I'm just in a bad mood, but I feel like he was on all those emails last week testing 123 testing 123 Hello and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for Tuesday, August 20, 2019. My name is Matt Kodum, the acting chair of the Development Review Board with me is Don Philbert, Frank Cokman, John Wilking, and Brian Sullivan. Also here is Marlekeen Development Review Planner and Delilah Hall, South Burlington's zoning administrator. Thank you for those in attendance. For those of you who are in attendance, it's important that you know that if you wish to participate in the hearing that you sign the sign-in sheet that's in the back of the room, provide your contact information in order to be considered a participant. You should fill out the sign-in sheet or speak during the public comment process, a portion of the hearing, or submit comments and writing. You should do one of these things. And in this room we have four exits to there that go in the hallway and two there that go into the back parking lot. Should there be any additions, deletions, or changes into the order of the agenda items proposed by the board? Okay. Item number three, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. If there's anyone in the crowd that would like to speak on something that is not on the agenda, please approach the microphone. Mark, could you state your name for the record? I'm Mark Abrams, Highland Terrace.  Thank you, Matt. I want to go on the record and express my views and reactions as a very much as a non-professional on the subject of predictable character retention for established neighborhoods in the city. I've been here since 1981 and it's over then that my neighborhoods over 40 years old. The zoning department cites the objective of providing predictability for developers as opposed to new development. When it comes to long-established existing neighborhoods, this raises the question, shouldn't long-term property holders have the security of predictability in maintaining the established nature and character of their neighborhood? In all fairness, why do they not merit primary consideration in these matters? DRB issues. My concerns stem from having paid substantial taxes since 81, only to have the city act to diminish the value of my property and allowing the character, convenience and ambience of the established neighborhood over 40 years old to be altered by the addition of homes placed much closer to the street and each other. I believe that in the absence of compelling or emergency conditions, the city was remiss in its apparently capricious targeting Highland Terrace for such alteration, an action totally inconsistent with the long-term nature of the neighborhood and done with disregard for the existing residents. I fault the city for failing to consider the impact on long-term homeowners by writing zoning laws allowing such post hoc alteration. I urge the city to correct this oversight by acting immediately to distinguish between existing neighborhoods and proposed neighborhoods by exempting the former from the current retroactive disadvantage because we original buyers were deprived of the choice available to today's buyers who can consider multiple design developments up front. Such after the fact alterations have resulted in residents feeling somewhat blindsided by a sort of a form of reverse engineering or bait and switch. The question arises about what criteria or qualifications existed to justify what could be considered a form of social engineering. This issue seems to have parallels with the city's alarm and opposition to Burlington's new plan impacting Queen City Park. In light of this understandable reaction on the part of the city, one hopes that empathy could be extended to its other residents undergoing a similar experience. Further issues concern effects on the water aquifers capacity to support more housing in that area. That needs to be looked at. Loss of the integral natural screening on the city's property on the west side of Highland Terrace. I look at these trees and greenery through my office window all hours of the workday. The stress-reducing health enhancement this view provides is documented by established science. Such screening cannot of course be added to all projects but once established, threats to its loss should be considered very carefully. Common sense and due regard for the realities of human nature points strongly to the fact that more significantly shorter setbacks, increased traffic and the loss of screening if new driveways are cut into the west side of Highland Terrace will negatively impact the value of my home and others if allowed to continue. To conclude, some alteration to this neighborhood has taken place, not without good neighbors. However, the current degree of alteration in no way justifies not preserving what characteristics still exist. And they're considerable. We believe no further such construction should be sanctioned. In light of the above, I am opposed to any new construction in the relevant Heinsberg Road areas if it would access Highland Terrace from the west side of the street or have adverse effect on the aquifer. To prevent further alteration from the earlier ill-conceived zoning decision, I urge the city to disallow present and future proposals of this nature. And I thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mark. And I want to just note that I did receive your letter prior to this and did read it. So thank you very much, Mark. Is there anyone else that has any comments that are not related to the agenda before us? If not, then I would proceed to number four. Any announcements? Go ahead, Frank. I'm Frank Cokman. I would hope that all of you have access to the other paper and I urge you to read an opinion piece I have in the current edition. I am in the Planning Commission as part of its comprehensive rewrite of the Land Development Regulations, which I don't pretend to have reviewed in detail, has proposed the elimination of all parking standards for commercial development, retaining parking requirements for residential development, but eliminating any baseline parking requirement for commercial development, leaving it up to the developer. I'm not going to get into a long polemic about what the problem is.  And you can read them if you read the piece. For those of you who perceive that having a zero commercial development parking requirement is a severe public disservice, I urge you to get in touch with your councilman or councilwoman and try to get the council to prevent this from happening. I'm doing my own canvassing. There's one vote in opposition I'm aware of. I'm not going to name names, but it looks like the opposition is a minority and it looks like this, to me, absurd provision is about to pay us on September 16th. I hope those of you who agree with my point of view will say something to those who have the power to do something about it, which is the city council. Thank you, Frank. We have the DRB and that opinion formulated by my friend Frank is not the opinion of the DRB or any of its members other than Franks. I just want to make that clear. Well, it is exactly my opinion. I'm just saying he doesn't speak for the board in that particular case. We haven't made a, but I read your article. It was well written and I also encourage people to read it. I had hoped actually I didn't see the room for it, but I'll take the room until the chairman tells me I'm out of order to canvas the board to see if we in fact can get a board consensus or majority that supports the view that this is, but what I've opposed as an option as a more appropriate case specific option is to write better standards and to expand the discretion of this board to waive parking requirements on an intelligent reason case by case basis. Having not discussed this prior, my recommendation or suggestion would be that that would be something that we could consider an executive session after this meeting but not during the time of announcements. Could we do that? I'm happy to meet an executive session after this meeting. I appreciate it. Sorry to take the time. Okay. No other announcements? I have a question. Sure. Or a request being a new member of this board. This is mostly to Marla. I'm wondering if you and I have met and I'm still not clear about the process of all these applications. And you said it's hard to come up with a spreadsheet or a flow chart because they're also complicated, but I wonder when we when you put together the agenda if for each of the items that involves reviewing a project, you could simply say DRB action colon and then you know decision or review and discussion just so that I have sense going into every project what what's being asked of us. Does that make sense? Not really. I don't totally follow what would the things what give you give me one example. So why don't we just start with the first item on the agenda where we've done this so number six. Continue conditional review use application after 180 or 180 market street. I wonder if you could put in a DRB action required none or is the action that you're asking of us a vote on something. So for every application other than sketch plan, the DRB must make a decision. Okay. Okay. It is up to the DRB in the meeting whether to include the meeting or to continue it to another night. Okay. So the I guess in every case the action would be DRB action conclude or continue meeting. And we have not to drop but we have wide discretion here. Okay. I mean some applicant may want us to conclude and we may not want to. Okay. And it's our it's our call whether we do at the end of the night as well. So is concluding the same as closing. Yes. Okay. All right. That helps. Thank you. There are no other announcements. We go to number five reorganization. So for the reorganization, I'd like to temporary temporarily chair the meeting to bring conflicts with the chair, adding over the chair election. That's right. So first I would like to invite nomination for chair. I'd like people to everybody to know that I'm going to ask people that they're okay with the nomination before the vote. I'm going to ask for vice chair and clerk. And then I'm going to ask for a second for nominations. And then we will discuss and ask for public comment and then we will hold a vote. So may I take, I would like to take nominations from the board for chair of the board. I may be able to make this faster. Can I move that Matt Cota be our chair that can I move all three positions at once? We have to have, we have to entertain public comment before you make a motion, but you can make the suggestions first. I suggest Matt Cota remain as our chair. Second. So we're not making motions. That's okay. I'm seconding anyway. Just like the idea. Matt, would you be okay with accepting chairmanship if you were voted? Yes. Can I get a nomination for vice chair? I would like to nominate Brian Sullivan. Brian, would you accept such a nomination? Yes, I think so. Okay. And nomination for clerk. I would like to nominate Don. That's, that's the rookie position. Don, would you accept such a nomination? Yes, I would. All right. Any other nominations? I'd like to second both of the last two nominations. Is there any discussion of the nominations or amongst the board? Any public comment on the nominations? Okay. Then I think we can probably vote all at once. I entertain a motion to vote for Matt Cota for chair, Brian for vice chair and Don for clerk. Second. Can I have a motion? I'll move. So moved. All right, thanks. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? And abstain. Okay. So Mark did not, Mark let me know at the beginning of the meeting that he is on vacation and will not be attending tonight. So the next thing is to set regular meeting dates and times. In the past we've done first and third Tuesdays at 7pm and held a recess for the first Tuesday in August. Do you want to? Yeah. That schedule works for me. Except the September meeting has changed, hasn't it? Yeah. So, yeah, that was the next topic. Okay. Can I just ask, Marla, are there any conflicts around Christmas and New Year's with that meeting schedule? Funny you should ask. I looked up the Jewish holidays. I didn't look up Christmas. That's fine. I mean. I will do that right now. So Christmas is a Wednesday and that is a fourth Wednesday. So no conflict. And that makes New Year's a first. Yeah. We're fine. Yeah. We're good. Okay. Last year we discussed moving the election day and the Labor Day meetings to Wednesday. We also discussed the potential to do that on an ad hoc basis, which is how we ended up with the first September meeting on a Wednesday. This is because City Council moves their meeting to Tuesdays and then we get bumped to the police station and we lose recording and we lose Sue. So do people want to do that or do we want to do it on an ad hoc basis? Ad hoc basis would be my preference. But we're looking at, this is the next meeting, isn't it? Right. So that's, but we're talking about 20, I guess, Election Day next year and the Labor Day after. It's consistently a problem. I don't have any problem with the idea of doing it that way. Every time the city meets on a Tuesday. But to confirm our next meeting is on the fourth? Yes. Is it on Wednesday? Tuesday. We're staying with Tuesdays, but the issue is that when the City Council is meeting on Tuesday, then we need to push. Right. And this happens twice a year, Marla? Right. Election Day and Labor Day. And then there may be others that come up. Right. So we'll take a look at those as they come up. But let's just move those two dates and then reserve the others for an ad hoc basis. The only other thing is Rasha Shana and Tuesday, October 1st at Sundown, which is a DRB meeting. Anyone have any conflict with that? All right. That was the whole reorganization. Thank you, everyone. Okay. We're on to item number six. Thank you for those in the audience. We only do that once a year. And it's been delayed to us. So let's go to item number six, which is continued conditional use application, CU-1905 of the city of South Burlington to extend the regulations of the form-based code, transit five zoning district up to 50 feet, into form-based code, transit four zoning district to allow consistent zoning across a lot, plan for construction of a missable building community center at 180 Market Street. Who is here for the applicant? State name for the record. Last time, so we don't need to. This was continued without being heard last time. Sorry. It was different. It's different. I'm sorry. Can you raise your raise, Ann? Alana, can you swear to tell the whole truth on a penalty, Prager? I do. Thank you very much. So tell us what we have before us in this conditional use application. So the city is submitting an application for a conditional use review of a lot B1, which is an odd shaped lot, which has split zoning on it. So one corner of the lot is zoned, transect zoned T4, and the majority of the lot is zoned transect zoned T5. We're proposing to build a building containing a public library, City Hall, and senior center on this lot. And the entire building will conform with the T5 and generally with T4. And we're requesting for the ease of review and application that the entire lot be, the zoning for T5 be extended across the entire lot across the T4 section, which is an allowed, which is something that the development review board can do that's within your power. And so we put together an application and went through the applicable review standards and found that in our opinion that this will not affect, negatively impact anything. So we are requesting this. We agree with staff comments and we would just note one small typo related to the findings effect. And it's just in item findings effect number three, it should just say lot be one instead of lot be five. But otherwise we agree with everything that staff has stated. So we're expanding T5 about 38 feet, right? Is that about right? Correct. Pretty simple stuff. Any comments from the board on this issue? Can I just look at the drawing again? What's going to happen in the expanded area? So that is the northeastern section of the senior center, which extends... In other words, a piece of the building is going to be in there. A piece of the building will be right there. T5 allows you to be taller, but requires you to be, and there's more stringent requirements for T5 than T4 in general, correct? Correct. Any comments from the public regarding this conditional use application? If not, I would make a motion to close conditional use application CU1905. We've got a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Those abstaining? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now we'll move to agenda item number seven, which is continued site plan application SP1921 in conditional use application CU1904 of Shelly Forest to amend a previously approved site plan for a pre-existing truck terminal. The amendment consists of adding a commercial parking facility as a use, constructing a parking lot, an associated stormwater treatment facility at Two Homes Road. Who is here for the applicant? I'm... Go ahead. Dan Heil, a project engineer at a Leary Burke Symbol Association. Hi, Dan. Hi, I'm Shelly Forest, property owner. Hi, Shelly. And Brian Hor. Hi, Brian.  Am I correct? You're still sworn in. Correct. And you're still sworn in. So this was also continued without being heard, so they have not yet been sworn in. Okay. Take that back. You're also on the sketch plan. Raise your right hand. Please. You all swear to tell the whole truth on your penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. Okay. Tell us a little bit about your continued site plan application and continued use application for this facility. Yep. We are here tonight seeking site plan and conditional use for a proposed parking lot located on the southern side of the DSLLC parcel. This is Holmes Road right here. This is Route 7. DSLLC parcel follows this property line here, and the proposed parking lot would be located in this area right here. It's located on 8.6 acre parcel, zone commercial 2. There is an existing UPS freight center on the piece and an existing parking lot that is to remain as well. The proposal is to construct that automobile storage area to the south, which would be utilized by Goss Dodge to the south. The area would be for private storage only. It would be for inventory, non-registered vehicles. It would not allow for customer parking or for parking to the general public. And the parcel is surrounded by commercial development, and it's screened well to the southwest and east by existing vegetation. In addition to the proposed parking lot, we are proposing a gravel wetland-dry pond combination to treat the stormwater runoff. We have a state stormwater permit that has been issued for that, and we worked with Public Works as well, addressing some of their comments on the stormwater design. We were here back on March 5th of 2019 for a similar proposal. Since March 5th, we've incorporated feedback we received from the board and staff, and we are now providing a linear landscape island throughout the parking lot that would be curbed to protect the landscaping. And we are also now proposing vegetation to the north of the parking lot to help screen the parking lot from Holmes Road as well. Looking through the staff notes, we are okay with conditions one through four. Let's talk about them individually, so we all understand them. Skipping ahead to page three, the condition that states that the proposed and approved use is for commercial parking, that vehicle sales, including permanent and temporary signage, transaction or sales events, not permitted. We're okay with that. Item number three on page four. Eight parking spaces adjacent to Holmes Road. The staff is recommending that we require to put at least two shade trees between the parking area and the street in compliance with section 1306. Is that okay with the applicant? Okay. Moving on to number four on page five. We're talking about the stormwater. The staff always wants us to make it a condition of approval that you regularly maintain all stormwater treatment facilities, and that's okay with the applicant. Okay. That'll be part of our state permit as well. Okay. Number five, page six. Okay. Now we're talking trees. Where are we going to put the trees? And let me see. Staff considers the board may wish to grant similar flexibility regarding tree quantity when full screening is otherwise provided, but the board should not grant a waiver of the canopy and shading requirement without canopy and shading being otherwise provided. Staff refers the board to site plan specific standard 1407E below and making their determination of the standard. So we're talking about crab apple trees and service berry trees. You've read the comments. You've seen what the arborist has said. Where do you stand now regarding what we're going to do about trees and shading at this site? Yeah, the real issue is different than a normal commercial parking lot.  Leaves cause damage to cars. So we were looking for something that wasn't as big and over the cars, which is why we went with the crab apple. And the other thing with the crab apple, we could actually do that. We would have space because the crab apple can be planted closer together if the town allowed. So we could do up to 13 of the crab apple. So if we went to a different direction, which is not what we want to do just because of the leaves damaging cars, we could do up to 13 of the crab apple. But we're limited with space if we went with a bigger tree. Right. So our first choice was crab apple, obviously. Your first choice is crab apple? Yeah. That's why we're looking for a section. I know they're not as tall, but do those leaves not damage the vehicles? They do. They're just not as wide. What about the crab apples themselves? Wouldn't they fall on the cars? Again, because they wouldn't be overhanging as much over the cars. I think no matter what we do, we're going to have some. But the bigger the tree, the bigger it grows, the more that we're going to have for leaves on the cars. That's our consideration. It's literally the cars are parked out there. They're not being moved every day. They're not being cleaned every day. So that's why we're... I actually have two questions. Sure. First, would you explain the use just a little more? Why do you have long-term parked vehicles there? What's going on? Storage. Basically, it's just storage for our cars. That's all. So originally, we'd come back in March and we were looking for a different actual storage lot. And that wasn't going to work on this property. That's why we were getting feedback. But what are you storing exactly? What cars for what purpose? Oh, a new... Gostodge, new vehicles. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. New vehicles. Okay. Not old unregistered vehicles. No. Sorry. Brand new vehicles. Sorry. Failed to explain that. Those which would be defaced by a falling crab apple? All be above. Yes. And the other question, just for my technical information, you say you got a stormwater permit. Does your stormwater from the state, and I also noticed that it was reviewed by our folks here, is the approval from the state for a very specific plan or a conditional kind of permit that says, you can do it so long as you create a facility that needs certain performance requirements? What's the nature of the approval? The nature of the approval is for the proposed and pervious area associated with this, as well as the design for the gravel wetland and dry pond. So your specific design has been approved by the state? Correct. Yeah. And the city? Yes. No. And the city? Yes. The city is talking. The city being you guys. It's been recommended to you guys to approve the stormwater design by the stormwater department. The stormwater department in the city of South Burlington is tougher than the state. Take it from me. Crabapple, service barriers. I don't know. We know you need trees. And once you plant them, they're yours. And if you have a different, if the owner of the property has a different design on that property, 10 years from now, you'll have to deal with what you planted, as John will tell you. I have no problem with crabapples.  So I think that's appropriate. It's okay with that. It's okay with me. It's not the way down. All right. Moving on to number seven. Staff recommends that we require you to screen the pallet dumpster on the side facing Holmes Road as a condition of approval. Do you have a problem with that? Number eight. Staff recommends the board consider the criteria in determining whether to grant the waivers requested. Okay. So this is back to the trees. Increasing coverage on sites where preexisting conditions exceeds. Hold on. I'm just catching up with us here. Tomorrow I'll help me out. This is related to the common six. So if the board chooses, if the common number five, common number six is some other planting specifications. Common number eight is about when and why the development review board should grant a waiver. Comment number five is a waiver request. So the board should consider when and why in determining whether they should grant the waiver requested in number five. Does that make sense? So basically just the way that the LDRs are written, the reason it tells you when and why you're allowed to grant a waiver after the thing that they're requesting waiver for, and that's why it came after. Okay. So the waiver is based on tree quantity. They're requesting a waiver for tree quantity and for planting shade trees where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards. Waivers will not engage your public health safety or welfare. The development review board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the comprehensive plan are met. So take that statement into consideration when deciding whether to grant a waiver for quantity and... Right. But what we cannot grant a waiver on, when the total site coverage exceeds the allowable limit for the Epical Zoning District. Right, and they're not asking for a waiver of that. Or increasing the coverage of sites where pre-existing conditions exceeds. Thank you. Board, comments? The requesting is not a hardship related to the site. The site didn't cause the hardship to use. It's a hardship. I don't see anything in this that says that we cannot grant a waiver for small trees. For fewer trees. Which section are we looking at? Section 1406B. Well, so 14.06B too is the landscaping standards. The discussion of when the board may grant a waiver is 14.07E. And this is sort of a general on all site plan applications. This 1407E describes how the board may modify the standards. I think John's right. As awarded, it says the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship. And that's different from the limitations caused by the use of the site. I mean, I gather what they're getting at here is the physical layout of the site. Yeah, one could argue, I mean, this is a very well-treated site to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's sort of surrounded down there. And is it downhill? It's downhill from the back of Gostagin to the right if you're looking for shelter. Correct, it's lower. So, you know, one of the things you could think about is that it would be on a public parking lot. I know, I'm just, this language about the hardship stemming from the limitations of the site sounds an awful lot like the test for a variance. Yes. So, I'm inferring from that that the Planning Commission wanted us to think about the standards for a variance in applying that to these kinds of waivers. Your point is well taken about it's already shaded now. I just don't see where we have the authority to grant the waiver. So, the applicant has presented a plan B. This is something that the board can deliberate on. You know, keeping in mind that we can't take any new information. I think at this point, we should just make sure the board asks all the questions that they want to ask and feels prepared to deliberate on it. So, if we don't grant the waiver, one of the consequences is we have to come back with a new plan showing. So, they've proposed to replace with service buries. Just on one for one. So, that's a specific enough, in my opinion, change that we could do a condition. I'll try. The applicant has said that they, if the board does not deny, does not approve their request to plant crab apples, that they would consider planting service berry trees instead. I would consider that specific enough for the board to include a condition. The applicant shall replace the crab, the eight crab apples showing with eight service berries in the same location. What is the tree shortfall exactly? Number of trees? There's two. The first is the number of trees, which I think to John's point, the number of trees is restricted by the site because there's no place to put 13 trees because the site is well-treated. The character of the trees that are to be planted should be shade trees, and that's where staff thinks that there's a decision being made by the applicant. And I think the board needs to deliberate on whether that's a site hardship or a applicant preference. Even a crab apple is not it? Can't be characterized as a shade tree? The crab apples would grow to... Hang on. So no, is the short answer. We have some information on the height of the crab apple. Our arborist said they would provide minimal shading of the parking lot. And the arborist thinks that a service berry will? I have a bunch of service berries in them. I would tell you that that's not the case. Service berry will reach a height of 20, 30 feet and a spread of 15 to 20. They're very light. You can see right through them. I've got six of them in front of one of my buildings. I suggested another tree. If you don't mind, the arborist mentioned if it's the correct species. And I have the specific species we didn't put, but it does grow to 25 to 30 feet. And that's what he says. If it's the correct species, it grows to 25 to 30 feet. If it's the wrong species, it doesn't. And this is the crab apple? No, we're doing a new service berry, but... Can you read me the name of that guy? Or hand me that piece of paper? So it sounds like we have some solution in the mix here. Shall we move on? Sure. Can we resolve the question whether the service berry qualifies as a shade tree? Is the arborist going to go along with that? Well, he does. As long as it is this... As long as the east... Where's the scientific name? As long as it's this one. The good service berry, not the bad service berry. Page nine. Bicycle parking. You're going to have some bicycle parking there. Correct. Suggested at least a two inverted U-type bicycle racks with minimum spacing. That's the one. That worked. Five. No, that is not in it. No! Come on, Matt. Looks inverted. I can tell you about that. I got turned down on that one. That's the way we use your food. That's an M. The two U's are fine. The two U's are cheaper. I looked at the wrong spot. This one is cheaper. And I think that is it. Is there any other calls from the board or the applicant? If not, then I would open up to members of the public. Do you have any comments about this application? Dave, if you could say your name for the record. David Crawford. I'm the chair of the Natural Resource Committee. I owe the board an apology from last week. I found I had a conflict of interest, minor as it might be. I'm a part-time employee of a subcontractor for the FedEx Building. So I want to disclose that. And I'll disclose it now for any time in the future. I am a part-time employee of VHB and their subcontractor and they show up on applications. I didn't know it when I was testifying. I also recognized the fellow that was John Illek that was testifying. I had a conflict that goes back about 55 years with him. Hey Dave, that's a separate application. That's a separate application? Oh, I was going to make it general if I could. Okay. Because I'm afraid this is going to crop up. You know, since I'm looking at the applications, but I don't always know the subcontractors, engineers, whoever. In John Illek's case, he's the owner. I didn't realize that when I was testifying. I appointed him as a very planning officer at 55 years old. That's pretty minor. But I just want to disclose those. Now, as far as this application is concerned, thank you. The shade trees being removed is something that we would be concerned with, but you've had a good discussion of those and I think you addressed the issues there. One point that we always try to make is that the owner has a management plan on how to maintain these trees and landscaping and all. So we would encourage you to have some consideration of that. Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public regarding this application? If not, I would make a motion to close conditional use application CU1904 and continued site plan application SB1921. Second. I'd like to just be clarifying something. Hypothetically, now it's closed, we're going to deliberate. Let's say we don't grant the waiver we could make, as a condition of the permit, the replacement of the apple trees with the servo tree trees. That would be the hypothetical plan. Okay, I have a second to that motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. I was opposed. I'm standing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Brian. Now move to agenda item number eight. Final plot application SD1921. The Various Associates LLC to amend a previously approved plan to unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings for four unit multi-family dwellings and three commercial buildings. The amendment consists of an after-the-fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for unit number 35 on Fall Street from 20 feet to 13 feet at 1075 Hinesburg Road. Who is here for the applicant? Brad DeSvitch from Various Associates. Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Hi, Dave. How are you? So this is preliminary final plot. I don't need to swear in here, right? Yes, you do need to. I do need to swear. I thought you told me that was the last one. Please read it. That was the last one that was continued without being heard. I apologize. I swear to tell the whole truth and a penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Tell us a little bit about the final plan application here and the reason why you're amending it. Dave Marshall for the record. Our office prepared the plan that depicts the existing additions that's up on the screen right now. The area of interest is down in the southwest corner of the lot in which there was a porch built on the backside of the building and it does encroach within the grid setback. For orientation purposes, this is the far northern portion of the Rai Meadows project and on the south side is an existing mini park that was a component of the project and this particular lot six, which is basically a condominium lot that has these particular seven cottages lies adjacent just north of the park. At this point in time, we did offer belatedly to staff some photographs of the existing conditions and we offer that to the board as whether or not they would like to accept that in support of the discussion of the existing conditions. Could you first, can you point out maybe you have the clicker? Yeah, which homes are built in which... This is the only building that's constructed. The only building is number 35. That is correct. Okay. Dave, are you planning to come back with number 34 and number... Are we doing this? Are we trying to get back to 13 feet on everything or is it just this one? Well, our request was originally just for this structure, but staff correctly pointed out that it's difficult for the board to do that, that because this is one lot that the request would have to extend along the entire back edge of this particular parcel. So Dave, lot seven is all of those buildings? No, wait. Yes. Yes. Okay. And one of which is built, but what's the setback on number 35 right now? Yes. Is it... 20. It's 20. Yes. So the question I think that John was getting to, which is you requested that number 15 have the 13-foot setback, but the way it's set up, we would have to approve... Am I correct? Yes. A waiver for all of the unbuilt... All are none. Yep. Yeah, all are none. It's 35, I think. It's a lot 30. The one on the left, yeah. Is there a request for a waiver for the whole lot? Let's say, if you would agree, that that would be the modified request that we recommend. Somebody going to put it in the paper and notice it? So yes, that is... You have a funding application, right? That is how the notice reads. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. So the notice says the amendment consists of an after-the-fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for unit 35 on Fall Street from 20 feet to 13 feet at 1075 Hinesburg Rogue. So you're saying that you don't think that that's an appropriate public notice because it doesn't say for... I absolutely don't think that. And I would like to ask the developer why they're here for an after-the-fact application. Why did this have to be after the fact? You just build it, right? Is this just a theory better to do it and say you're sorry than to ask permission? No. So when the parcel was put on the site map, the deck wasn't included. And so when the guys got in the field, it was built without even a question about it. So when we set out all the plans, the engineering plans, if you look at 35 there, the deck wasn't noted on the plans. The plans are used to be submitted here. Right. But it was always on the construction plan? No, we usually don't put decks on construction plans. Well, because we always have decks in the backs of our homes. I'm sorry, because why? Because we always have decks on the rears of the homes. This is probably the first time, and I don't know how long we've had to worry about a rear yard setback, to be honest with you. Usually our homes, there's 50 feet or more from the rear. So this usually doesn't come up. It came up here and it was after the fact. It was noted from our engineering saying, hey, you've got a problem here. You've got a deck that's in a setback, and that's why we're here. We didn't even know it was in the setback. The deck is already built. Brad, has someone bought this home and is living in it now? Yes. You were in charge of the construction, right? And you knew what site plan you had submitted, right? Yes. Did you identify this, or did the city identify it? I was just asking. Our engineer notified us of the problem. So this is self-reported. Self-reported. Thank you. I mean, you knew that anyway, right? You knew? You were in charge of construction. You knew it was being built? I didn't know it was in the setback, no. What will happen if it's not approved? We'll have to remove the deck. Yeah. Well, most of the deck. Most of it, yeah. For all intents and purposes, all of it. I mean, you can keep probably three or four feet of it, but it's not very usable. So you've read the comments. The position that we're in is the position that is presented to us by staff is that, you know, the concern about the encroachment into the park, the concern that if we are granting a waiver, we're granting it for all the unbuilt homes, which could also be encroached to the park. And, and... Well, we are, aren't we? I mean, we, it's one lot. The application is for one lot, right? But that, but the... Right. So the whole part, the one lot is lot seven, which is all of the homes shown on the stage. That's why the other problem, that's why the notice is defective, Frank, in my opinion. So what we notice is what the applicant asks for. Which doesn't inform the public of what may happen. I mean, we may require the previous applicant to plant service berries, and that wasn't in the notice either. Things change. No, it's not the same. I don't think the switch from crab apple to service berry is as material as changing... No, no, I agree. That's not as substantial. But you know, there's been other cases where recently there was a misunderstanding between staff and the applicant and they wanted to put in five single family homes and a 258 unit development. And we thought they wanted seven or the other way around. And the board was okay with that. Well, you know, I don't see this as a criticism of the applicant or staff at all. I just see it as a way of getting the public to notice they're entitled to it. Since this deck has already been built, I don't see how a delay to re-notice it is going to cause prejudice or harm to anyone. But it does say clearly. I understand your concern, but it does say clearly and the staff notes right away, you know, and staff note number one, you know, the interpretation. But are the staff notes part of the notice? No, the notice is the first paragraph. Right, that's the concern. Okay, so our options at this time, I'm hearing from two of our board members is that we may need to re-notice this and continue this for a different day. Well, I can only tell you what our intent of this was and the intent was to only get a modification for that one home. We've since redesigned the other homes next door. We look at 31 and 27 as we approach submitting building permits for those homes. We've since eliminated any decks that were possibly going to be installed to not have this problem again. But I get where everyone's coming from and you can't just make it for one house. I mean, if there's a way to do it, I'm totally fine just doing it for this one house. We certainly don't have the intention of doing it for any of the others. But I get the quagmire that we're in. So they just won't have decks? It's my understanding that we can do patios and we can design these homes in such a way that we can have a door off the side of the house that someone can access their rear patio and patios can go into the setbacks. So that's kind of how we're thinking about this. They're tight footprints. That's really what we're dealing with. It's almost like an urban lot in a suburban environment. And that's the pains of kind of dealing with that scenario. Challenging. Yeah, it's a little challenging. So the pain of dealing with the scenario of tight footprints? Yeah, this is, I mean, when you talk about people wanting first floor masters with attached garages for a decent sales price, it's challenging to make these footprints work. A few were else. So Brad and David, we've got three issues. One is, is this noticed properly? So that's an outstanding question here. The second is, I understand, and I believe you when you say you're just looking at this one, but we still have to deal with that issue as the lot is set up. And number three, you know, the staff has suggested several changes to your public space that will cost money in order to accommodate for what we see as an encroachment. And you've considered that and, you know, I'm inclined to understand their sentiment, you know? And so that must be taken under consideration by. Yeah, and I think some of the information here that I've researched is not totally accurate. So when, and just, I went to our site contractor and I talked to them about, hey, where's the, because there's a locate, there's a note on page five of the staff report that notes that the swale is on the parkland and not as it's designed in the middle and that property line between the park and the property lines. Our site contractor said it's exactly where it shows on the site plans. The boulders themselves are on the side of the park. They're not right in the swale just for proper, they just normally don't put boulders or any impeding objects to block any water that might be coming through. So I'm not sure that all that's totally accurate. But, and I give Don and John a chance to say, but I think I've heard from Frank and Brian regarding the notice requirement and from my opinion, is that I'd rather err on the side of caution and re-notice this unless there's some solution that I don't know of that figures out how we deal with the lot seven versus number 35 issue and absent that. It's my inclination to decide with Brian and I think Frank and continue this to be re-noticed. Don, John, what do you feel? I'm open to suggestions if the board has other ideas on how to deal with just approving it for one portion of a rear setback line, but this is not a footprint loss situation. That's one of the staff comments. This is multiple homes on a single block. So it's, I don't see a way forward with that. If the board does choose to continue this, just to change the subject a little bit, I would encourage you guys to do a site visit. This is a public park. It's nice. Summer, go take a walk. Do I block that area frequently? It's used quite a bit. I mean, one of the worst things as a developer is to put a playground that's not used and it's used. It's great and the intention is to have it used from neighboring neighborhoods that people are not just living outright and that's exactly what's happening here. It's from just an anecdotal point. Okay. Well, I would make a motion to continue to Wednesday, September 4th. I don't think we can do that. So the reason we can't do that is because if we're re-noticing Final Plot, it has to get into the OP 15 days before. Got it. Which means we have to do it for September 17th. Okay. I make the motion that we continue Final Plot application SD 1921 for Tuesday, September 17th. Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstaining. Okay. See you on the 17th of September. Sure. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Now moving on to agenda item. Well, let's take it together. Nine and 10, preliminary and Final Plot application, SD 1922 of SunCamp Property Group just resubditized five lots, 8B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and one easement into four lots of 6.9 acres, lot 8B, 43.8 acres, lot 9, 6.7 acres, lot 11, and 6.6 acres, lot 12, and eliminate the previously approved City Street Community Way for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehouse and distribution center at 635 Community Drive and site plan application SB 1928 of SunCamp Property Group to construct 144,000 square foot, 30 foot high warehouse building, moved equipment storage and parking areas, and associated site improvements on the proposed 43.8 acre lot and widened and signalized the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue, the 635 Community Drive. Who is here for the applicant? I'm John Illich. Hi, John. I represent Apology Park and with me we have Kevin Dar and Jonathan Green representing SunCamp. Kevin and Jonathan. John, Kevin and Jonathan, could you raise your right hand? That's where to tell the truth, under penalty perjury. I do. Thank you very much. Conflicts. Yeah. Any disclosures from the board? Yeah. So I'll leave it to you, John, but I own two of the buildings I can see in the picture. So if you'd like me to step aside, I will. I have no issue. Okay. I have a question. Sure. Mr. Chair. Probably for the staff. How is this different from what the board reviewed on 716, SD1920? So that was a sketch. So they presented the the concept, which actually was presented to us 18 months prior. Yeah. About that. So for some of us, John and myself, I think Frank, this is our second time of seeing sketch. But now we're into preliminary and final plat.  I didn't print all the lighting charts. I don't want to save my printer. But the comments that we have taken or the comments that we have given at the last sketch hearing, some of them have been incorporated into this preliminary and final plat application, which we have before. So tell us a little bit about what's different that we saw at sketch. John. Thank you. So very little is different. We've been working with Marla and her staff on the various comments that have been made. There were some minor landscaping issues by way of example in the parking lot islands. At the end of the islands, we would have had two shade trees because there was a T at the end of the island. Fire Department wanted one because otherwise their trucks would run into them. There were some questions about depth of soil, which we've been in discussion with the city of Arborist on. So the number of small landscaping related issues the building is exactly the same as we saw at sketch plan review. The architecture is exactly the same. There were some questions about site lighting, lighting levels, lighting at property lines and so forth. There's a couple of questions about noise, which we've addressed in our noise study. And so most people wouldn't be able to distinguish any difference in the plan. And we have further details regarding the intersection and the, yeah. Let me just comment on where we stand on those conversations. As you know from our application, we're proposing signalization at the intersection of the eastern leg of community drive and Kimbell. This is sponsored and endorsed by our traffic engineer, VHB. The city has suggested that city being Justin Rabadou and Paul Conner that maybe a roundabout might be considered. And we've been in discussions about that and we're certainly willing to consider it. Our concerns are really about the physical accommodation of that because it's very tight quarters there. The cost of that, because we believe it's considerably more expensive than signalization, which is a sort of sort of a proven solution, and the geometry of it. Because of the limitations on the site and our inability to control property to the north of Kimbell, the design conceived of by Stan Tech, which was the city's engineer to look into the roundabout concept, it put the alignment skewed south, which was not as well accommodating of traffic throughput as you would want. It was also a residential scale roundabout. What I mean by that is it was very narrow in diameter. Really, that would accommodate cars. So trucks going through this roundabout would actually have to drive over the island, which in our opinion is neither safe nor accommodating. But I will say this, we are definitely willing to consider it as long as it can be accommodated in a safe and timely manner and it's cost effective. Our proposal is for signalization. Is that a picture of the but is that scale, is that actually designed or is that just a concept? That's a concept drawing and that's the one conceived of by Stan Tech. And you can see I don't know if I should do this or not but we'll walk up here. You can see the northern edge of this is in line with the centerline of the road. Normally that would be there. And what that accomplishes is the traffic calming notion. When you have that straight shot it doesn't function as one of the functions. I agree with you, I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you because I have two things going on simultaneously. I'm not too concerned about the expense to you but I take your point about the roundabout being undersized. I think I would rather have no roundabout than an undersized roundabout. I don't do what a roundabout is supposed to do. As John suggested we're working very closely with them on both the signalization and roundabout alternatives. Our position is that while I personally have a little bit exposure to transportation design you know I've designed stormwater related transportation stuff we're not experts. They have a team of experts we have a team of experts and we're working together with them to find the best solution that meets the city goals. Those goals being cost effective and safe and efficient and timely. That's fine Marla but it has a direct effect on how I would vote on this. Because I know Kimball Avenue very well I own three buildings on the street and one of the biggest problems Kimball Avenue has is a traffic issue where cars just keep coming. They come to that stop sign at this four-way corner and every 75 to 100 feet there's a car so you can't cross traffic at all because they just continually come. We suggest that we just lay in on this after it's a little farther along. We're still asking that we're not looking at final plan here. Right. But there's some issues that are going to require this to be continued and we believe that the design will be a lot further along by that point. It is a very thick packing we're looking at two different two different so if it's okay with the board and the applicant I'd like to just start in order with a staff comment so we're going to start first with SD 1922. First comment the application for preliminary water and wastewater allocations these allocations have not yet been granted. Is there an update that you can tell us and staff regarding this or is this something that you don't have yet? We don't have written allocation yet. But you'll get it. Yes. Great. Staff comment number two staff comment number two the applicant has provided shared access agreement to formalize the connection between lot nine and a lot 11 but in the draft agreement is provided the proposed occupant with the right to deny such a connection. Staff considers that the draft agreement does not meet the requirements of section 1301 F and recommends the board require the applicant amend the agreement to remove the ability of FedEx or its successor to deny the connection. Staff considers it would be acceptable for FedEx or its successor to reserve the right to be involved in the design of such a connection. So that last line seems to be some middle ground. Would the applicant agree with that? The LDRs require this kind of connection in residential and commercial applications. They specifically exempt it from industrial applications. We would argue we're exempt period. But in the spirit of it we have consented to staff's request to show it on our show an easement on our plan and we actually created an easement document and in sketch plan review where we had this discussion we said that as long as FedEx is a tenant there this connection cannot be made. We have security issues that would preclude this from happening. But we agreed to show it because FedEx may not always be there. And so it was to preserve the future right ability for this to happen. So when we created the easement document it simply says FedEx will have to have the right to say no to it. That doesn't preclude any future occupant of that property from saying yes to it. So the legal entitlement for it to exist is there. But the current tenant of that will have to be able to say no to it. Do you agree with their contention that people's industrial are exempt? Appears to be the way 13.01f reads. I guess in summary we believe we've complied with the request. What that you're an industrial application that you don't need to. We don't need to comply. That's our position. I think that was just corroborated. But we're happy to do what we've done. I think that staff's concern in reading the draft agreement was that it allowed the FedEx or its successor to deny the connection. It feels like a weak agreement when the connection can be denied by anyone who occupies the property. I guess we would feel comfortable potentially allowing FedEx to deny the connection but not its successor. That's not acceptable because we don't know that the successor may not have the exact same concern. They may have to retain that right. This is an industrial application. It's exempt regardless. So I'm not quite sure on what grounds you're pushing this point. I believe we've gone quite a long way to roll to a concept here that may preserve some future right. And ultimately up to the board. Is there any FedEx? FedEx is enormous but suppose FedEx got bought by there. XYZ. And the name of the tenant changed. You would trigger that, right? I think that's unacceptable. I think most of what we try to deal with it has nothing to do with the tenancy. And the fact that we're trying to push that into this I think is inappropriate. What if we said something like if it becomes a and then lists the things retail, restaurant, service use. A non-industrial use? The things before the word excluding. That makes sense because the applicant's right. I mean residential, agricultural and industrial uses do not need to comply with that. I see what you're saying. If FedEx were to leave this property. Can we turn it to a big restaurant? It was a restaurant. It was a big restaurant. You would agree to that. It would have to come in for a use change. Yeah. And in that use change application it would be your prerogative, it would be within your right to require that to happen. And we would have to consent to that. As long as it's an industrial application which frequently have security requirements it has to be able to be secure. All right. So I'm just, I'm sorry to have a legal hat on. So if you're talking about an actual formal easement can have if we're going to accommodate the exception for a change of use to from industrial to one where it's required your easements should have somehow be consistent with that. The language of your easement has to be written such that the benefit, right, that's quite a drafting problem. So that the benefit only runs with the land but it's subject to divestment in the case of a, the benefit of saying no. I'm having trouble framing this but you know where I'm going. The benefit of saying no runs with the land but it's subject to divestment if the buyer or the new owner or the new user is a non-exempt entity or a non-exempt use. Why don't we agree to do this even though we're I want you to agree to do that. That's what I'm about to say. Why don't we agree to do this? We will redraft this easement document that we're not required to have to suggest that we would be willing to agree to a connection in the event the future use of the property were one of the uses that actually required a connection. Great. Sounds great. How's that? Perfect. Moving on. Page four. Gates and traffic signals equipped with an Opticon system. Fire hydrant should be located between the driver and the building. We want to make this condition approval. You're okay with that? Yes. All right. Staff comment on number four. Staff recommends us require the applicant to construct a roundabout. Staff considers that in order to close the hearing of the city and the applicant must agree on a total right of way required for the roundabout that the DRB should receive guidance from the city council on the mechanism for funding the intersection improvements. Okay. Then staff comment on number five. Design for the intersection is ongoing. Staff recommends the board direct direct staff and the applicant to continue to work on the development of more design and report findings back to the board prior to closing the hearing board can at that time determine what level of design details can be conditioned upon approval of the director of public order. So to summarize that we have we're not at a point where we actually can offer our recommendation for roundabout or traffic signal because we don't have all the information. It's still being discussed but at a continued hearing we might be able to make that final determination. Do I have that right? Staff? Yep. So if I could summarize a couple of things that didn't really make it in here and this was really, really difficult to write. The board's responsibility and the board's authority when it comes to offsite mitigation is threefold. The board has to say that offsite mitigation is needed. The applicant has said offsite mitigation is needed. Staff agrees with them. It's pretty simple. It seems like everyone should agree to that. The board should say what form that mitigation should take. The board has to approve a plan. So, you know, like we say, when people want to change out their lights, we need to be specific. And then the third piece that some members have been participated in before but other members have not. I think we haven't done one of these in a while. The board needs to recommend if they so choose that the applicant's traffic impact fee be applied as credit towards their offsite mitigation construction costs if the impact mitigation fee ordinance allows it. So, that's a recommendation the DRB makes in their decision to counsel and sort of outline how that's done in the LDRs. That is the board's authority and the board's discussion should focus on those things. And those things are pretty broad but just want to clarify that those are the things that the board has the authority on here. Yeah, go ahead. So, our status on that is this. Our traffic engineer has said that the traffic that we will add to that intersection does indeed triple warrant for signalization. And that is our recommendation. So, there's two issues here. Is traffic signalization an appropriate solution? And then two, how does it get paid for? Our traffic, our peak trip ends that add, that trip this warrant add a certain percentage to that intersection but clearly we don't consume all of it. I see John driving through and I drive through it. So, there's other traffic that goes through it. We did have a meeting with City Council last week for the sole, for the specific purpose of discussing the applying certain costs of this traffic mitigation solution either roundabout or traffic signal against the impact fees or vice versa. And they were in agreement, unanimous, that they would support that concept. We did not talk specific numbers because we didn't have specific numbers. We believe a traffic signal will be somewhere in the range of a quarter of a million dollars. The roundabout, there's fairly serious disagreement about what it may cost. Staff's opinion is it could be as low as $400,000. Our opinion is it's probably north of a million and a half. We also don't understand the benefits that that would bring but that's neither here or there. At today's meeting that we had with staff with Justin, Paul and Marla, what we agreed to do was seek approval for our project that included signalization. It's a time-honored, time-tested solution. We know we can do it. We know we can do it in an appropriate time frame. And with that approval in hand, we would also enter into a agreement with the city to continue to explore a roundabout. And if it was determined that a roundabout was the better solution, we'd be happy with it. How long is that exploration? So just to clarify, when John said we agreed to, he means we as in his application team. He proposed that to the city and the city said we need some time to think about that. If in that deliberation there's a contrary opinion, we're going to let our application stand. And our application is, as you've seen it and it's been advertised, which is for a building and our off-site mitigation solution is a traffic signal. For the continued hearing, would it be possible to have the two traffic engineers come in? Because I'd like to hear the competing viewpoints on that. They bring banjos? Do them banjos, yeah. Oh, seriously. The competing interests are in fact in this room. We have our traffic engineer here tonight and it wasn't Stantec's opinion, which is the city engineer. It wasn't their opinion that it roundabout. It was city staff's opinion they wanted a roundabout and they asked Stantec to look at it. So I'd like the opinions are in the room. Who's here representing the city, though? So no one is here that is a traffic expert. Okay, so we don't have it. I'd like to have both next time. And the board has the authority to request that. So it's just, so I understand that. Stantec was hired by the city. Okay, so who's your traffic? VHB. VHB. And David Saldino is here with us tonight. So this is not a situation of a technical review. Stantec is not an independent third party. Stantec is hired by the city. I don't think a third party review was needed. I started with a really strong bias and maybe you can disabuse me on the front with you exactly what I'm thinking. I'm taking it back when you say you don't see why a roundabout would be an improvement over signalization. I think empirically, for any driver, it's an obvious improvement. Do you have some basis for thinking a roundabout is not a considerable improvement over signalization on a busy highway? I probably should have been clearer. A too small roundabout. Okay, thank you. With improper alignment is probably not an improvement. Our engineer has suggested that a single-lane roundabout, which is what we're talking about here, does not even have more capacity than signalization. I'm with a lousy roundabout. It's not a solution. Right. So my next question is, who owns the stuff to the north? I assume what's squeezing the roundabout is property rights to the north. Well, there's a lot of factors. What about dealing with that? So one of those factors is an offset, and that offset doesn't have to be abrupt. That offset can be gradual, so that you wouldn't even notice. The road is already at an arc, so if you just make that arc wider, it becomes less of an offset. Well, my visualization, and this is not so great, so I would have to see it later. To answer your question, the property to the north of Kimball is not owned by us. I get it. That's our policy. So there's property acquisition to deal with. I'm not saying it's a concern, because maybe he'd happily sell some, I don't know. There are also some fairly profound utilities on the north side of Kimball that I won't say are prohibitively expensive, but they'd add a considerable amount to the project. Well, for myself, I mean, I don't want you to, if everybody involved thinks it's futile, I'll accept that judgment. But I'd really like to see that explored. Let me be clear.  It's only going to get more and more and more crowded. There's a lot of open land there. You're consuming a big chunk of it, but not all of it. So there's going to be more traffic yet. It needs a good solution. A good solution is a right-sized and properly functioning roundabout, which would be vastly, I think, unless somebody can disabuse me of it with some knowledge, would be a vast improvement over any kind of signalization, which will just have traffic backed up like it is on Pine Street in Burlington eventually when Kimball Avenue gets all the way built out. Couldn't disagree with you more. And have you been agreeing with each other all evening? Well, as I said earlier, Kimball Avenue has a really basic problem right now, and maybe someday it'll be four lanes and fix the whole thing. But it has a basic problem right now of traffic just coming all the time. It never stops. And it's because of the stop, the four-way stop sign at that intersection. If you stopped traffic once in a while, you'd allow people to get in and out of traffic from the buildings that are on either side of the road, and it would work vastly better. So a rotary only allows that traffic to continuously flow, just like the stop sign does. But a good roundabout lets people in as well. It doesn't let people in from the buildings on the sides because you've now got the traffic all patterned all the time. Okay, well, you know what? I don't have the expertise for that. My empirical observation is that all of that I'm going to assume. But in any case, I'm going to be executed by somebody besides John. So Frank, I don't think you're incorrect in this regard. If you had to do this from scratch and you had the land necessary to do it and you had a double-lane roundabout of an appropriate diameter, I think most people would easily be on the side that that's a good solution. We have existing conditions here that probably will preclude that design for being a 140-foot diameter and having double lanes and so forth. So the best we can really get in, even probably if there's a little extra land purchase, is a single-lane roundabout of a diameter that's too small. And here's the linchpin. It's bounded by traffic lights on either side of it. So facilitating, even if you thought that a roundabout would facilitate traffic in the middle of this hose, you still have constrictions on either end. So unless and until the city could develop a transportation plan that included roundabouts in sequence, one in the middle is going to accomplish... We would argue nothing. In fact, it probably will be a lesser solution. Our traffic engineer will tell us that the signalization properly designed will actually have a larger throughput than the single-lane roundabout. I think this is a really big deal. And I am with my colleague. I'm wanting to see both engineers here at the same time. One other question. Is this project subject to Act 250 jurisdiction? Yes, it is. So what happens if we approve a roundabout in Act 250, says signalization? I can't answer that. We will be addressing traffic in a profound manner with Act 250 because that's one of their key criteria. So typically, you know, an applicant presents an option.  Typically, when a project requires off-site mitigation, the city has done a study. The city has done studies of most of its major roadways that sort of roughs in what the off-site mitigation or what improvements are necessary at major intersections. In this case, the city has not yet done a traffic study of this intersection. So the city has sort of this vague concept that they want to see a roundabout. This is something that has been, as I understand, an existence long before my time here. And so what we have done is we have sort of expedited this roundabout concept in the same way they would have been done if it were just sort of a normal pace of project. When South Village came in, they had to do off-site mitigation. And we were able to sort of push a piece of paper across the desk and say, okay, here you go, this is the design that we want to see. You know, I think typically an applicant comes in and they say, here's our design, and we say, yep, it meets what the city's already designed. And then they go with that to Act 250 and they say, the city's on board with this. It's not really common to have this sort of one or the other discussion at the local or Act 250 level. It's much more common to say, here's what we want to do. And I would hope that, you know, when they are in front of Act 250, that everybody agrees with the agreed upon solution. Putting in signalization, which we believe is the appropriate solution here, given all the factors. Doesn't preclude a roundabout from ever getting built. So in South Burlington's wisdom, if in the future they think a roundabout in a scheme of greater transportation concept is the appropriate solution, that's fine. I don't feel it's fair to penalize us because the city didn't analyze this traffic to come up with what they think the appropriate mitigation should have been. As I said, that's the normal. And most applicants in fact, I would probably guess all of them, come in with a notion of what the solution should be based on their consultants. And it's generally going to be in concert with what the city said they wanted in their plan. The plan was devoid of a solution. So we came in with a very normal solution and we're asking for approval with that. John, if I'm reading these right, it's not like you are just mounting the edge of the curve. You're going right over there. You're driving right over. It's an absurd design. That's going to rival the Route 7 so-called. It's going to be worse. Diverging double diamond or whatever that is. There's an example of Act 250 in the municipality not being on the same page. But I digress. Well, we'd be happy to provide the board with some videos of how those roundabouts work with trucks prior to the next hearing. We can post them on our website with public to view. It seems like everybody needs a lot more education. I would just reiterate, Brian has requested that both traffic consultants be available to discuss this. I feel like right now we're having a bunch of non-traffic experts opine on what the absolute best traffic solution should be. And I don't know that that's really great basis for a decision. I think that's wise. Okay. I think what I'm going to do is move on to SB1928 now and then after we get through this then open it up to public comments. Is that okay? Okay. I need to make one last comment to what Marla just said. Our opinion is not that of a non-expert. It's that of VHB. So I'm the mouthpiece here but I'm expressing the opinion of a well-respected traffic engineer. It's not just a casual observation. And we have VHB's conclusion in the packet too as well. Sure, Brett. Okay. So, SB1928, 635 Community Drive. Let's go right to comment number one. Applicant is verbally represented that the roof requirement will consist of air handling equipment. Staff considers air handling equipment qualifies as a minor rooftop apparatus under the definition of height, which is excluded from the calculation of height. Staff recommends the board confirm the applicant's characterization of the roof equipment. Is that the correct characterization of the roof equipment? It absolutely is. And we've submitted a roof equipment plan and it's just as we've represented it. And the applicant, item number two, applicant has calculated the average pre-construction grade elevation at 339.6 and the maximum roof elevation to be 374.9, resulting in the height of 35.3 feet. 307.2 allows the DRB to approve heights above 35 feet within the zoning district by increasing front and rear setbacks of one foot and by increasing side setbacks by one half foot for each additional foot of height requested. The building is set back more than the minimum on all sides. Therefore, staff considers the board may grant approval for the requested height, but that the board must do so explicitly. So, we're going to give you an extra 0.3 feet. I don't have a problem with that, does anyone on the board? Okay. Item number three, on page four, staff notes that the proposed connection between lot nine and lot 11 is shown on the survey plat, but does not appear to be indicated on the civil plan as a future connection. This is back to the earlier discussion that we've had. Staff recommends the board discuss this with the applicant. It shows on plan C3, but we can show it on any plan that is appropriate. Okay. Item number four, on page seven, regarding screening of parking areas from view of interstate. Okay. So, item number five, the applicant has provided the earthwork section showing how the building, commercial vehicle storage areas, and parking areas will appear relative to one another. Is there a way we can see that? They have also provided a height diagram, sheet H2, which shows the view from the interstate. The applicant is proposing to construct a berm, but staff considers that the berm will do little to block the views of the commercial vehicle storage area from the northbound lanes of the interstate. The berm is proposed to have a height of an average of eight feet above the average pre-construction grade. Staff recommends the board consider sheet H2 and discuss whether additional screening of commercial vehicle parking area is warranted. We're going to get H2 up here. Oh, yeah. It's at the bottom of the page. You're right. Okay. So, if you zoom into that view from the bottom, yeah. So, I think this is my first experience with dealing with screening from the interstate. John, do you want to go home? I've never had one. I've never. I don't know of any requirement either at the South Burlington level or at Act 250 that requires anything to be invisible. We've done, I believe, a very good job with landscaping and berms, setting the building into the grade to minimize its visual impact. I'm going to give this drawing to Marilyn for distribution. This shows lines of sight on our current landscape plan and land sculpting for northbound traffic that essentially renders the truck storage area invisible. And we've spent a lot of time and money creating a masonry building as opposed to what 99% of these distribution facilities are, which are rakelton metal, because we wanted to create a very handsome building. I believe either the building or any of the accoutrements around it need to be invisible. What it needs to be is attractive and I believe we've set a pretty good example at technology part of everything being very handsome. Landscaping, land sculpting, architecture and so forth, and this building will be no exception. I don't think anyone's suggesting it be invisible. So, I think I figured out what John just handed us and as it goes around I want you all to look at it. What's shown up on the screen is the sight line of the building. What's shown on that plan is the sight line of the trucks. So that's what the difference is and I think that's a very informative drawing that John has just provided. You don't have to have one more copy of that, do you? I don't, but I can give you as many as you need. Great question. Frank and John, that drawing shows three lines of sight from northbound traffic on the interstate looking at the building. Keep going. I'd be happy to explain it if it helps. It's not going to be a killer moment. This is their tracker trailer. Regarding number six, as discussed in staff notes for SD 1922, the applicant has provided a 50-foot easement for future connection to the adjacent property. Staff considers the proposed easement agreement does not meet the requirements of 1301F. However, recommends the board recommend the applicant address the issue prior to closing the hearing. We discussed this in the prior. Number seven, the applicant has not provided a detail for dumpster screening nor shown the proposed screening in the location of the dumpster in the plan. Staff considers the applicant must indicate how the proposed dumpsters to be screened prior to the board closing the hearing. Is that something you can do for us? Yes, the dumpster is already screened. The dumpster is immediately adjacent to the building, which is inside the fence line and the fence line is surrounded by... Arbivite. It's screened. Normally, in most applications, you have a dumpster and two feet outside of that, you have a fence. In this case, our fence is further outboard of that. But it is screened. It's indicated that it's Arbivite and everything. It's all shown on the landscape. Number eight, other comments affecting landscape layout will be required, the applicant to update. Before we keep going, we just had a slide conversation about this because this is ultimately Delilah's enforcement issue. I think that... So it says, all dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling compost or other requirements shall be accessible, secure, and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure. We're not going to see it from there. So, not sure that screening is just visual. Screening is also to ensure trash and debris do not escape the enclosure. I think it does need to have a fence immediately around it. To ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure. Right. So our enclosure is around the perimeter of the asphalt. And our testimony is that trash will not escape that enclosure. Yeah, you're fully fenced. Yeah, fully fenced. The dumpster has a lid on it. The dumpster has a lid on it because it's actually a compactor. Oh, compactor. Oh, so it doesn't even have a chance of getting out. Yep. We're very fastidious on our site as well. Okay. Number eight, other comments affecting landscaping layout require the applicant to update their schedule of landscape values. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the landscape values prior to closing the hearings. We haven't done that in some measure. Number nine, the applicant modified their plan to address the standard landscaping standard, but has only provided two feet of uncompact planning soil underlain by half a foot of compacted planning soil. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify their detail to provide two and a half feet of uncompacted planning soil to comply with the arborist comment. Is that acceptable? Yes. We consulted our landscape designer consulted with the city arborist and he's 100% on board with our plan. Fantastic. Number 10 on page 10, fire inspector is indicated by email that the proposed shade trees at the end of the parking will interfere with the fire truck's access to the parking line indicated be acceptable. Replace the two trees with a single centrally located tree on the ends of each island. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to make this change and replace the removed trees elsewhere around the perimeter of the parking lot. We have done that. It's reflected on the new plan. Do I have the new plan, John? You may not because I think we were told that we couldn't submit new information too close to the hearing date so it's on the plan and it'll be part of... It's going to happen. Yes. It's going to happen. Thank you. Number 11 on page 10, the applicant has not proposed any screening around the utility cabinet to be located on the west side of the access drive. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to fully screen the cabinet from the street. So the cabinet is essentially, I don't know if you'll understand this vernacular but a pull box, is to get wire from the street to the building. Our current information is that won't even be necessary. That GMP can actually make that pull without a pull box in the middle. If there is the need for a pull box in the middle and it's only this high it's not like a big transformer. We'll screen it. All right. Good. Number 12, page 11, staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise the plans to meet the requirements of article 16 including that exposed soil be seeded to mulch or covered with erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading that the minimum of four inches of top soil will provide to cover overall finished slopes. Is that fine? That's absolutely fine. That's a requirement. Okay, 13 on page 12. Since the project is not a PUD, staff considers the applicant must submit a conditional use application for the proposed stream impacts or revise a plan to remove the impacts within 100 feet of buddy Brook. As part of the conditional use application, the applicant must demonstrate they have submitted a complete application to ANR for coverage under a state stormwater permit. Alternatively, the applicant could revise the plans to remove the infrastructure from this area. We have done that. Okay. Great. Moving on to staff comment number 14 on page 13. Staff recommends the board incorporate comments from the stormwater section requiring you to regularly maintain stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Got it. Number 15, comment letter has been provided by a member of the public who is a lighting professional, which concludes that the proposed lighting will be at a temperature level resulting in nuisance impacts. Staff recommends the board review the public comment letter request necessary modifications to the proposed lighting plan. I have reviewed the letter. If Donna is here, she'll have an opportunity to speak during the public comment section. You can talk to after that time or you can address it now or both. Yeah. So we were happy to receive Donna's letter. Obviously she understands lighting quite well. We have had our electrical engineer prepare a response to that. Did we submit that? I have it here with us, but our lighting designer has submitted a response to her concerns. I don't believe the concerns are anything that aren't accommodated with our lighting plan. So maybe we could hear her concerns and then we could discuss our response to it. Yes. It was a very well-written letter and if she has a chance to summarize it articulated, I want to give her that chance of the public comment period and you can respond after that or we can respond through your lighting designer. But moving on right now, I am 16. Board of sketch plan discussed the possible installation of a cover over the outdoor bicycle parking. Staff recommends the board follow up on the subject for the applicant. Are you going to have a cover over your bicycle? We are going to have a cover over our bicycle. Excellent. Okay. Number 17 on page 14. Staff recommends the board consider whether they would like to see one hour of sound levels for the property taken into consideration, provide sound barriers and the potential community impacts of noise. Staff notes that this project is subject to Act 250 review and Act 250 has some noise limits which are higher than the self-blowing to allowable noise levels. If you referred to the second paragraph in the executive summary on page I of the report, it shows the average hourly sound levels in their 10 to 15 decibels below the threshold. So it takes those into account. Sorry, Kevin, tell me again, page 11. It's page I. It's in the second paragraph of the executive summary. Okay. So we'll staff will take a look at that closely before the next hearing. Thank you for pointing that out. You'll have to walk through this with Act 250 as well. Number 18, it is not clear to staff where stations are as opposed to hubs. Staff recommends this is talking about fencing. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify this designation if there are any sections at 8 feet in height the applicant must apply for a conditional use approval. Is your fence going to be over 8 feet in height? So, yes and no. Our fence is 8 feet high. At the gate, our security gate which is the entrance into the secure area, there is a sliding gate. That sliding gate is about 30 feet in width. In Vermont, it's very challenging to have that kind of sliding gate. You can't really cantilever it at that length. So it either has to be track mounted on the ground or home. If you hang it, the top of the hanging device, the trellis so to speak, would need to be above the top of the truck. Truck is 14 feet roughly so our trellis is at 16 feet for the length of this gate. The entire fence is 8 feet high. That makes sense. But you have to apply for conditional use. That doesn't make sense. The fence is 16 feet high. The gate is 16 feet high. How are you going to move the fence back and forth? The gate itself is only 8 feet high. Does whether or not a conditional use is necessary to distinguish between the gate and the rest of the fence? Jonathan is handing a picture of an example here which I'll pass down. So I guess it's up to the Board to determine whether this is a gate or a fence or the limitation being on fences. Over 8 feet and high. I understand that. It's a perfectly good argument to present conditional use application. So Jonathan, in this picture on the right-hand side of the page, there's a high section. I assume that doesn't exist on this site. So we're just looking at the part that's parallel to the dealer. Cones to the stop sign. The fence and the gate are 8 feet. The place that holds the gate is 16 feet. In other words, the thing that is part of the gate is 16 feet. Oh, I see. It's like a slide. That's the slide. That's just for the gate. Just for the gate and you're at the top of the gate 8 feet and the top of the trial is at 16. There's nothing. Yeah, but look, this is not a cement. I mean, you know. Let's not make a cement a game out of it. We have a structure. You're putting a structure 16 feet high. If the requirement is that a fence higher than 8 feet requires a conditional use permit. And you're building something that requires a structure 16 feet above the ground to support part of your fence. As far as I'm concerned, you need this conditional use application. I can easily be outvoted. It's happened lots of times. But they'd be wrong. I can absolutely see both viewpoints. I would argue in a 600 foot long fence to have 30 feet of it 16 feet just to hold an 8 foot fence is de minimis. That's not discretionary with us. I don't know. But if the will of the DRB is that it requires a conditional use application we will file that. We would suggest that that may not be necessary, but it'll be your decision. I will concede to you this much in the practical world in the common sense world. There's no reason that should have to happen for this particular application. But if we did that, then we wouldn't be following what the things. I have no issue with that. Thank you. So what's the plan here? For additional use applications. So you have your part of your fence in that section over 8 feet. There was another issue that required conditional use approval, wasn't there? So they didn't require it. Now if you don't want to. We're good with what we've got. If you get it to me like this week, we can notice it for September 7th. We'll have it this week. I'm doing you a favor. The application deadline is long past. Number 19 on 15. Staff recommends the applicant provide information evidence that the proposed project complies with the above listed standards or alternatively that the project is located entirely outside the approach comes. Now we're talking about the airport. Yeah. From the FAA saying this aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following conditions are met and there's no conditions that apply to us. And is that, was that in the packet, the very long packet that we received or is that new? We just received it. Thank you. That's very helpful. Okay. If there's any other comments from staff, the applicant or the board. If not, I would open it up for public comment. Come on up. Could I ask one of you to allow a seat so someone can speak at the microphone if they want to make a public comment. Thank you very much. Hi. Could you identify yourself for the record? Hi. I'm Donna Laban. Hi Donna. How are you? Of course that lighting designer who submitted the packet. Donna, your letter was included in the packet and I did read it. Thank you very much. If you could, rather than read it, if you could sort of summarize your concerns or comments that are in the letter. Yeah. So I became aware of the project because the lighting reps who designed the project I think the lighting designer is actually part of the rep agency who's selling the package to the contractor. And so he came to me with a concern. He said, wow, he said the light levels on this are crazy out of sight. And so I requested the package from Marla to find out what the what the light levels were and to find out if they were within the already pretty loose guidelines that South Burlington has under its lighting zoning. I'm surprised it wasn't. Because loosely I mean South Burlington allows you up to three foot candles average in commercial properties. And so I was surprised the way that the site plan was laid out because there's a row of truck parking around the perimeter and then there's 30 foot pole mounted lights around the perimeter which are a special kind of light that's made really for airports and it is shielded it's not particularly downcast but it is shielded and that the very high light levels are required to provide the five foot candles that FedNACS apparently requests between the truck parking bays and the outer perimeter parking bays. And the problem I had with this is the whole area where the trucks are parked around the perimeter there were no foot candle points measured at that those would be the highest points on the entire site most likely and they weren't given so the whole plan was not valid for that reason and the average luminance levels given were also not valid. So I think that they really have to have somebody who is number one going to follow both Act 250 and local requirements for lighting design and also really look at the IESNA requirements which as a maximum requirement not as a minimum because five foot candles is like two and a half times what IESNA's requirements or recommendations I should say are for a a downtown highly pedestrianized area so I mean the cut sheets there's nothing wrong with the fixture types I don't have a complaint with that but one of them utilized is 650 watts of LED which the only thing around here that compares with that and you can see this from this side of the lake is the Danimora prison on the other side of the lake and that's like 10 miles from Lake Champlain and you can see it very clearly from Burlington up on the hill and those are thousand watt metal halides 650 watt of LED very directed light granted it's not going above 90 degrees but it is going to be seen from a lot of places and it's probably fairly dangerous for people trying to back a truck into a truck bay to have that much light kind of shining right in your eyes I can't even see how people can do it so I really think that Act 250 is not going to look at this kindly either because they take a much more critical look about light levels so just because it's LED and just because it's cut off that doesn't mean that this has this is not something that we should be permitting and South Burlington, any place in Vermont for that matter I can see that in some places near airports you have extraordinarily high light levels I can see how they can get away with this and it wouldn't probably be a problem but here it would be rather astonishing for people driving up to see something that they should really have somebody that knows what they're doing first do the site plan do the lighting plan and then resubmit it because Act 250 is going to be really tough on that particular element and from an energy efficiency standpoint just because it's LED it's still using more than twice twice as much power as it really needs to thank you for your comments I appreciate it very much for taking under consideration just briefly re-explain what's wrong with the site plan as a site plan I didn't understand that I guess the site plan that I saw, I don't know if this was redone is this redone at all? there's other pages if you want me to go to the end of the packet no that's okay, I'll just explain because it shows truck parking around the perimeter of the paved area and there were no illuminance points measured at that location which is closest to the poles and so it was showing that that part of the site is an average of 5.5 foot candles average so what you're saying is it's actually more than that if you measure the place where the trucks are parked they didn't have enough, in other words you think there should have been more measured locations in order to arrive at the average that would or would not satisfy what the average luminance is supposed to be yeah, illuminance so you can see what Delayla's pulled up here saying there's sort of a hole, there's all these little spots and then there's spots on the other side and then there's a hole this gap and so that is where the highest luminance points would be most likely is right in front of where the lights are so that can't be that has to be included in the plan just to follow the logic if they were there they're not there so you can't say for sure but your expectation would be if they were properly measured and noted then the average would be higher and would fail our standards well the standards are for 3 foot candles average maximum and so it's already at 5.5 so even as it's shown it fails but it's failing to show some of the points what you're saying is it would fail even more yeah thank you appreciate it are there any other public comments do you want us to address this now happy to go ahead come on up can you state your name for the record I'm Steve Baker I'm with MEI electrical contractors and we had the site design done by Sharon Incorporated so since you're testifying on behalf of the applicant ask you to raise your right hand start to tell the whole truth on the penalty perjury thank you Steve go ahead tell me a little bit about your work I'll give you a little update on I got the information from the public not in time to redo anything for this meeting but we've redone the calculations showing let me back up the the reason that there's no foot handle points shown where the trucks park is to show FedEx or prove to them that we got the one foot handle minimum required in front of a truck in front of a trailer that's parked for safety reasons when they back up the trucks we I did rerun the calculations and we'll submit those the average foot handle actually went down a half a foot candle when those trucks were removed there's no reluctance there so that went down what we didn't do is we didn't take the entire lot and show it all as one average foot candle value in other words the parking lot and the truck lot are shown separately the parking lot for regular vehicles is that two foot candle average right now so we're going to rerun the calculations also showing that so the five foot the five number is not accurate the five will change it will go down and the average when we take the entire lot in consideration based on the fact that the truck lot can't have islands and it can't have pole mounted lights in the center of it the wattage of the fixtures on the building to shoot all the way across the parking lot to where the trucks are so they do have a foot candle is what's driving it up the fixtures on the building are mounted at 25 feet not 30 feet and they are a wedge flood fixture that throws the light out on the lot not up it's not even 90 degree parallel it's a these are at 50 degrees to perpendicular so and I think the regs for South Burlington allow up to 60 degrees on this type of fixture this flood fixture the pole mounted fixtures are out on 30 foot poles but they are full cut off fixtures as required so we'll run some more calculations to show the entire lot all together as well as we've run a bunch of calculations showing a lesser wattage fixture it will not shoot all the way across the parking lot and cover where the trucks are parked when the trailers are parked we don't get a foot candle at that location and those are where people are going to be constantly walking to trucks backing up to the loading docks there's going to be a lot of traffic and it's going to be mostly at night and that's what they have to see for safety, public safety or employee safety reasons that's what we're trying to get that average foot candle to not the average but the minimum up to one so your challenge is you get the minimum up to one but South Burlington regulations require the average to be the average to be three and we're trying and when we calculate the average to Lila and Marla that's over the entire coverage area what's the calculation? I was just reading that it says the part of it that's relevant to what we're talking about is half of ascendance and it says maximum illumination at ground level shall not be in excess of an average of three foot candles so it's pretty and this is under the section pertaining to direct glare is identified for the purpose of these regulations as illumination within property lines caused by direct or spectrally reflected rays from lighting or from high temperature processes such as welding and blah blah blah no direct glare shall be permitted except that parking areas and walkways may be illuminated that the angle of maximum candle power shall be 60 degrees which is what Steve just mentioned the average can't include the field next door where is the square footage that minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance all light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties all light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance or having negative impact on site users adjacent properties or the traveling public which section is that 1307 B2 1307 is lighting and then A9 and A10 are more specifics about lighting we're going to see a revised calculation we include the entire lot we separated them for the purposes of showing FedEx as well as the cut sheets none of the light is leaving the property it's all within the property lines and this is not a public street it's obviously a secure facility so FedEx has a requirement that you have to move and they're not interested in the average they want to know that there's safety in a certain section and FedEx is not their requirement is normally one foot candle in a parking lot is not abnormal it's getting that one foot candle out across the whole lot because of the type of facility is and not having islands with fixtures in the center like we do have in the other lot which is too much so we'll submit a revised photometric plan it'll show zero foot candles at the property lines and have the revised averages thank you appreciate that Matt I thought you asked a question and I wanted to ask but I'm not sure I heard the answer when you're calculating that average three foot candles is there a limitation on the area that that applies to I thought that was Matt's question if it not it's my question I would say that the board needs to make that determination and I would direct to you that Appendix A9 to make that determination okay well I think when we see the new calculations too we'll see the boundary lines that's the other if I can give you some homework it's on page 310 the board to sort of contemplate prior to our next discussion of it anything else steep okay thank you are there any other comments from the public regarding this application can I ask a question before we do Donna are you here representing someone else or are you here as a concerned citizen excessively with commercial property in that location okay thank you so what does A9 have to do with the 3% three foot candles sorry three foot candles that's where the three foot candles requirement is listed so in terms of moving forward that's alright with the board we've got a number of issues significant issues that have not been resolved so I would make a motion that we continue wait we've got to have a date first SP1928 and ST197 sorry SP1928 and ST1922 for we can do September 17 or September 17 is that acceptable for the applicant okay so that's the motion is there a second second and a motion we're going to continue this until September 17 all in favor say aye those opposed I'm staying see you all then thank you so now we're going to move to agenda item number 11 continued sketch plan application ST1917 of Rivers Edge building development to subdivide a 4.42 acre parcel into nine lots of purpose of constructing seven single family homes and four dwelling units and two family homes at 20 how do I pronounce this Falscham Falscham Hollow Road Falscham Hollow Road Falscham Hollow Road 20 Falscham Hollow Road who is here for the applicant David Burke go Larry Burke hi David how are you Tom Shepherd and Paul Wagner also here they're the option holders on this parcel okay this is a sketch plan so we don't need to sign you in does anyone have any disclosures on the board before we proceed I live a half mile down the street three quarters of a mile down the street and I want to remind anyone in the public that a sketch plan as we are hearing here today is a high level review and discussion where the applicant receives feedback from the board on major elements of the project before it is fully designed during the meeting the board may provide oral guidance to the applicant which constitutes the board's determination that the application meets the purposes of land development regulations these comments are to help guide the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of the comprehensive plan this is not a formal hearing and does not result in a binding decision okay minor announcement related to this application the applicant concurrently applied to city council for an exemption to interim zoning that exemption was granted last night and the other thing as we see in the context written by staff is that this is part of the boy this is only my second one so I'm trying to summarize it this is deals with the settlement agreement correct so we are applying the 2003 LDRs not the current LDRs but because of the prior and someone may have a more cogent explanation of why we're doing this looking at John Supreme Court Supreme Court ruled that this and other areas of development must follow the 2003 self-brilliant in LDRs because of that court decision okay should we start okay tell us a little bit about what your plans are here so the option holders or Rivers Edge development company Tom Paller here Jim McDonald still owns his parcel this parcel has been referred to as both parcel F and or the clubhouse parcel it was always sorry parcel what parcel F F I think more recently it's been referred to as the clubhouse parcel but those are the two different designations for it it's always been one of the areas to be developed as part of the original master plan it borders Dorset street to the west and the 18th fairway to the east and the Folsom Hollow Road is the cul-de-sac that you see to the north the this parcel is between the two access points that's an access point to the clubhouse and that's an access point to the clubhouse that we see doesn't currently exist right what's that the curb cut under street doesn't does not does not exist so as you said it's a continued hearing we didn't actually get heard the first time when it was submitted it was scheduled then it was determined that because it was not part of the excluded plan nor was the supreme court decision referenced in the moratorium that go to city council I guess it didn't matter which one came first but we elected to do that first and I was informed this morning that they basically said you're right it doesn't pertain to this so it's an exemption but it's not really an exemption because they had no choice it was just an exclusion that should have been in the moratorium when it was done so the court case I wasn't directly involved in that I haven't done work for Jim McDonald out here these developers have done a lot of the most of the development in fact I think there's a lot of development on the clubhouse side over the past 15 years and this piece they've been interested in a long time but it would be the first parcel on this side of the Dorsal street so we made the submittal to the town we had a meeting informal meeting with Paul Conner and Marla got some feedback from them we've incorporated that feedback we can a couple times we've done updates since our initial sketch plan the biggest change that came out of that discussion was kind of a lateral shift to the west of the proposal to give more separation down here so this is the sideline of the actual mowed fairway for the 18th these trees are existing there's a wetland right in this area and the sideline is the 50 foot buffer from that wetland so the lateral shift pushed these units closer to Dorset street further from the 18th fairway in doing that change we also originally had a hammerhead cul-de-sac here we were just proposing coming off a full from Hollow Road and that got changed to a loop road there was other minor modifications when we first got involved in this parcel it was 2005 and I didn't notice until after that first submittal to the town that my ortho photo was 2005 so we updated the aerial photo we brought in the trees that were not there then we updated the size of the existing trees that are up top added the requirement for the street trees we pumped it up to a little bit higher level than sketches typically at but the details of the parcel it's 4.42 acres it's a vacant parcel it's zoned southeast quadrant a neighborhood residential as I said it was part of the 2003 master plan last approved in 2017 and that 2017 approval was concurrent with the Supreme Court decision and I don't I wasn't part of that I don't know the details of it but I know that for this parcel that master plan stated 11 units and then there was a restriction to nothing more than a fourplex when we first submitted to the town for this sketch these units up here were duplexes we've changed them to single units but we have 11 units proposed which is what the master plan says we're obviously not doing anything more than a fourplex we're doing all singles the bottom lots are single family lots these lots would be footprint lots within this is a single lot and those are footprints they do have a front facade here with a front porch side walk out to the multiuse path so you've got an existing multiuse path there so they kind of have two front facades because of where they're located there was sketches of those that were provided in the in the application the base the base density if we get away from the master plan for a minute just just to give you kind of a basis of design so in the southeast quadrant base densities 1.2 units per acre that would be 5.3 units 5 units with TDRs which are currently part of the moratorium issue it could increase up to 17 units 4 units per acre and we have received and reviewed the staff notes and if the next thing to do is to go through those so the first is with the setbacks David with the 2003 LER's SEC setbacks are 20 feet in the front 10 feet in the side 30 feet in the rear and staff supports considers the applicant's request setback waiver of 30 feet a support of the SEC purpose talk a little bit reason why you need you need that waiver well we it actually became it was really part of the discussion we needed the waiver anyway but so we weren't 50 feet here so the 2003 standards it's 50 feet the new standards are 20 so we're beyond the new standards what staff asked us to consider was we know your subject to the 2003 regs which the main thing is you don't need the 8 foot setback garage that's the main thing and in here it's the 50 the 50 foot they urged us to move as close to the new regs as we could and that's what these changes have tried to accomplish at the sketch level that's what we've tried to accomplish so you would need a waiver from the 2003 regulations but not from the 2018 because we're subject to the 2003 yeah well this isn't a we're not making a formal vote this isn't a formal hearing it's just a sketch as you know I would consider that friendly our hands are tied in all sorts of ways to this 2003 I do absolutely originally our submittal was based on that we were asked to do differently I understand that and I disagree I think the rationale from staff anyway is that's the current thinking get as close to the current thinking as you can and the board obviously I can disagree you can disagree but that's the current thinking right thanks Dave so John you disagree with the current thinking I disagree my problem is that we're having to eat a certain standard because of a supreme court decision fine let's eat it, you eat it so that's my take I don't agree often with the setback requirements of the current arrangement I mean I can't tell you how many times we had a public comment tonight that spoke to a setback issue that's inappropriate for the neighborhood happens all the time and it's because we have no right as the board to easily change that right I think a 50 foot setback from doors and streets makes all sorts of sense you know my house is 75 feet back I think it makes all sorts of sense and I think this ought to be 50 feet John at the risk of inviting you to jump on a soapbox can you say can you maybe describe what standards from the 2003 you would like to wave or change I don't know the 2003 well enough to know it you're being forced to eat some of the 2003 standards do you have issues with specific standards I'm sure I do but I can't I can't come up with one right now so Marla, you're the expert maybe you can tell me all the differences and I'll tell you which ones I have a problem with I think that David kind of explained the biggest one which is the snout house the snout house issue the garages have to be setback 8 feet yeah I happen to agree with the 2003 on that I don't think we should have the 8 foot setback today so as far as you know I'm on this side but as far as you know you don't have any issues with any of the things that the 2003 LDRs require I think there's a change in the driveway set up too isn't it how many units on a private road yeah but that doesn't apply in this case because they have they're proposing a loop road there's a proposed public road but the biggest difference is cul-de-sac versus a through road goes from 9 to 19 so even if it was private it would have to be a loop road because it needs two access points because it's more than nine units I have a problem with that too but anyway hey we got we got slammed with it I like the 50 foot setback I'm fine with saying saying that my vote goes that way Marla could I ask that we get a copy of the Supreme Court decision I'd like to review that before the next meeting maybe you could could you just sort of email that university yep okay I have number two staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant provide a maintenance plan for open space and natural resources within the project limits at the next stage of review understood item number three give them presence of homes or backyards of butting wetland staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant options for discouraging wetland encroachment and we did discuss this verbally with staff and this is also an act 250 project but likely there's different things you can do boulders, birdhouses, likely split rail we think it needs a little bit higher level but whatever we propose will be on the plans number four staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant how the proposed layout accommodates visitors while preventing congestion on adjacent streets this is dealing with the sidewalk or street parking it's a narrow street because that's what is required but we are proposing all of these units are anticipated and for two car garages plus two spaces in the driveway the standard is two so we think we have ample parking we're not looking we're not that tight we're not proposing single garages and then you've got the double width driveway also as I understand it as it says in the staff notes the applicant does not require on street parking and the applicant has not proposed on street parking is that correct? are we on four? we're not proposing yes so we're in compliance with 2003 sorry this is a little confusing the section that we're in now is current SEQ standards and it's sort of a discussion the applicant is not required to meet the current SEQ standards but in our discussions they were willing to consider these standards in making their decisions on how to play out the subdivision so what we've done here is we've sort of highlighted some of the differences and one of the differences is today on street parking is required it was not required in 2003 so sorry if that was confusing I think I got it I think what we're saying is even if we were subject to the new regs what I'm saying is we're going to have two car garages with two widths so we're going to have I'm trying to address it from a practical standpoint not one reg or the other reg just that we're going to have ample parking and I don't think staff thinks this is a big issue more just having this level of conversation about it that's what the request was number five staff considers the proposed layout and we are being encouraged the applicant to place restrictions on homes such that snout homes or homes where the garages protruding cannot be constructed now is that that the 2003 regulation that you can't have the current standard is what's cited there 9.08c we don't anticipate that we're going to have any what we will benefit from is the 8 foot setback because when you have that and if you have the mud room behind the garage it really creates some havoc with floor plans so I think what you'll find here is that there might be some garages that are flush there might be some that are 2 feet back but we don't anticipate that we're going to have snout homes question for staff Marlowe, what is a street-oriented neighborhood? such that the homes I'm trying to think of an example it would be a positive thing so think about driving down Spear Street north of Nolan farm and all of those homes are set very far back you wouldn't necessarily talk to your neighbor there versus maybe in the airport neighborhood where the homes are much closer to the street or where Frank lives in Hadley Road, the homes are much closer to the street it's a more street-oriented development okay thank you helpful okay anything else from the applicant? no other than that I'm not entirely surprised that there would be a board member John or otherwise in regards to the setback I don't know if it's appropriate to have some kind of straw-hole because we've made changes shy away from straw-holes some kind of input because my overall direction at this point is close to what's being shown and I'm hearing one board member basically saying I won't approve it because of that so moving forward where we're going into full design if possible I'd like additional feedback from other board members well my feedback is I'm fine with the waiver as it is I'm not going to take a straw-hole but but you know is this project contingent upon being able to have a 30-foot setback well it starts to go away if you push these back it pushes everything back so it goes away from the direction that we were asked to consider so it does significantly affect the layout when I go to full design drawings you know there's a pump station existing pump station back here that serves this development pod over here comes to that pump station there's existing water lines some which will need to be relocated but there's sketches relatively easy and now we're going to go to full design so I understand your concern but we're not going to take a formal vote why are we allowing two curb cuts this close together on Dorset Street yeah the curb cut thing is a good question 300 feet that's about 300 feet between curb cuts do we it meets the requirement there do we need another egress is that as a public road no it could be a cul-de-sac off of Folsom Hollow Road it was just with as part of moving towards Dorset Street the hammerhead turnaround kind of precludes that so we had a hammerhead turnaround in this location and there was actually like a long driveway that served these three units that's what we originally submitted as a public road that's still allowed although discouraged cul-de-sacs are discouraged so from the standpoint of traffic or the plow truck this is going to be a public road for most perspectives police fire everybody else they're going to prefer this not the bike path though you're on the downhill 30 feet you're on the downhill run coming down that hill and even the one break that's another 1,000 feet from there it's a big deal so honestly this is in my mind for the bike path it's a real problem every time you cross a street you have to think about stopping and this is another one I wouldn't put it there I don't mind the 30 foot setback but I don't like the second curb cut unless we're told that I don't think we're going to hear that it's necessary for our original smell didn't have it and it's not necessary for the traffic that's going to be generated here it is encouraged to have through roads and I understand what John's saying too obviously another crossing of the path isn't good which one outweighs the other when you're considering everything else I think everybody's going to have a different opinion on that you said it's encouraged encouraged by whom by your regs dead ends have always been discouraged in 2003 they were discouraged and in your current regs they're discouraged so are curb cuts that are too close together this meets separation requirements I challenge you to show me another one on Dorset Street that's that close together that's not what I'm tasked to do I know that but I challenge you to do it you're about 300 feet apart you think that's close that's really close that's the length of my lock it's really close okay any other comments from the board you wanted feet back I'm inclined to just because I owe them one to go with the staff that's a good long check I like that you owe them one I owe them two it's your lucky day we're going to like to comment on either the dead end or the setback I honestly need to see that court case to know whether we need to follow 2003 in the bidder and the suite or we can pick and choose do we have a waiver option I think that you'll have the waiver option regardless the 2003 allows waiver in a similar way to the current standards you can tell at least the Supreme Court doesn't foreclose that as far as in my limited legal expertise it's part of the waivers are part of the 2003 regs so if you're going by the 2003 regs you still have the ability to approve it we'd like to see that I have a question I get that you have beyond this point you're going to be investing in a lot of technical plan development so what do we do how do we help the applicant is at our job in terms of the curb cut issue that John raised versus the hammerhead development you have to choose one or the other and how do we give guidance that doesn't burden the applicant even more John and Matt have given their guidance I'll be discussing it with the developers I'll be looking at going quite frankly I'll be looking at going back to a hammerhead and trying to accomplish what we accomplished as close to what we've accomplished but staff was looking for we'll also solicit comments just for Don's it's from public works and from the fire chief and they could tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about and I would have to take that under consideration and keep in mind the board's responsibility since Don asked is to represent the LDRs not to represent what you found in your personal experience and the DDS etc entrances to PUDs generally they'll be separated by the minimum distance of 400 feet in order to ensure safe access and traffic movement that is the standard this is my comment I'm sorry it's more than 400 feet yes it's more than 400 feet 430 feet this separation here that we're looking at is So that means I thought you were talking about the one across because these for the bike path I understand you're concerned with that and I've I'm already saying we're probably going back to the hammerhead What I was more concerned about was this separation here because these are conflicting traffic movements So that's separate from the bike path. That's more of a traffic issue then than this and this But quite frankly these houses are probably more valuable if I put a cul-de-sac there Well, and honestly Dave, I think I think part of my 50-foot setback issue Has to do with that cut that that curb cut The the feel of those houses is going yeah I mean I'm I'm not the I'm not the buyer for these houses But I think there will be a lot of people that will like these with the front porch and with the sidewalk to the Bike path and like that close proximity. So I think there are a lot of people that like that. I'm not one of them, but Yeah, the traffic's moving right along right there Okay, any other comments David at this time I'd like to open it up to the public Okay, if you raise your hand come on up. Yeah So in In Hearings where we have lots of people that want to speak we want to make sure everyone gets a chance We provide a three-minute time limit. I give you a friendly hello at three minutes Doesn't mean you have to stop talking, but it means that we need you to wrap up. Okay, so First if I get you to sit down and into your name And my name is Phil George. I live at 247 Fairway Drive.  We live directly on the east side of the 18th fairway and We can see this lot in fact This is our view from Where we set and we looking at a lot and these are pictures of Individual homes around my neighborhood some of which shepherd built a water tower schoolhouse Ironwood homes and in this homes and Glen Eagles. You can see they're all approximately two-story construction the paintings and colors used are quite natural looking and blended in the landscape and They're continuously the same colors throughout the project Which is interesting and not circus-like which Suggests that this project do as well Some of our concerns as I've discussed with our neighbors and requests and suggestions are that That the residential homes proposed shall be limited to 3,000 square feet or less That all homes be painted the same color or color similar to surrounding neighborhoods ie light gray with a white trim That there will be no east ironwood facing decks Supported by eight to ten foot columns that we're going to have to look at That all homes be limited to two stories with height restrictions That let's see that say that the proposed 30-foot Rear yard setback should be increased to 50 foot now. I hadn't seen this latest drawing so That may have a long a greater footprint a rear yard setback, I'm not sure It's got the required career setback. So the houses are just pictorial Well, we would appreciate it to be 50 foot setback The number of those homes we would like to see reduced to seven That all homes be a similar design scope and character that the maple trees border in the 18th fairway remain and are undisturbed that Incorporating these suggestions the limitations will maintain the integrity of our existing neighborhoods Appreciate your time Is anyone else I would like to speak on this project? Thank you. Just get your name for the record Mark perkel mark. I am president of the Ironwood homeowners association Hello, Frank. I haven't seen you in many years From my days at VHF a I Have not had a chance to review the Supreme Court decision. I have looked at the Stipulation etc And I gotta tell you I'm a little uncomfortable that in a sense it's sort of having your cake you needed to That some of this project is subject to the 2003 regulations And then there's some things that they want to use the newer regulations and I keep on wondering what happened to the 2019 regulations It is hard for me to accept the fact that A project in 2003 Is grandfather to the point that it doesn't have to look at any of the present regulations Because in 2003 We didn't have a whole lot of the development that now exists On dorset street and that really should be taken into account Otherwise You know Zoning should be when the project is submitted Not when it was first granted 15 or 17 years ago Um, I realized there's a court case and I want to look at it very carefully Um, I noticed that in the stipulation it originally talked about the fact that the Original plan called for a density of 0.813 units per acre That was the original Thing that that it said um And that they may amend at some point in the future of the master plan And if they did such application must comply with the city of south burlington land development regulations then in effect And um, I want to look at that a little bit further because um This entire master plan refers to a PUD I know that there's new um plan unit development regulations that talk about clustering That talk about greater amounts of land I mean to me the smartest thing that could do with that property is make it look just like ironwood You can't You know, you can't get a unit in the ironwood the minute a unit goes up for sale. They don't even go get listed And if they did it with that kind of um two units per Per section in the same colors in the same styles They'll sell those things like hotcakes And that's what I would recommend