hour pickup around 3 o'clock so it's not you know at that PM peak hour of 5 o'clock. Gotcha. So I have some questions about this this was a big scramble on our part to kind of deal with this coming in today because we thought this was a big deal but the this property has a trip limit of 26 trips and if the applicant goes over that they have to so it's if they go over it it's a big it's a big deal and the initial assessment from BFJ is that it will have an enforcement arm to go out and make sure that the child care facility is never open past 3 p.m. So whether that is that it's being used for a different program at 3 p.m. and therefore they could physically never have both groups of children there at the same time or if it's because you know some restriction put on them by Act 250 who does have an enforcement arm or something but if it's former and it's because there's a after school program happening then I would argue that the after school trips would have to be added in and so I think basically what I'm saying is that this needs some more some more work between staff and the applicant and then we can kind of propose a solution. Yeah either way we're going to need you know there's going to be another dialogue on this continuing at the next meeting and the next week or two as more data gets any other comments from board members I don't quite understand why 3 o'clock is a magic number. I mean peak hour is starts at five right or what time is it? What is peak hour? Four to six so if they're if they pick up is at three then they're missing peak and they're not contributing to peak traffic. All right so if we said if we simply had a condition that everybody had to be out of there by 3.45 well to use your phrase our conditions then we are with a major developer what we simply put in the condition in the condition that we then have dubious enforcement for. I have a question for the applicant can you describe any programming that takes place after three o'clock? That question. Well what I would like to say is that be very comfortable with a conditional approval and if we want to expand our programming we'd be happy to do a traffic study. The school program shall not exceed 16 students. It's getting a little bit into micromanagement details I don't want to get into right now but we know we're gonna let's let's get we got quite a few staff comments so let's circle circle back to this one later any board members have any other additional comment on this issue? Okay let's let's move on. All right the next staff comments page 6. All right again this will be I guess as you keep tweaking the best I can say with this one staff recommends the DRB require the app to communicate with VTrans determining if mitigation is required so I guess to the extent that you're having a dialogue with the consultant and further tweaking these numbers that you guys coordinate with VTrans to get some feedback as soon as you can. I did receive a letter of intent from VTrans so VTrans has said that they intend to approve this project. Okay thanks. All right any board members are going to comment on item 2? All right number 3 regarding access and circulation. This is providing safe access to a budding properties road to provide connectivity for users or vehicle. I would like to address that. Typically when people are coming into the property and they are not driving in they actually access through the Lindenwood there's a little gap in the hedge there and so a lot of times people are coming from the bike on bike from the bike paths that come past Farrell Park and or if they're walking it's just much safer for them to access there so we think the way the natural traffic works it makes more sense to have a pathway from the carriage house to that gap in the hedge in Lindenwood and that would be just the way that people are currently using that. In addition when we do take kids to the park that is the direction that we would go as opposed to walking straight out to Shelburne Road which is really busy and heavily trafficked and around. Is there any kind of formalized path there now with bark or gravel or anything? There's an old that was a partial driveway and so for maybe a third of the way. Okay sorry sorry about that. I did not add that to the plan I thought we'd discuss it looking at the plan because the staff comment was about getting it out to Route 7 and like you said Theresa might make better sense for the neighborhood and the bike connections and you know if we were to do this did that gravel stone dust path between the two buildings just go north so that that's your thought correct? Yes that would meet the function of the property best. Marla I guess I have a question for you because only because I'm this is a little I haven't seen this one in a while this this provision or put it in the is the does the does the main building in the center of the lot have a sidewalk connection to Shelburne Road? It does not. Does not so why would we require it for the carriage house? Because this rule wasn't in place when the main building was built. Okay so there's no retrofit requirement like when somebody comes back in we always make them get a bike path so why don't we? No this one only applies if they change more than 35% of the street facing facade. Okay all right board members thoughts on this? So I drew a little purple line where I think that Paul you were talking about and actually yes that's correct have the ability to draw two. Board members so Marla you're telling me we don't the regulations don't require us to require them to provide a connection out to Shelburne Road correct? Because they're not okay. That's not what I'm saying. Oh what are you saying? Sorry things are too many things are opening. So I'm gonna go back to the staff. That's all right. So in this case the urban design overlay would require a sidewalk connection to Shelburne Road because they the new building is not in the urban design overlay it set back that element would not be required. The applicable thing here is provide safe access to budding properties for motorists cyclists and pedestrians including safe site distances separation distances and we just have to form this is Jim I mean I think being living connected as abutting properties this language apply there needs to be access to every single abutting property. Well that's another staff comment and the environment the connections between commercial properties be provided. Right I'm just looking at this whole language this would imply this language in number seven would imply that you need a path on all four points of the compass but all right thanks yeah I like the idea of the path and it embraces make some connectivity with the neighborhood the sidewalk which is nice and yeah I like that potential solution so all right let's keep moving on here to number four on page eight staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to attain a preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to closing the hearing and obtain a grease interceptor permit prior to issuance of a zoning permit. I'll speak to that. Thank you Paul. Yeah so we have we now have the water allocation from JNADO so we're good on that one and for wastewater and water for that matter we're this project our grace reduced flows so it's reduced demand on this so it's really a bookkeeping exercise. I talked to Tom DiPetro about both the grease trap the grease trap and the in the general wastewater allocation requirements so we have some submitted applications for those again it's a reduction in demand so there really shouldn't be any issue with that Tom was okay with the the grease grease trap as as included already in the building so the water allocation has been approved. Okay great thank you and you'll be able to get that grease interceptor permit. Yeah we've already talked to Tom DiPetro about that and you didn't have any issue with what's there so I'd hope that the hearing does not be held for that but we should have those things all coming in soon. Okay thank you board members. I'm okay with all those responses in the direction it's going right now. Okay all right moving on to item 5. Regarding staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to provide further information regarding the dumpsters and associated fencing before closing in the hear the where that green text there you go perfect. All right take a minute to read that in 30 seconds. Adjacent to each other your commercial lots to provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. The LDR's will go on to that is the only abutting commercial property is located to the south and staff considers this criterion is not met for that property. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide on the plans a recorded 20 foot cross lot easement to the east of the stormwater treatment area on the site to the benefit of the adjacent property to the south personal ID 1540-00930. If such a connection were appropriate in the future require reconfiguration of the parking spaces proposed in that location and let's take us 30 seconds to read the green response. Yeah she's going to bring it up here I'll take a look at the green here. Language. All right take it 30 seconds to read that if everybody can. Provides the sheet 2.1 it was in the other hand yours. It's in the thing you have open but I have no idea what page it's going to be on. You know what page that might be on in the email you sent. No because he sent it as individual files and I must have all into one. Participants in the meeting can draw on this drawing so you could show the board on this drawing with annotations out where you're talking about. Paul did you want to draw that in? I'm trying to figure out where the drawing tool is there. I think I called annotate. I can describe it while you try to draw it but basically it'll be an L-shaped connection because it needs to continue as a 20-foot easement to the property line along Shelburne Road so that that access is complete. You can't dead-end it basically. So we have it come as a right turn at those first two right the spaces on the right. Of course those spaces on the right are 9 by 18 so we have 2 feet to the west of those spaces as well as part of that easement and then back up for me. What corner are we in the southwest corner essentially? Yes. Yeah so I haven't figured out how to draw on this yet. I think we found it so Delilah is just going to pull it up just a second. Okay yeah yeah so I mean although it's unlikely that this southern property owner is going to use this this connection because you know there's more likely to be traffic stacked up in front of this driveway then. Board members any comment on this? It's pretty straightforward. This is regarding the parking angles. The applicant is proposing to make the parking stalls exactly the minimum width and length required. It meets the aisle width by exceeding it by two feet. If the applicant were to meet the specific requirement there would be two feet less pavement on the site which would move the parking area two feet farther from a butters to the south. Staff recommends the board discuss reducing the width of the aisle to increase distance from the butters and reducing total impervious surface. Yeah go I'll give you go ahead Paul. Sure I can speak to that a little bit. So the existing drive already is really wide so what we did was maintain that in our first design and then we then we received the staff comment and so because we're repaving anyway it does make sense to pull that back but you can even see that island I guess between the two single lots there has has grown as well. So we're actually creating more green space and if you zoom in a little bit there where that C-17 is or the snow storage areas there you can see the old pavement location is three or four feet you know there so we're actually creating more green space as suggested by staff along that south side so you know we're even moving it up more than what what's existing now. Just to be clear with staff the 26 feet provided of the 24 feet is a minimum right? It's a standard drive aisle width. Yeah. If you had 26 feet you'd notice. Yeah. So if if you're repaving the lot anyway and putting them on and paving are you adverse to reducing another two feet and gaining more green space and less. I guess we want to go back to the comments section so based on the provided floor fans and proposed uses the applicant is not meaning when the requirements for either short term or long term bicycle parking are for closed lockers no showers or changing facilities are required staff recommends board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide the required bike parking and closed locker prior to closing the hearing. Let's see if you could all right so there is if you can blow that that'd be great because I'm blind without my glasses thank you. All right so the short term parking is meant with the use of the existing 10 space bike rack okay there it is. Yeah that's not that doesn't mean our regulations. The photo you mean or the bike rack itself. The bike rack itself. So Mala doesn't need to be secured or why why wouldn't it meet the regulations? Yeah Zolaela can explain she just had her mic off. Yeah we for existing bike racks that don't meet the current standards for the approved type of bike racks and the regulations we can give credit for existing but for these old-timey school style racks we can give since this one's so long typically if it's like a shorter one you have to be able to lock your bike frame to the rack which is why these aren't as useful as a U frame a few U style racks so you can lock a bike to one end by its frame and you can lock a bike to at the other end by its frame and since this is so long you could we could give you credit for a third bike parking space because you could lock a bike across that long. I think it'd be four right? Or four. You'd have to move it away from the wall. If they staggered, well I would say one on each side and then one on each end. But it'd have to be moved away from the wall and it would have to be secured.  So we could grant you credit for four bicycle parking spaces with this one rack but you would still require others. Okay so the condition would be we can use it but we got to move it away from the wall a little bit and we need to secure it to the ground. Yes so for short term they're required to have four for a long term they're required to have two long term is secured and protects the bike fully from the elements so I think they had a response to that as well. All right looks pretty straightforward board members. Yeah so it sounds like with the as long as they move that existing rack away from the wall and affix it to the ground they meet the short term parking requirement of four and their test find they're going to provide the two long term and a changing locker so I'm fine with their meeting of the condition. Can I ask a question? Is the you say within the ground floor level of the stair tower of primary building see landscape plan so if I look at the landscape plan we don't have to do it right now but I'm going to do trust and verify here. If I look at the landscape plan it's going to show me how you're going to get two bikes parked there. We will we can no we can provide you no we we will provide you an internal plan of that Catherine's here she could speak to that but we will provide a mock-up of that it's just the best place because it's got a ton of room and space for at least two bikes so we can we can fit it. Delilah and it's next to the short term condition to demonstrate that the long term okay so we could yeah we could do that as a condition all right thank you moving right along to number nine the applicant has provided for no interior landscaped islands includes a total 44 spaces this criterion has not been met staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to provide plans with at least 10 percent of interior of the parking lot with landscaped islands this could include landscaping replacing proposed parking spaces as long as they meet the 10 percent requirement staff recommends the landscape islands being located to preserve existing mature trees sure you want me to read it go ahead you you can read it well while we look at the plans there so part of you know the requirement for interior landscape islands so you know we don't we don't have either of those so and and we've also like staff recommended push this seven so that's more than 28 those aren't you know it's contiguous it's in that row so the words contiguous the word is contiguous and it means the parking area you don't get to count one side and then the other side it's that parking area is 15 plus 11 plus six so how would you fit an interior island in a single I would be happy to draw on it hang on let me annotate it with something like that where those three part maybe not those three that's a terrible example those three become a parking lot island and those two become a parking lot island and you put your trees yeah that so the diagram you have in the regulations 13-4 rates what an interior internal landscape island is and what in what what's required based on Kathleen Ryan um did a kind of a mocked up version of what that would be for an internal island and it's definitely not what you just drew it's well I can tell you that there are years and dozens of examples of precedent of that being an interior parking lot island and this being how the regulations are interpreted either so how would this possibly be implemented if it had to be literally I mean I'm not objecting if if there were room in this parking lot you know whatever just hold on a second Robert let me just hear from more of the board members on this mark you got something on this yeah yeah I'll just say that you know again I think we can review we can interpret we can I guess for lack of better would argue what contiguous parking spaces um defines I just I'm kind of with Marlon is that in in my 15 years on the board you know we have always reviewed the number you know they're they're contiguous with a common aisle as well so you know you've got you know more than 28 fault it needs to be broken up with 10 landscape islands so you don't have just that a field of asphalt in an area that's larger than 28 spaces so I hear I see where Marlon's you know coming from and that's the way we've always looked at them from a board standpoint any other board members yeah this is Jim I guess I'm feeling the sense um so I mean I that's not 28 contiguous and there's there's one lane so I don't I I'm not seeing it as a requirement okay any other board members I think it'd be a real loss if we went that direction hold on hold on we'll get there are the other board members well I I'm not I didn't write the I don't feel this one that's open to interpretation yeah I'll dive in on this so having seen this in South Burlington both on a while serving on the DRB and then in prior experience pinch hitting in the town city office um yeah this has always been the principle around this regulation and we've we've applied it to the city has applied it to numerous developments um for this exact exact reason um and so the the practice as well as the understanding that has always been held up is that yeah you have the point is so you don't have a sea of asphalt they are can just just as Washington is part of the contiguous for lower 48 even though Florida is the other way around you know this is all it's the same situation so I'm not going to get into the if you want to challenge the decision of the board on this you know feel free and then maybe then the Supreme Court would weigh in on the definition of what is a contiguous parking space but the common practice here as well as other municipalities with similar type of language about the the principle of breaking it up with with islands and and plan things and things like that is for that exact reason and 28 uh spaces is the threshold level uh we're not talking 29 spaces where it's six and six or whatever that is I can't quite see um so that's my understanding of it you know so I think I think it is not unreasonable to interpret contiguous here to mean not separated by any green space or substantial structure yeah which is which is in fact how it's been interpreted for years according to Mark who's been around to know that interpretation if for no other reason than on the basis of precedent and because it's not unreasonable so what you're saying is you can have a double loaded parking lot with 27 spaces 54 space and that's a large parking lot you know so I mean that's where the nature of you know when the 28 I think is you know once you're below it's basically saying a 14 by 14 above a 14 by 14 on both sides once you get above that you have to have landscape islands and that's reasonable well that that parking area including both sides in the at the aisle depending how you cut the at the end is around you know under 11,000 like 10,800 square feet so if we took a parking space worth and and did a landscape island we'd we'd be good there I think we'd have to see what we'd have to see how it how it works out um 162 square feet just yeah something like that is this uh the overall bus how many actually the things and it feels like there's ambiguity in those regs but but I accept your if you if you want us to put an island in great I would just say that um it's it's frustrating because if you look at the front and we've been around this before there's like what is it six spaces in the front if we were allowed to expand that existing parking by like eight feet or something we could double up the parking in the front but because of your no parking in the front of the building and and and when we expand it it would be in that little grass strip to Shelburne Road like that doesn't make a lot of sense to me except for your concern about not letting us do something and setting a precedent and parking in the front it's not a practical thing but I'm just I guess I'm whining about it and I apologize but it is kind of not pragmatic well and I did want to just say there are already some islands that exist in the in the parking lot currently so probably we would just be leaving one of those if or both yeah I think you can see it there in the bottom or something like that little the bottom center of the area I think we probably leave leave you know a piece of one it's basically a knife a width or something like that and create a an island that you put a tree in one space be kind of a compromise all right yeah what we've always asked for is just you know you work with Marlin you show the calculations and Marlin said checks off a box thing yeah can I jump in a little bit and this is why I think it may it may have been precedent all along but you have been calculating the total number of spaces and then determining you know you know 10% of that for these internal islands but I mean Paul you just said it's about 10,800 square feet yeah divide that by 10% right so 10% requirement that's 1,800 and then divide that by your 162 because you got 162 square feet right dropped it dropped an extra zero oh sorry yeah no you're right but isn't that seven spaces yeah that's a bunch yeah island between the six spaces okay thanks we've turned this ground over many times over board members anymore on this and I'll throw my colleagues under the bus we don't write the regs we just interpret them so but hold the city council does not hold that against me so and the planning commission though it it's hard because you try to ride a rag to do the best you can but there's always things that don't quite fit especially with redevelopment of a property so okay uh city arborist had some comments let's take a minute to read the response they're on number one recommend planting dogwoods and coneflower further edge so there's the response take a minute to read that planning area okay all right the next one should include more detailed tree protection plan response tree protection okay okay the last one unless landscape credit is being given to preserving existing trees the landscape value seems high all right I'm going to read the response okay so staff's response to this was just about number one because the other things are sort of discussed elsewhere okay so so the comment was number one planting of dogwoods and coneflower should be farther off with the additional vehicle drive with they are farther off so you're okay with that now they're moved farther away okay all right board members anything on this all right yeah let's take a minute to digest number 11 if you can scroll up just a little bit more I don't know how much more green there is okay all right um this is regarding the one major deciduous tree staff recommends the drb require additional major deciduous trees be planted in the areas to comply with this criterion all right let's take a minute to read that response thanks that's perfect staff did you have any comments on this I think that they have provided a plan that they should show you okay that'd be great I'm gonna pop that plan up there I found it's on page 35 nope 34 I lied totally lied hmm so we've adjusted the landscape schedule as well to show that as well and you can see we showed where the short term park bike parking is and and you can see where the stair tower is is where where um what what we're asking is to get some credit on a perimeter landscaping for the existing trees that are around the perimeter of the parking lot so in front of the primary building as well um and what we did is choose a variety that's more columnular in shape so it doesn't branch out too much to to hit the building facade okay and just for clarity only because I noticed there were public comment about this can you describe any existing mature trees that are proposed to be removed yes there obviously we've got grading and storm water and swales and then handicap accessibility the old grades and if you've passed the primary building to get back to the the existing carriage house what we're doing to provide ADA accessibility we have the grade I think that first tree that's closest to the south is probably 28 feet well you can see I threw some dimensions on there too like the old hardwood whips and uh very strong cedar hedge that's along that south property line as well and um that is you can see there's a 15 foot offset or there's a line there it's actually just as big as that so that's already there and then there's pictures that I've included in the responses too to show how robust the existing landscaping already is in this area so there's already that um and so all that perimeter landscaping and all those pictures that you'll see in those staff responses are plantings and trees that exist that are going to still remain the the yeah all those are that's the cedar hedge that's that's pretty dense there's crab apples in front of it um that'll all stay that's along the south side that'll that's another view of the city line actually straddles between those two fences both fences are going to stay those trees are going to stay um and we're not counting like those trees along this as perimeter tree landscaping for the parking lot we're counting the trees that are these side right there so and we're that that's going to stay just like everything you see there is going to stay so um and that's that's the east side behind the existing carriage house so what will happen here those trees will stay of course um and the carriage house now will uh be conforming right well almost three it's a little less than that we just went the three feet i think it was 2.7 or something like that this one's in violation of the setback so or you know grandfather it's non-conforming so the new building will be over more and no i should know if there are you could use to we will provide a chance for public comment after we get through these staff comments and analysis and a lot of board feedback so applicant feedback to staff comments and discussion of each critical point of contention then we open them up for public comment so okay and if you have a chance to sign in on the back there on that little sheet uh on the on the back table there by the door yep that'd be great and you can just read okay so thank you for that photos and description that helps so and and that's one of the pines was numbered to the far eastern end of the parking lot and the existing digit tree proposed pertains should be increased to provide greater protection for that existing tree so here we're talking about um there's well can you get up a site plan quickly that was 35 yeah um so on the far right hand side of the page um here we're talking about um so they're proposing to retain that one right on the eastern edge there is in green existing perimeter decision tree to remain that one right so that one would remain the two the two just north of that are the two pines and those two would go and then the the next one the fourth one right is an existing pine that's young enough that can stay the problem with the pines when they're close to one another like that they grow they're they're not branching they're they're not well branching because they're competing with one another right so the comment here was that this parking area yeah oh sorry close to that tree but it looks like you've moved it so by paul blauvera who is the civil engineer but it's a thought like we don't need the 24 foot width completely to be the bump out the you need a back end space right to turn around and and then leave i i just think we can reduce that in half to 12 feet or so i so the when when we say so i'm also trying to um save as many parking spaces as we can um for the needs of the facility i i think this is a a pretty good idea here to actually expand 12 feet north and still provide plenty of pavement away if we can do it in this fashion okay quick so if i'm seeing this correctly on the eastern edge where it says six fourth synthia shrubs in light gray that are just to the east of the edge would be removed am i reading that correctly right in the little one there's kind of three right there okay so that little one no that one would stay okay the first one you x'd out would stay the two just sat there's there's three of them right there the two so between what we're trying to do is provide room for the existing trees that are going to stay i got you so that they have healthy branching so yes it's those two got you thank you um parlor does that address your comment number 12 okay board members any more comments about this landscaping we got to keep cranking here just so that also increases their landscape island calculation yep right so hopefully that all can be tweaked accordingly yeah all right i'm going to keep moving on here um 13 staff recommends drb require applicant to indicate the boundaries the snow storage area and provide snow storage storage not coincident with stormwater treatment or conveyance i see the snow storage there oh we we have that on um one of the civil sheets provided address that i think it's the yes c 2.1 2 1 as it page 31 thanks who's doing that delilah all right thank you delilah thank you all right so the sheet flow is not going to go through that how's the stormwater getting into that area you can't quite see the inlet for the uh i mean you know snow storage is a challenge i know especially because it's difficult to enforce you know um yeah robert and charisa aren't necessarily going to be there when their plow person shows up yeah yeah and you got the play area in the back yeah you pretty much kind of got the snow storage areas where you got them um and we don't require any like the fence posts or boulders or you know nice things to block the plows i have an idea um sorry paul for designing your project for you but it does occur to me that you were just saying that front parking area is sort of too narrow to be double loaded but too wide to be single loaded could snow storage occur in that extra pavement you could probably do that you'd have to be moving the snow at that point and if you're moving the snow physically you maybe put it somewhere else too you're actually gonna load it use a loader do we have do we have our approved language to the extent feasible operators shall not hey yeah i mean we could just say you know the top left and the far right or approved snow storage areas and the ones on the bottom have to be removed from the plants and if they and it'll say in the decision snow shall not be stored in stormwater treatment or conveyance areas well so the c-17s are yeah that's the snow storage area is there is there room in that c-1 parking lot to put a little more snow in there or something i don't know there's plenty from what i guess marl is saying is that the the cloud that's going north south could widen a little bit into the parking spaces and you'd still park there right i mean you'd just be you'd be heading into where the snow pile is between the back of the parking space to the walkways significantly large i think it's 150 i think it's 50 feet from well from to the east side of the dumpster i don't really have a problem with it's relatively small and whatnot but it does seem odd to have that big blob of c-17 right next to well if you can work find something more workable that'd be better at least that's my point any board members any more thoughts on that one right i guess no you got the feedback any of there uh moving on to item 14 the adjacent public streets are shelburn road and lindenwood drive the proposed carriage house building screens the parking from lindenwood drive from shelburn road the parking is not screened and opportunities for further screening exist so staff recommends the drb required to provide screening from shelburn road which will also address some of the deficits in the landscape budget below is there that magic landscape plan with the green that might be helpful whatever if that's the indeed the revised stuff that was sent okay there we go so we've added a row i believe what what the staff comments were on top actually pretty durable they're native too but um yeah i mean we the thing is we can move if they can't survive a pile of snow and they don't deserve to be in vermont so right because it it you know makes a little more attractive to the passerby and otherwise it's sort of a random green space in between the sidewalk arborist typically recommends 10 feet between the edge of pavement and the landscaping for snow storage okay we can do that sounds clear information to anyone sounds great yeah yeah you could put two rows of blueberries in there and expect to see enough existing plants i mean i went back out there to document trees that were six inches or greater in diameter and then i picked up a few more that are less than that but there's a lot like the the cedar hedge for instance on the south side that is that's significant but it's not like yeah so we're not picking up like okay there's a there's a there's a tree here a tree here a tree here a tree here yeah because it's all it's it's mature it's grown into one another and it's it's there so on the survey it's kind of that cloud that you see so you keep sending into the base hold on i was like dolla could you go to the one that was also a concern of some of the public comment too well you kind of had it there in the previous one yeah there go up one a little bit more yeah so you get that one yeah um and so my observation on this would be that the board has in the past rely on retention of existing compliance with criteria because okay adjoining property owners that are not subject to site plan review could cut down their trees at any time okay um so just something to keep in mind as you carry on this conversation okay the comments submitted that you put in green text can we see those for item 15 so we can read them carefully and if you can blow it up a little bit that'd be great oh it's all the photos there okay i got you here i know it's burling too you can ask out anyway all right uh let's take a minute to read this all right um okay okay board members any thoughts on this board members so staff just to be clear not nothing they're proposing is relying on the adjoining property owners maintaining landscape right or do you feel it's adequate or i i was having a difficult time telling from the photos i think some of because i was looking um on my own screen at the landscaping plan at the same time and i think some of the things that they're showing are on adjoining property like the big thick section of cedar hedge i think is not adjacent to the parking area or sorry like adjacent to the play area and that's on their property and then as you go farther down i think yeah go back up to where the blue thing was that one i think that's the screening between this property and the adjoining property by the play area that we're referring to in this staff comment where it talks about um and this okay so if properties are just similar then they should be screened from one another right and once we use some of the adjoining property you're not dissing a lot thank you board members any comment on 16 all right we're going to run along okay um plugins provided plans do not show an exterior lighting exist on the site it does include the lighting fixture cut sheet but it's unclear where it will be installed list number 17 stack of commands clarity one of the lighting fixtures proposed and that no exterior lighting exist or is proposed so wait keep that green go back to that green text we could just read that for a second yeah okay all right thank you so that fixture is non-compliant and will have to be changed out for something that's downcast and shielded the fixture you can keep the the post the post understand that guys you hear that sorry it's cute i like it maybe hey there was going that's not the time back when planners thought that was all the rage it's cute i like it i'm sorry he has to go but um maybe there's a bunch of those too we took up we showed a picture of one but there is several of these and they're shown on the on the landscape plan and the civil plan so maybe there's a way you can put like a shield in it so it keeps so it looks the same on the outside but it's still downcast some tin foil yeah i suppose when it was lit it wouldn't have the same aesthetic so yeah oh it's really cute you can put a different fixture on it um just for clarity you know because i'm there's enough uh you know kind of got cars more cars going in and have no lighting if they wanted but if they do have lighting it does have to be downcast wait we've got a daycare going on and there's no minimum lighting required like parking what about the children going to 330 that's right it was darkness will set in and you can just see a tesla backing them into a minivan we don't got those anymore so all right um okay so i guess we got some work to do on the lighting there board members any more comments on this um so sorry i kind of got distracted by the other lighting fixture um built on the building and there's three of those fixtures yeah those seem fine to me okay and okay so it's just on the building you're not got it sorry just lower over down keep going okay 18 and 18 and the 19 and then we'll get to public comment thank you for your patience um staff recommends the drb require the lighting landscaping and our fencing to provide equivalent screening of a noise light and visual impacts of the new non-residential use to that which will be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements staff considers the application to not currently meet the standard given the lack of buffering landscape or structures along the east and south boundary so let's take a minute to read that response in green below 18 thanks we need to scroll okay just just the text just fits all right let's read this here i can see the issue about the on the east boundary there that's the edge of the parking base but the building itself is really the is that the issue so or the shed or the why delilah was going back up to the standard because the standard i think is important to understand fully here okay um 3.06 i requires um principal buildings to retain a setback of not less than 65 feet um the carriage house is not a principal building it's an accessory building so standard one does not apply okay however standard three says no longer is just about structures it's about expanded orbital uses structures and parking areas um if those things are proposed within the setback as set forth in one which is 65 feet um the board may approve a modification of the width of the setback or a landscape buffer in doing so the board shall find that the lighting will provide equivalent screening then what have would have been provided by a 65 foot buffer um in no case may the setback be reduced people the standard department so it's a little funny 65 feet does not apply to the building however they do need to provide screening equivalent to 65 feet setback and 15 feet of buffer for the use in parking area how do you calculate that what's a what's equivalent it's pretty subjective well you know they got a big secure hedge on the south side right i mean yeah the um the south side is pretty substantial it's the east side and and the use that's being provided here you're all bound by what six o'clock six o'clock at night you're packed up and you go on is that true or not the non-residential use there are there are some evening adult classes so that does happen until about eight o'clock would those be in the main building or in the carriage building yes only in the main there would be nothing in the carriage house in the evening well this seems like a pretty minimal concern we also enhanced the landscape plan to add you know like those shrubs that are on that um east side so when those two pines do are removed we do have shrub plantings that that would go in an air place between the existing trees that'll still run like i understand you moved it three feet away but hypothetically if it was rotated 90 degrees wouldn't that provide a substantial setback ability um handicap accessibility from the parking lot just some of the flow of programming additionally we would be putting a fence attached you know to the to the back for a play area for the kids to walk you know be able to walk right out the door to play so there's just some programming um and flow of the whole campus issues that it makes the most sense for the orientation to be this way so marla is the setback on the east side that's only what 15 feet or something what is that that's 10 10 even a even a budding residential use yep wow board members thoughts on this other board members and and this is considered a side yard or the rear yard this is the side this probably doesn't have any rear yard which is part of why it gets a little weird okay you don't have to pick one side and call it no front and rear okay okay when you don't have when you have multiple fronts the thing that you lose is the rear you don't lose the sides got it what's um that area called d6 in between the two buildings what is that i can't sorry that's hard for me to says remove what does that remove gravel driveway oh between the two buildings yeah between the two buildings yeah yeah bring it back a little bit so the question yeah sure go ahead is whether the use and parking area are sufficiently screened as though they were buffered by 15 data landscaping and 65 um they'll get pretty dense they are deciduous but they are very dense still and i thought they they provide some nice color right at the end of the the drive aisle there when they do bloom but we're open to is there is there any new plantings proposed on the east side of the new building no there's existing trees there um and it's existing trees on the on the subject lot or the abutting lot um both okay and there is a paul i i believe i understand you're great you you create a high point i think at the midpoint of that part of the building and then you you swale this and moves on to our our site correct yeah because we're lower than around the building can we hop to 19 so that we can get some staff put some public comment on this because i think it's germane to our discussion nobody okay with that we'll hop to 19 then come back to 18 all right um the roof standards recommends the board discussed with the apricot how the roof will comply with the standard as far as the um the aprican demonstrates satisfactory compliance requirements to african there's demonstration on the plan it's going to be a condition of approval architect working on this and she can speak to that all right thank you yeah hi um so yes the building roof is solar ready um with all of the commercial building energy standards for roofs walls and so we do comply with the energy standards thanks board members are you okay with the smaller you're good all right yeah board members anything more on this 19 and then let's do your public comment okay so my notes are that um we're going to go back to some things we're going to go back to landscaping landscaping snow storage yep landscaping so in the pocket there are some public comments that were received and then i sent out some more to the board today as well okay let's take our oral public comments that that's okay sure i think that we have people both online and in person okay let's take our person here in person you would like to come up to either the lectern or the table whichever you prefer make a request in sure can everyone who's online who would like to make a public comment kind of give us a little you can ping me in the chat or do like a little hands up or something so that we have a sense of how much time we have yep and turn your camera on too that's helpful as well too and type your name in the chat if you have not done so we'll take the public comment here in the building and then we'll go to the online or maybe staff can help me out who's here so for um we have to swear her in yes no no swearing and probably coming okay if you just want to introduce make sure the little green lights on there put the press little push button so the green light comes on at the bottom of the left yep you got it okay so the the green lights on okay if you want to just introduce yourself and then my name is Sarah Bretzman and I'm at four brewer parkway so I'm on the east southeast corner for you but the perspective from my property looking onto the property one of those and then we'll show it to the board members during their the old and also share I had met with trees were um our kind of the commercial property next door to them that's their their kind of border there so I just wanted to make the the visual clarification more clear about which what the trees look like that are coming down because I don't feel like they're really represented there and um what the impact is from a visual perspective from the neighborhood side of things that is the that is the um the east side looking south yep and um it does not include the large the the large um pines that are going to be taken out there and so you don't actually see those at all in in in any other way over here right I think they'd actually be yeah further up yeah um and then over there's four on one side and two on the other and and then there's a very small small the smallest one is the one that's going to be left and I did I did have a question about um you had said something about the Vermont trans mitigation and Marla and you said it kind of um but I didn't I couldn't hear what you had said oh sure and that's still happening you know my concern is basically um the impact of um those trees coming down um and the impact on the the amount of visibility that the the whole Davis campus will have then how it opens up completely the visibility of all of the so um yeah that's that's basically my my desire is to share the the visual piece of things at this point um so I did have that desire if you want you could just say I sort of if you were same as if you were submitting a letter if you wanted to send that photo to Marla um you could email it to her and we'd enter it into the record so and you have Marla's email address okay that'd be the best thing to do and we'll be able to look at it when we deliberate so I don't see anybody in the chat and I don't believe I see anyone with their hand up so um I guess that's what we have for public comment so um if the board wanted to circle back um alternatively the board can deliberate on these things and have a conversation at their next meeting Marla yes mark um did we want to at least acknowledge the public comments we got via email yeah before we do that hold on a second ma'am did you have one more thing you wanted if you come to the microphone again just so that they hear you and it goes into the record I guess I did have um a question I you said it was subjective about the um the third part of the 3.06 I set back in buffer strip adjacent to the residential district guess I was basic I mean when I when the first sketch meeting happened that when they were discussing what was going to happen there it seemed like the the setback in the buffer um I asked about the trees at that point in time and I was given the um the this this the understanding that those trees would be protected so I didn't I did I was I was a little relieved and I was like okay great this will be out that the trees were coming down and I was actually pretty shocked and so now it seems like to set back some buffer or or dense I even heard the word saw the word dense um here dense evergreens fencing um so I was like oh and it seemed like that um in no case may the required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning district so I so it says in no case but but you but it's also subjective is is that the right way to interpret that idea of those um general provisions so I think this is this is the topic that the board um needs to have some discussion amongst themselves on so um I guess what what I would invite from you if and tell me if I step out of line is you know um thus far I think the board has really keyed in on some of these subjects because of comments that we've received from the public so if there's any parts of the additional parts of the regulations including the ones you just mentioned that you'd like to draw their um porousness of of a commercial I you know situation and and certainly um yes in terms of um the kinds of activity that occurred earlier given it was too to rise mitigation in terms of and um and I've made many comments about what I believe though the level of absorption under underground stream system um would be to continue to um April 5th because I don't think that they really need that much time to uh to get these issues wrapped up board members any thoughts yeah I'm in agreement with that and I think that um it sounds like there's just a few comments that the applicant needs to clarify and provide uh additional 65 foot buffer and I guess what I'd like to see is some additional thought and additional proposal in terms of making sure that it's not getting I I I share Mark's concern on the same point about that that's supposed to 65 foot equivalency truly with the public that subjective seems like a pretty weak standard something someone needs to make an argument someone needs to make a showing that this is somehow under some set of criteria as good at yep I agree um the buffering concern thanks board members I'll just um close this item before we before um we decided to move it to the continuation um yeah this is an interesting one because if this if you know if this were a brand new building and construction and we got the commercial line next to a residential you know we'd have a lot more um robust discussion about this and all because it's been pre-existing it's it's a little more it's a little tricky and I get the use of it it is it's a it's a tire lot and it's that's why I'm inclined with smork I stand the representatives there back and you got the public was the date again April April 5th April 5th is the staff recommendation can we get a motion yeah I'll make a motion that we continue um SB 22007 um DS realty LLC to April 5th second thank you all those in favor of the motion thank you motion carries thank you applicants thank you members of the public and thank you uh consultants moving on item number eight site plan application SB 22-04 of Champlain oil coming to amend a previously approved plan for a mixed use commercial building on an existing 0.6 secure lot the amendment consists of increasing the square footage from 13,818 square footage to 19,018 square footage by adding one and a half stories adding nine residential units and expanding the array of allowed commercial uses 510 Shelburne road uh who is here for the applicant if you could introduce yourself I am my name is Brian Cairns I'm the owner of the parcel okay Lucy there landscape architect you don't consult the engineers thank you Tyler Cody rabbit who architects all right thank you um colon johnson civil engineer should i'll consulting okay it's the first time we've heard them right correct yeah sorry what was your first name again mr johnson uh colon oh thanks all right if you have the applicant and the representatives could raise the right hand and you soundly swear to tell the truth regarding this application under the pains and penalties of perjury okay we do have staff comments on this if somebody would just want to give a quick overview and then we'll dive right in sure i'll do that so we had approval probably back in 2020 for a commercial building similar aesthetics it was a two and a half floor two and a half three floors of commercial office and commercial retail approved on the site back then um with covid and and and cost associated with that to uh delayed us for you know construction season and that gave me time to think about what i how i really wanted to constructed building really wanted in it and and came back with us so in front of you tonight to ask in addition to one additional floor but uh having nine residential units to the commercial uses um previous okay i have a very quick question just to get started and i didn't look at the elevations how would it compare in height with the lighting building across the street or just to the north it would be larger i believe it would be more toward more like the bakery loss behind you behind our parcel it would match the roughly the roof line of that is what you're saying there are perspectives that will give you a good feel of the building okay we'll get into that later then okay thanks that helps all right we're going to dive right into the staff comments there um first one is regarding provision of options to acquire all necessary tdrs from ascending areas part of any application the applicant must provide an option agreement to purchase one tdr equal to 0.83 acres from a designated sending area prior to approval some feedback on that yeah um so i guess one thing marla do you want can i ask one question before we kind of get into the meat of that is that the you know this is a project to amend a previously approved plan so i think one question of clarification we had is if this if this is an amendment to an approved slide to this project does this standard you mean which which regulations are in place we we have actually reduced the coverage from the previously approved site plan in this version so same gotcha i think i understand the question so for the board's benefit when this was approved so this is the site of the former cagals that go there's a little white building there now but all the tanks have been removed applicant is that for a site that is completely redeveloped there is no sort of pre there's no retention of pre-existing nonconformities because the entire site is proposed to be demolished so it was an error for the board to have allowed them to have overall coverage more than the allowable maximum in the zony district because that is one of the three that the big three that the board can't allow waiver of all right thank you for clarifying yeah thanks mama okay thanks just wanted to ask the question all right so um in response to that we have uh we looked at this the staff comment uh we worked with staff and we have identified that another possibility so there's two options we're we're in multiple overlay districts and this is specific to the urban overlay district so there's two options provided in the urban overlay district for additional lot coverage one is tdr's which staff has noted in this report the other option is open space um we have developed you know through through our discussions we determined that the open space option would be the one we would like to pursue at this point and to that end we have provided an updated plan uh to staff today uh with that open space requirement that we'd like the board to evaluate so marla i'm not sure the best way to if we should look at that plan now or what's your recommendation yeah so ours are one option and like lucy said there's an option to do a uh a park instead i think we saw the park when sheer sheer accurate or whatever it was came in um no they did they ended up doing tdr so they're going with park um and that's perfectly fine we had just proposed tdr's because we thought it was going to be easier so the park that they're proposing lucy you can annotate if you'd like but it's sort of towards the top of the page that delisle has showing now yeah i think it's that whole area in marla if i could clarify a little bit to in the board um so you know we we got staff comments last week and we decided you know with the tdr uh that this situation where we had to decide between our or this parklet i mean we had uh if i had an idea of having this out this space uh be used by any retail tenant in that new side of the building not knowing what tenants i'm going to have in that retail spaces uh we thought that maybe going with the parklet now and then keeping the option open that if if in fact i get a retail tenant that wants to use this for outdoor seating for their cafe or whatever that might be that i could maybe possibly go back to you and the board and say you know i'm going to do the tdr instead because it won't be necessarily an open park option at this point i don't know if that's something that could be uh thought about as well staff's position is that would be fine if you get approval to be because both things are allowed i have a question about the semantics of the word open space in the broader context of the discussion the city open spaces of course larger and has this implied public benefit or public access in this context what does it mean does open space just mean it doesn't have payment on it no i i will read it um because we didn't exert it in the staff report because we didn't think that they would go for it so um for a civic onsite open or civic space um they have to provide and and on they have to provide something that complies with one of the open space types um either a snippet parklet and or pocket mini park as enumerated in article 11 um and they must comply with all requirements and guidelines for that type so the parklet has specific requirements you know this is focused on seating and it needs to be adjacent to um a right-of-way and side and the definition in the table is that it may serve the general public customers employees um of of a certain um place my only question and i well both frank and i live within two blocks of here i live on proctor and he lives on what were you on hadley hadley yes yeah so i guess what i'm seeing on the north side there i guess i'm trying to think of a way to make it if we're going to have these as open space to meet these requirements something a little more blurring the lines between what owned you know this is part of the building versus i'm walking down the street and if i want to sit in that space i can that's actually not a requirement um so i'm going to steal your share and i'm going to share the ldr the ldr so thanks the open space type that they're proposing is this snippet parklet so this one and there's this sorry it's kind of like one side of the page and the other side of the page so i'm going to just zoom in so it's ready thank you a snippet parklet is allowable on parcels within lands in the urban design overlay it's a small sitting area clearly intended to provide a welcome respite between or adjacent to buildings may serve general public employees residents or customers gotcha um has to be between 600 4 000 square feet must be adjacent to public right of way and sidewalk or an operable building entry um seating must be the main focus of the space and must be present year round um landscaping must also be a primary component and that's all i'm going to say about it i i i have to say that uh there's a beautiful parklet i mean i was so pleased with it at the the medical building i think pizza galley did at the corner of hadley and shelburn road on the at the um uh it was so nice if you do something like that it would be very nice you know what you know what i'm talking about because two blocks away and stuff so we would love we'd welcome to have you anytime all right and all my main problem is that i can't get a christmas tree either anymore so all right um we'll move on okay 3.09 umbrella approval for multiple uses um a couple items there in red so the comment from staff staff considers some of the requested uses are not compatible with the proposed building and therefore should not be permitted under an umbrella exclusion of a use from the umbrella permit does not prohibit the applicant from applying for the approved they must simply obtain a site of prime approval to do so so staff recommends we exclude the red italic uses from the umbrella permit printed because their uses require different site amenities to function with the exception of a cannabis dispensary which may not be located within thousand feet of the property line of an existing child care um yeah i have an update on that apparently what's the distance to the edge yeah it's less than a thousand feet that's why i said that yeah but cannabis dispensary is no longer regulated in the same way anyway um so cannabis dispensary is going to actually be stricken from our regulations pretty shortly um and be replaced by the compliant terminology and regulations so i would still recommend striking it because it's not going to be allowed use there anyway something else will go in its place marla i mean my only my only thought was you know i know it's a thousand or less than thousand feet because of probably the edge right having um obviously children camps and things i and i totally understand i just didn't want to have something that if it's if the distance changes if and if that's even an option even a possibility in regulations down the road i didn't want to have this struck it stricken from a use potential if in fact that distance it doesn't become an issue anymore no absolutely you'd be allowed to apply for it in the future also isn't there a child care right on hadley road yeah that we will meet that 75 guideline until we have a tenant there we can't tell you exactly what would be beneficial for a tenant if one panel's not transparent or or it all is transparent so right now it'd be very hypothetical what we can do is say that um and someone's secured that we will be able to um just make for sure that we follow that guideline is that good marla well that's the 75 percent but i think we should go through really go through all of them okay okay um number four some glazing is proposed to be more than seven feet high but not all uh so i gotta go ahead are these the new drawings marla that we provided we just have what's in the packet i don't know um no we do have the other ones there's a scaling that was going on but you know that'd be a million that's going okay there cool um so that's that one the next one is about 60 percent when and you were right on marla it was exactly 58 percent what we did is we made the two entrances on each side one foot wider each so you can see that entrance there was a double door it's now a single with side lights and and similar on the other side and that hits us exactly at our our 60 percent now the elevation you're looking at here is actually the east elevation we should be looking at the west elevation which would be probably 202 yeah and you can see down below here so i've i've dimensioned across the the facade the glazing width and solid width and done the calculation that's in the lower right corner there showing that we do meet the the glazing requirement now okay so i'm this is this is the trust and verify we're just going to go we're just going to go thanks okay um and then 40 percent marla can i just ask people on bacon street sorry mark had a comment go ahead mark now i just had a quick question so the what you're showing is glazing then none of that is proposed to be spangile panel it's all clear glazing right now yeah okay okay i mean you're gonna have the and the verticals but we're not gonna have anything that the only thing that could be possible spandrel would be the non-transparent you know but at least 75 of this is gonna be clear if if that makes sense mark yep yep okay and i did a similar exercise on the next elevation along bacon street okay we're marla had the number right on again i think it was 53 percent so okay okay are we good on five and six yeah board members you okay moving on yeah all right number seven ask the applicant whether rooftop elements are proposed rooftop elements must be screened or grouped and integrated into the architecture of the building more of a hypothetical thing since we've gone to this new design we don't have a full mechanical the type of screening is not specified in the regulations and lucy has some experience with this um if you can commit to some vertical panels matching the siding equal to the height of the rooftop units or something like that but we can't approve a general condition that says what do you guys want to see you're the architect sorry i mean brian we'd be okay with that right screen yes i think so obviously we're gonna rooftop units and and think elements of those nature but i i i understand what you're you're coming from it well we would screen it with some of the siding not obviously the break but the the metal um facade siding you know where exactly is this visible from that we would have to screen it is it anywhere along from street elevation i'm just wondering if a piece of mechanical is right in the middle of the roof obviously no one's going to see it unless you're right yeah so it'd be from the street i mean we're not looking for you to go all the way up to the top of you know proctor street and look down on it but from okay okay when we get um a mechanical design kind of put together we can even put that into our rendering program and and get an idea if it will be visible from from you know the perspectives that we have so we'll get a good idea if it's visible i think tomorrow's point is that if we anticipate there is going to be um the possibility of screening in order for them to approve it they need to have the specific language right now right but i think i think what brian and taylor are saying is they're okay with the language that i used right okay exactly okay yeah i think that's fine marva excuse me unless this is covered somewhere else we're talking about a substantial height waiver here they're talking about having a building as tall as date and street lofts that's that's huge i mean are we going to address the issue height waiver at some point there's no right way behind okay i have a weird with the new ldrs or or um rooftop decks allowed or patio you know patios and amenities for tenants i'm sure they would be allowed um it's okay brian do you want to talk about this now no you don't you don't have to i'm just saying it's part of you know we're trying to create an urban district here and that's you know there's some neat stuff going on around the county you know you may be next to shelburn road but it's pretty sweet on a sunny day so yeah no i agree with you i think it is a nice feature i think in terms of this this this building you know i i think i'd rather not have people on the roof walking around um you know as residents walking around so i we are we are not proposing that at this time okay i just was curious that's all all right let's move along to item eight parking area width uh this criterion is not met the width of the building is approximately one to three feet while the width of the parking and driveway is approximately 120 feet excluding the center parking lot i haven't hey there's that center parking lot island again staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify their plans so we've provided um i our response this is we believe that there was an error in the staff calculation we have a corner lot and per the regulations we are able to um count the width building width cumulatively and when it's calculated cumulatively we have 152 feet of building width compared to 120 feet of parking lot width thanks staff you are correct miss there thank you all right um moving along number nine the existing 50 foot wide access on the southwest corner of the site on the provider of the plan as quote too feral street the applicant was proposing to reduce the connection between the site and the adjoining site from being completely open to a 25 foot driver itself staff supports this modification but recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the restrictions of the existing 50 foot wide access easement for the purpose of evaluating whether the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the easement and could you bring the plan up only because i have some questions too as well so sure can i jump right in there yeah go ahead please okay so um the based on the deed the 50 foot access easement is described as benefiting champlain oil company the owner and is to be used in common with others to act for access to feral street so our interpretation of this easement is that it is meant to provide an easement to feral street um and that the others is meant to be the users of champlain oil company the users is not specifically defined in the deed um so we think that we have still we haven't changed the easement and we still do meet we're consistent with the requirements of that moved the um inter we've moved the access to a much safer location away from the shelter and roadside of the parcel okay yeah that'd be planned could be so i just have a couple quick questions only because i'm a scoff law in this regard myself and right now it's just as you know if i'm leaving chipotle and trying to wake my way back and cutting through parking lots and going by the wall greens and all it's kind of a sea of asphalt and snow and gravel and stuff so um is there going to be the ability and i'm not asking that there be but is there going to be clear screening between like the north you know the the wall greens parking lot and this property now because there are going to be less people like me trying to cut through over to bacon street yes well yeah as you can see we moved the access uh the easement access to the rear of the parcel um you know further and back of bacon street right away from chauvin as we see mentioned yeah so it's a smaller easement but we wanted to keep that flow to bacon street and feral street for customers um you know mainly right just you traffic or the chauvin road and you won't be able to get through any more now Dan because of it's curbed uh we have stormwater treatment in that parcel that that portion of the and we also have uh landscaping in this island so it will be a vegetated alienation of where the access route is right so if you're in wall greens the only way you can get to bacon street would be go to feral turn right on chauvin road and turn right again there'll be there's there's still an opening there on the southeast corner okay yeah you could connect um let me annotate really quick it's okay in the southeast corner you would still be able to do okay now it encourages people like me to blast through there um okay um all right did you get your answers on that marla for number nine on the easement yeah okay yeah all right yeah frank you have something well i'm i'm not sure what it has because i'm not quite grasping it uh the d so they don't get themselves in trouble uh well i mean i i questioned their interpretation but again that's outside our province all right that being the case let's move on all right number 10 page 12 bicycle parking storage room there is a bike storage room on the first floor please demonstrate that the storage room accommodates the required minimum bicycles and the commercial tenants have access to its use we have provided an updated uh first floor plan with actual bike racks that you could purchase um shown within that floor plan and a clothes locker that meet these requirements um we've also discussed and that room will be accessible to the commercial tenants does this part is this bike parking for the commercial or the residential or both both okay does that meet the standard marla trust and verify okay moving on um number 11 board require the applicant to demonstrate that the crab apples in the shuburn road right away allowed by the city of burlington prior to allowing them to count towards the bank budget landscaping budget yeah so um we have been in contact with the city arborist vj komei and he has um wholeheartedly agreed that those those can go there so we provided that email to the city great thank you okay parking areas there it is that 28 percent or 28 or more contiguous parking spaces etc etc etc 33 parking spaces are provided can you demonstrate that this criterion is met regarding the landscape island i can give you the specific square feet if that's helpful but i think probably the graphic would yeah um lucy we just lost our screens travis we're looking at the screensaver there we are thank you so yeah so um the interior landscaped area is um let's see i can tell you the required i think we needed like 1500 and 42 square there it is um so the 1542 square feet i believe is what is required and the interior um islands provided is 1724 board members i defer to staff to make sure that they agree that if that's the document and that meets the 10 percent um that i'm fine with it okay okay number 13 regarding the value of various elements we need to we the board need to determine what it allowed to propose landscaping elements to be count towards the minimum required landscaping budget staff has increased some increasing concern about the likelihood of perennial planning to be maintained in perpetuity and recommends the board consider a more general approach should they wish to continue allowing perennial plantings toward required minimum such as allowing a certain value per square foot of perennial bed can i yes explain a little more fully so the board's been allowing this you know um when a site is suitably landscaped that an applicant can count perennials towards their required minimum landscaping budget so we're ending up with things like we have six cone flowers and nine day lilies and 11 hostas and then in three years delilah or delilah equivalent has to go out and see if there are three cone flowers and six day lilies and nine hostas and that's really freaking hard um so what i'm proposing here is kind of the first time we're putting it out there but what if instead of saying what is the value of those exact plants the board establishes sort of a value per square foot of perennial bed so delilah doesn't have to go out and say how many hostas there are she just has to go out and say this is a well maintained bed of perennials that has the value and then we never worry about how much it costs again in the future i think that'd be a lot easier to minister how does she assess the value i mean based on what well maintained equals value i don't get it so well but it doesn't have to be you know if they have six day lilies and then in the future they have six scraggly day lilies it still counts versus if versus if it's a well planted lush bed of plants i don't care if it's six day lilies and two hostas as long as it maintains its its lush vigorous growing look what you're doing is substituting a hard standard of expenditure and over time typically the cost of plants increases so in order for them to maintain a vigorous growing bed they're going to at least be meeting the minimum of what they were required not the minimum the value of what they were originally required to to invest in the plants or or more to keep it in its vigorous state so i'm just throwing this out there we don't necessarily have to go there tonight but you know this is a pretty competent applicant who could probably say well we have x square feet of for and provide us a calculation of what 13455 dollars represents in terms of square footage so it seems like it was worth at least thinking about i'm i'm not adverse to it i just wondering if it becomes a subjective review in the future you know in terms of you know it's an interpretation of its vigorously growing perennial bed i totally see where you're coming from not wanting to have to go out and count you know dozens of perennials and make sure it's exactly what was planted originally because obviously you know over time you know one dies you replace it you might not replace with exactly what was there before so i i really do get where you're coming from just wondering about how we set a subjective review for future evaluation well do we want to kind of let it stew applicant how do you feel about this concept if the board were to take your 13 say that you're approved but instead of having to maintain the exact perennial count that you have you just have to maintain those areas perennial beds would that be something you can live with yes i could personally because i think what we're looking for is a landscaping of a site and if you're proposing a bed it's one thing when you have this large deciduous trees that are going to get larger in time but if you're talking about maintaining a bed you're talking about maintaining a portion of a site so i think it's a i think it's a good thing we should explore Marla if you're if you're asking me as an applicant i i agree i i 100% agree with you in terms of having to try to you know go back to the application you're like oh that's a day later but not day literally now so no i completely agree with your assessment and and probably a good thing if this was adopted you know jump rope yeah i'll jump in and say i think we could probably do some sort of condition that says you know this this is approved as proposed and the condition is that plantings in the defined bed areas as a b c and d shall be maintained with an appropriate mix of yada yada yada to assure equivalent coverage at the time of initial planting or something so i'm sure we can figure that out so we'll let it stew then we'll let it stew yeah all right um i have a quick question on number 13.05 stormwater management and only because i'm trying to do more stormwater work in my day job at regional planning but how's the stormwater going to be treated on this property um there by retention practices or um their contact um filter unit which are it's a uh pre-made by retention practice um so this uh everything's lined um and there's actually four treatment areas um and then it's connected eventually um with a new storm manhole on sheldon road which goes to burlington okay so you're you're and you're treating the required standard of the one inch or what is it 1.05 or the okay okay is any is any of the retention buried under the impervious at all or no no okay um no there's two there's one in the could you could you bring up the plan just so you could maybe draw on or point to the corners or something is it is this something that would be better shown on the supplemental sets that you sent today or on the existing plan set any plan that you picked a lila would work those will each those are pre-made um precast structures which are open at the top and they'll be planted and they're filled with a fire retention mix they're approved by the state through their stormwater program okay and there's going to be curve inlets on each side of each one of those structures um and then and that'll treat you know the entire back parking lot okay um and part of the slip lane um there are two standard um other fire retention areas one on the sheldon road side with the building in the front um and then one on the southern side of the slip lane right there okay and the ones on the island are they similar to the ones that the city of burlington did kind of on pine street over near the new champlain college dorm building taj mahal hotel but basically there's a little concrete box with inlets right in the edge of the edge of the parking kind of thing right to the right of way okay and they're slightly lower to the ground right there's sort of below the level of the parking they sink down a bit okay yeah all right thanks very much all right so um thanks for bearing with me our last one item 14 please discuss how the roof will comply with the energy standards staff yeah the how how how will the roof comply with the energy standards tire is supposed to take the other areas yep so it's just standard practice now to design the roofs with an additional eight pounds per square foot of load i noticed that we used to use five pounds per square foot first uh future solar panel installations um we currently use eight now and it's just built into the structure with every project we work with the structural designer will um have the the structural capability to install solar panels okay thanks board members any more questions for the applicant okay we have any members of the public online yeah i i i get on this this deed thing is nagging at me because other users clearly doesn't mean resonance it means other property users and i'm not sure how that impacts anybody i mean that's just i think obvious as a matter of legal interpretation of the deed and uh i think you guys ought to look into that i don't know precisely how it impacts the project because i don't have a clear enough understanding of it yet but you should look at that more carefully your interpretation is wrong and you should thank you for any questions of that frank frank so we in our in our you know the deed that goes back when this uh for walgreens there when ben franklin's was was even there there was a deed um drawn up there was a change in and the one to put a sign out by shelbin road and in that we allowed them to put it on our property in that we got a deed to be able to get at the time our transport trucks from from ferrule street to the property so it was put in the deed that we have of access across and we're not we're not saying you're other people that want to cut through there like yourself or anybody else that's how we're trying to say it's just to get access for anybody that wants to get from bacon to ferrule without having to go on the shelbin road and we just thought that that made sense having um those roads ferrule and bacon accessible through the rear of the property that's all okay i i i don't know enough to come in further i just concerned me when i heard the interpretation that was all thank you frank any so no no members of the public nobody in the chat no all right uh staff do you think we have enough information or yeah okay do we need any more submissions from them or clarifications okay that being the case board members i would entertain a motion to close the hearing i'll make a motion that we close site plan application sp 22004 of shampoos oil company llc and bacon street properties second thank you mark thank you frank all those in favor of closing the hearing on the application sp 22-004 say hi hi hi we're gonna be opposed our abstentions okay thank you ranch thank you have a good evening thank you all okay we're gonna make board members it's 951 are you okay if we keep cranking a little bit oh no i i think we kind of need to yeah we got a lot i mean let's do the best let's do the best we can till we run out of steam here okay uh okay site plan application of rht sp 22-003 of rhtl partners llc to modify a previously approved plan for a 10 000 square foot automotive sales service and repair building an existing 2.61 acre lot the amendment consists of constructing a 3155 square foot building expansion 1795 shulburn road who is here for the applicant yeah my name is jeff olaski with catamount consulting engineers i'm some sidewalk and access improvements and a patio and seating area outdoor seating area as well as um i you know some landscaping improvements that we're proposing with a project but really the function use uh scale size number of employees everything at nature would more or less stay the same as currently exists right now and there'd be no changes to to access or utilities um other than some some minor things to address some of the outstanding zoning regulations that we need to comply with um i'll guess i'll leave it short at that given the time and night right now and uh hand it back over to the board or staff to start going through the the comments and uh i will just say that the first four or five comments are more related to building architecture so i believe sarah botlar will be presenting or replying to most of those um as we go through them here okay thanks okay we'll dive right in first comment criteria regarding entry facing the primary road is not met can you describe how you might modify the plans to comply with these standards is it possible to show the sheet that has the architectural elevations on it do you have the name of the sheet it's a 400 yeah so they sent over one today sarah is that um the one that you want to show or do you want to show the one that was in the packet no it would be fine to show the the one that we sent today okay so that's the rendering hold on give me a second yeah so well she's pulling that up um so the building design uh draws from the existing configuration which has the entrance on the side and i believe that was probably originally a result of the fact that this building sits about seven feet below the road so and it's pretty close to the road so um what this rendering doesn't show is that grass in front of the glade in the left hand side is actually a berm or bank that steeply cuts up to the sidewalk so um putting an entrance on that facade especially an accessible entrance which would involve ramps is a little bit infeasible just due to the topography however i do feel that the configuration of the new design is much more street casing and it has a large glazed glass element on the corner that indicates entry even if the door is actually on the side okay marlotte will that still meet the standard or no no has to the entry has to face the primary road basically so if the door was it could be a corner door it could be a corner door on then basically you need you need something on the east side of the building is essentially what we need right yeah yeah it the standard is pretty clear and it's a must it's not a should or it'd be nice to so that's something we need to be tweaked at least that's the way i'm reading it and staff concur so yeah jeff from a civil engineering perspective and a grading perspective um could you elaborate a little bit on the hardship of that that front entrance that they're requesting yeah you know i think a couple factors as we look at the site and understanding that this is an existing non-conforming structure as it currently is constituted and we're kind of dealing with uh you know an existing layout and an existing uh located access location and there certainly is an expansion and a remodel but it's certainly not a complete reconstruction so we're a little hand tied to the east face of the building and um yeah i think that that that's the existing condition site plan um and so if you see where is that kind of the existing flower bed is there on the east side of the of the building you see those contour elevations we're good much to said seven or eight feet um below that from shulban road limitations uh legal or development constraints all the development all sorts of reasons um so the board would have to find that the urban design overlay is one of the things that can be waived and the way i read that the waiver is it says the dimensional requirement under this article this article being article 14 um which is site plan review standards not urban design old standards and urban design overlay are not dimensional standards either so i don't think that there's a waiver authority here um but again you know you can put it on the corner doesn't have to be yeah i mean building yeah yeah i mean i i mean i obviously i mean we're providing uh pedestrian access in a frontage along the front facade or road facing facade of the building um i think from our standpoint it's just a practical purpose where we have a door there you walking you know incorporating some type of pedestrian accommodation to get uh from 88 compliant ways is almost impossible at this point um frontage and aesthetic to this by you know incorporating a landscaped paver patio area in an aesthetic nice stone retaining wall with a picnic table in an area along the road frontage that we think you know complies or at least attempts to address this idea of a road frontage aesthetic with the building and um you know but uh as far as the ability to waive that the entrance requirement or not um and i guess we'll have to comply with it if it's a if it's something that can't be waived it may still not be the primary entrance to the building but it could be a just an additional door that accesses that adding it from a different location if that's amenable to the board um it doesn't need to be an 88 compliant walkway it just says a direct separate walkway to the primary road at least eight feet wide and main meander um i know across the street the cecom bank which jeff you worked on has stairs um and that meant the standard harbor freight stairs i i think marlix can i or uh dance that way go ahead third place you know the curb can i walk into the parking lot and then to the building it's not the way the codes are written and we know what the requirement of the regulation is the applicant now knows the problem of redesigning it to comply as it is i wonder if we could move on yeah okay thank i'll just say one comment before we move i mean i think there's in some ways there's an opportunity to do something more creative than a set of stairs invite people into the patio space that's going to be having the cookouts and the hotdogs to draw people in and come by a new car i think there's dubbing we could you could embrace the pedestrian environment and draw people down a sloped ramp into yeah uh transparency of glazing yes the the glazing will have clear visibility into the building it'll have to meet the energy code but it's not reflective or heavily tinted okay thanks quick question board members how well i'm i'm i'm wired up so i can keep going but i want to be cognizant of how late you guys want to go 10 30 all right yeah i mean i think okay we'll keep cranking on here all right um 8.06 uh rooftop mechanical equipment location of the building eight people low the joining running places particular emphasis on compliance with this criterion um do you guys thoughts on this the applicant yep so uh we actually are raising the parapet about 18 inches from where it is currently and uh we did a sightline study that showed that that would yeah the we don't have a cornice in that it projects currently from the face of the building but there are reveal lines in the metal panels and there is one at a cornice line um this is the mazda prototype which obviously that's not your concern but um you know that's part of the contemporary design and uh we haven't provided the cornice the traditional cornice but says can we bring it up and ask our resident architect to weigh in i i i mean i would call that not a a cornice detail but i would also say that that is sort of the current trend especially in these styles of buildings and dealer across the street at the toyota heritage dealership you know i i would struggle with making them meet it when it's it's sort of like you know unless it's a requirement in the design over your district but more of like uh you know something that projects out four to six inches and is six to ten inches high kind of thing so it still looks like a panel that has got some some some dimensional to it and i'm wondering if i mean i would say then we're meeting the classic or the intent of the code so i i i'm saying that right now it doesn't have any sort of corners for a pop out um just a break plane i think that'd be pretty easy to accommodate still be the same material it would just a little bit more dimension to it yeah something that breaks the plane doesn't just be a vertical line up kind of thing i think we're safe to agree agree with that yeah agree to it okay okay board member is going to move on to number five regarding the relationship of the structure and site to adjoining on the property and the existing facade to remain if any in order to evaluate where this criterion is met so the building next door is a concrete block building with a pitched metal roof so um our proposed renovation new materials are metal siding although they're of a much higher quality than what the roof is on the building next door and then the remaining portion of our building which is actually to the west and um mostly the southern facade of the portion of the shop that we're not changing that is also concrete block so we do have a compatibility of language of materials okay and is the entire area that's facing the street being redone yes okay does that answer your questions ma we're good okay i'm gonna move on thank you yeah all right number six page on page seven regarding waste disposal can you demonstrate compliance on excess management staff considers this criterion is not meant for the property to the south staff recommends the board require that to provide in their plans to record a cross-slot easement to the benefit of the adjacent property to the south at the southwest portion of the site and access across this back hold on a second you're talking about a new easement on the south right yeah i think he's getting around to it keep going yeah okay keep going sorry but so i mean that and maybe pulling out the proposed site plan would would uh our existing condition site plan would help uh demonstrate this a little bit better but the main concerns we have with that is that the western portion of this building both now and proposed is really a service uh the primary service access location for the building as well as home to as alluded to the storage shed and concrete pads and they will ultimately be the screened dumpster enclosure and providing an easement and access to the property of the sows along this western proper line but probably be pretty um you know problematic to the the traffic flow and use of this site um given that existing easement and access to the property of the west we just don't know if there's really a enough of a benefit from this additional easement um to make that a government you know something that the user of this lot can can work with yeah jeff i don't think that the intention here was to make an actual connection just to provide the legal document so that should the uses of the property change as long as there was that somehow be tied into change in use of this lot or or only be allowed for future um you know purpose i mean as you can see while this property is being used as under its current constitution but um if it's just a matter of strictly adding the easement lines there you know a 30 foot wide easement or something for potential future use that's something we can look at I have a quick question for staff is this actually a easement that has to be recorded and that the property owner to the south could exercise that right or no so I have to go back to the language and that would be our concern is that you know if if it's granted that the property of the south would have access and use to that that that's when it becomes problematic for the owner but that's the whole point isn't it of the requirement I'm not saying it's a good requirement I'm just saying it yeah I mean I I mean from my perspective I think the purpose of these cross-lite easements is to keep traffic obviously off the primary roads and create some you know a lot connectivity like we were just talking about with uh the Champlain Oil Project um but given the use of these two lots now and and how they operate function providing that type of easement now doesn't seem to necessarily you know work or accomplish anything that's all to provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot yeah if you scroll up just a bit to the bold text I think that's what's but and maybe this is a highway connection to any adjacent commercial lot period or the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change in other words I don't know I must provide an easement but that that's only if the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection right so this involves the and if any adjacent property owner does then you have to provide an easement