and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board. My name is Dawn Filiburt, I'm Chair of the Board and tonight's meeting is on July 20th, 2021. We are in the midst of a pretty big thunder and lightning storm. If we run out of power, we're instructed to continue to try to get on the call for 10 minutes and if we can't, we'll have to reschedule the meeting. I would like to welcome other members of the board tonight, Mark Baer, Alyssa Eyring, Jim Langen, Stephanie Wyman, Dan Albrecht and Frank Kochman. And also with us in attendance are Marla Keane, the Development Review Planner and Delilah Hall, the city's zoning and ministry. Do we have Jim? One frozen. Dawn appears to be frozen, yes. She's frozen, oh, Don. Oh. Give her a second. Very windy for a moment. Don is off and Alyssa's off. Alyssa just went off. Oh, we lost it, we're gone too. I lost it. So there's this map, it was without power. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Oh, I just pulled up the map that I'm looking at for the benefit of those of us who are still looking at the screen just for fun. We have, are you? We have Mark, we have Dan, we have Alyssa, we have Dawn, we have Jim, and we, but I miss Stephanie, we have Stephanie. She just loves everybody. And Frank, we never lost Frank. We never lost Frank. So if you'd like, we can get started. Um, how do we do this when we can't read the documents? Oh, cause she didn't have power. Oh, cause you don't have power at all.  No, no, I'm totally without power. Does someone else have, is someone else able to see and can you get into meeting? This is Dan Albrecht, I mean if you're scrolling the Lila or Marla scrolling, I can sort of say staff comment number two, staff comment number three. All right, so do we want to start the meeting and do the normal intro, which is here? Sure, okay. Let me do that and then I'll hand it over to Dan. So the first item is corrections on emergency evacuation procedures. We have no members of the public in person. So we can give that item. Okay. And the second item, I do have my iPad but I'm not connected to the inch so I can read my note. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda item? Okay. Let's, before we do reminders, are there any announcements? We have moved into 180 Market Street. We are still settling in and the City Hall will be having an open house. City Hall and Library will be having an open house on Friday from 4.30 until 8. The building will be open from 4.30 until 7. So if you want to come in and see what you voted to build, you are most welcome. And they'll be for trucks. Yes, and a dedication ceremony at 4.30. Yeah. Good, good, good. So that means that our next DRB meeting, which is on August 3rd, will be in person at City Hall, the new City Hall. And we will also have ways for people to join the meeting virtually. Correct, Marla? Yes, going forward that will always be available. Okay, good, good. So let's proceed with the meeting. Thank you all in attendance or who are listening in on the phone and watching online if you have that ability. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign in on the virtual sign-in sheet in the chat box. And this is important in order to be considered a participant should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal a decision made by the board. Please indicate that you have a comment by saying your name or write in the chat box that you would like to ask a question after the applicant has presented and we've reviewed the staff comment. People on the phone who would like to sign in to be considered a participant can send an email to Marla Keem at m-k-e-e-n-e at s-burl.com and provide your contact information. You can also submit comments and writing. Please, we ask that you please refrain from engaging in a conversation in the chat box. It's very disruptive and it is not considered part of the public record. And if we do get back online, please mute your phone and turn your camera off unless you're talking or commenting. Okay, are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to tonight's agenda? Hearing none, let's start reviewing the two projects we'll be reviewing tonight and I'm going to turn this over to Dan Albrecht because at least he has, he can read the materials. So go ahead, Dan. Delilah, I can bring up the, so this is item number, so item number five, the Broads and Airport International Airport. They requested continuous dog, it's third but we're now on item six. Continue to pull it out. Hold on, okay. And I just interject. So quick, we as a board, we need to do a formal motion to make, to continue it and approve it and then we can move on to item six. I'll make a motion that we continue site plan application SB 2126, the Broads and International Airport to August 3rd. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Any abstentions? I'm abstaining. I'm recused. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Dan. Okay. So this is continued preliminary plan application SB dash 20 dash 40 of O'Brien, these few LLC to create a plan new and development, six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes in a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. Development is to consist of 135 homes and single family duplex and three facts, three family dwellings on nine lots totally 21.8 acres, 19 commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres. One existing single family home, 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 old farm road. Staff comments. So who is here to represent the applicant? Evan Langfell from O'Brien Brothers and just to repeat, like Don, I'm operating in the dark here by candlelight and I think I have enough battery power to make it through the meeting. But if I go silent, I'll try and call in from another line. Thanks, Evan. Anyone else with you? It's a good question. I think we're trying to figure it out. Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. I think we've got some other folks here too. Rollin' the dice, who's got power? I'm Scott Homestead from Crescent Lansing, social engineer, so I'm Jeff, the applicant. Roger Dickinson, Lamarone Dickinson. Corey Mack with WCG. Is that everyone you're expecting, Andrew? Yeah. Okay, so we get hockey. I am keeping an eye on the outage map. They do seem to be a little behind in updating this back on, but it has gotten a little bit worse close to your neighborhood. So I'm watching those that I know are interested persons. And if we start losing neighbors or members of your applicant team, I'll just make sure I call that out because I want to make sure that the public meeting does, in fact, act as a public meeting. Looks like we lost some more people, some more power outages in West Twin Oaks Terrace, which is near you guys. So, you want to get started on the staff comment? Stand there. I just want to say I'm with Jeff, so I'm going to walk away. All right, Stephanie is recused. For the staff comments, but maybe while we have Roger and before we lose power, I don't know if it would make sense to jump to the end, to the comment on the roundabout. I think there's only two topics in the packet. Yeah. Yeah. It just might make sense for Roger to be available here and to go over that quickly if that's all right with the board. I don't have a problem with that. Just a moment. If we're going to do, Don Turkovich, I need to recuse myself. This is Frank. Oh, no, we're just doing the O'Brien. There's two topics in the O'Brien one and we're going to do the second topic of the O'Brien one first. Okay. You're going to stick with O'Brien for a minute. Yes. Yeah. I think that that's on the last page of the packet. So page six. Dan, do you have that in front of you? Yeah. I got my paper version here. So on the last page of the staff comment, the traffic study is summarized. Staff recommends that the board review the one page memo from BFJ to inform their discussion of whether to require the applicant to modify their design to include roundabouts in lieu of the signalized intersections of the intersections of Kimball Avenue and Old Farm Road and Kimball Avenue and Isash C Road. That's at the bottom of page six, Delana. I understand, Dan, you also made another request that I'm trying to fulfill, so. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Sorry. Page six. Does the applicant have any more add a little comment about this on the roundabout and maybe summarize? Sure. Roger, do you want to speak to what the memo had said? I think there was a question in there for you as well. And then we had provided the, what the information that was requested today. Certainly. I'm all requested from George Jacobart requested verification of what the addition of the highway capacity manual that was used to in the roundabout analysis. And he also asked for copies of the printouts of the roundabout analysis. And I believe those were provided to the board in an email from me to Andrew. And then I think Andrew submitted it to the board. So that, yeah, we used the latest addition of the highway capacity manual, which was published in 2016. That's called the sixth edition. And printouts, I believe, speak for themselves. They showed that the levels of service varied from morning to afternoon, but with the afternoon being generally worse with I believe both locations experiencing level of service F of traffic congestion conditions. So I believe those were the two major questions that George had in his memo to the city. I have a couple of questions. Is it appropriate now? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. I'm looking at the memo from the city's consultant, George Giacomart, is that correct? How you pronounce your name? Yep, he's Belgian. Has he been provided with the material that the developer provided today, and has he come in? No, we didn't get that until midday today. So his questions, you know, he said in his memo, while I don't disagree with the overall conclusion, they do have the following questions. And those are the questions that Roger's answered. Well, but I read that as meaning based on, you know, if I take everything in front of me and face value, I don't disagree with you. Until he sees the material he asked for, I consider his agreement not particularly firm. Anybody else have that concern? When I was rhetorical, I have a couple more questions. I would like to understand why, I heard the explanation that a two-lane roundabout was more complex. On the other hand, it would seem to resolve the level of service question, would it not? Generally, two-lane roundabouts are considerably less safe. Well, that wasn't the question. The question was whether they would probably resolve the level of service question. We don't know that, that has not been analyzed. Okay, obviously it would be more expensive to build, correct, it would take more land, is it also correct? That is correct, yes. All right, but presumably it would make the level of service issue go away. Bear? Possibly. I guess I'd like to know more about that. I guess I'd like to hear from the staff. Have any staff had a, well, what is staff's view on this issue? Being the wrong sort of engineer, but having some experience in this, I think that the city is not particularly interested in a large two-lane roundabout in this location. It doesn't seem like the right application for the size of the roadway, size being a industrial collector road as opposed to an arterial. All right, does any, I have another question. What is the distance? Oh, I'm sorry. Hey, I made it go away. I'm getting better at that. What is the distance from the intersection of Kennedy and Kimball to the intersection of Kimball and the roadway in, which I guess is the extension of Old Farm Road. I'm not quite sure how to read that, but I think you know what I mean. Here's what I'm getting at. A signalized intersection has, depending how busy it gets, has a real opportunity for backup that a well-designed roundabout would avoid. And we have a number of examples of, certainly in Burlington, lights that takes two or three cycles to get through. And you know, it's not good planning, it's not good traffic movement. Are we at risk of that, given what looks like, I'm not certain what the distance is, the proximity of what I'm calling, you know, the Kimball Avenue end of Old Farm Road to Kennedy Drive. Excuse me. So if I were to rephrase that in- You can read me, okay. If I were to rephrase that in traffic engineer terms, it would be what's the Q-link anticipated and will it extend past the relocated Old Farm Road intersection? Is that a fair way to raise your question, Frank? Yes, in other words, does it push? Let me take a look at the map. For reference, you know off the top of your head what that distance is between the new Old Farm Road intersection? I do, it's about 600 feet. Yeah, I just scaled 575, so. Yeah, I went centerline to centerline at 6.0. All right. Well, that seems like an order to be adequate in most circumstances. Could I make a public comment? I know it's inappropriate at this time, but I am the owner of 30 Kimball, it's John Wilkin. Dan, Don, that's up to you. John, can you?  Yeah, I'd just like to stay with protocol for now and make sure we understand this roundabout issue. Well, that's why I'm interrupting. Can I like- Totally up to you. I'd like to, I'll do respect. I'd rather just keep to the process so we understand this roundabout issue a little more generally. I just suggest we take questions on the roundabout from the public before we close the roundabout topic and then we talk about the other topic at the same time. That makes perfect sense. And John, I look forward to hearing your question, but I actually have a question at this point in time. Whose idea was the roundabout? I'm a little confused at this point. Did the applicant want a roundabout? Did we ask the applicant to consider and analyze a roundabout? Where did this idea of the roundabout come from? What am I missing? Who are you asking, Don? I guess I'm asking you and other board members and maybe even Andrew and Evan. I just need some insight in because it doesn't sound like they support it. And so I'm assuming they did not propose it. So maybe this is for you, Marla. Where did this all come from? So it was suggested in the traffic technical review that the board should consider whether to ask the applicant to evaluate a roundabout. Three meetings ago, two meetings ago, the board said, yes, we would like you to consider a roundabout. Consider it, they did. So I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, crystal clear about that memory, but thanks. Okay. Roger, to the point that Frank was getting at with his questions, the intersections that we've proposed with signals operate better than a level of service F, where like a level of service B, is that right? And given that level of service, is there any queuing issues anticipated at those two intersections, given your traffic safety that looked at that? Yes, that is correct. The revised traffic study indicated the traffic signal control would provide better level of service, lower delays. Queuing will be adequate, I believe. There might be, still be a small issue with the PQ during the peak hour between Kennedy and the new old farm road, heading in the eastbound direction, but otherwise the queuing was very good. So. I guess, well, I won't beat it to death, I'd like to understand, because I'm a proponent of, I think generally roundabouts, if they're appropriate and well-designed, work better than traffic signals, particularly in heavy traffic areas. I'm not particularly deterred by the idea of the two lane roundabout. I don't find them especially dangerous when I'm traveling in Marla with respect to your explanation that provided no detail at all. I understand it'd be brutally expensive. On the other hand, my view of expense on a project of this size isn't particularly sympathetic on the cost savings side. I mean, can you add any more? Are you willing to, or does anybody else care about this issue? Is anybody, you know, I mean, the board asked to have the roundabout evaluated to have the two lane roundabout dismissed out of hand, which would obviously improve the level of service. Seems to me a little summary without a little more detail, that's all. I believe that Roger spoke to the third party consultant who had originally suggested the roundabout and that they also agreed that a two lane roundabout was not appropriate in this location. Roger, maybe you want to talk to that a little bit. Yes, in my conversations with George Chakamar, he specifically indicated that he would only consider a one lane roundabout on Kimball Avenue. His opinion was that while roundabouts are safer and particularly for pedestrians, two lane roundabouts are not as safe as a single lane roundabout. And then we have the questions of scale, obviously. So he was definitely pointing us in the direction of a one lane roundabout to only consider that. All right, I'll let it go. Personally, I'm not particularly persuaded. I'd like to speak to our consultant and not just rely on that because my bias is strongly in favor of the roundabout, but I'm not gonna, you know, I think we got to move on.  Do other board members have feelings about it? Yes, Dana. Glad, Jim. I just have one question for Mr. Dickinson. Are there other projects that you've analyzed where you found that roundabouts are a good solution in the past in the area? Or have you found that they're not really, when you've analyzed them, not really the answer? Well, oh gosh, about 12, 15 years ago now, we designed the Montpelier roundabout at room two and 302, and in that case, the city specifically requested a single lane roundabout with provisions to expand it in the future if needed to a two lane, but they wanted to stick with a one lane, which we did. That has worked very well. The other projects that we've done roundabouts on have been primarily residential streets and residential developments where many roundabouts actually do form a nice gateway in some cases and it kind of calms traffic and other situations as well, as well as people down. So yes, generally the sense in the, what we've experienced in the Greater Burlington area is that roundabouts on major collector streets such as Kimball Avenue are particularly in areas that have already been developed, they're just not feasible due to the size and cost limitations that they create. Well, I'm willing to spend Evan's money. I heard that, Frank. And if you're talking about other examples, I mean, I don't know those of you who, I'm sure everybody at some point either has or will use the Waterbury roundabout, which I think is terrific. Fabulous, terrific improvement over what that intersection used to be like. Yeah, I would agree. Well, I don't think we should just let this go so easily. We had reviewed the Waterbury roundabout in the study Roger provided. And that was the size and type of roundabout that was analyzed and found to be dysfunctional due to the level of service that was failing. Yeah, which brings us back to two lanes. Okay, I'm gonna stop. I'm just, I'm trying to drum up board support for not letting this issue go and asking them to come back and asking maybe our consultant to come back and not just letting it slide tonight. And if there's not a consensus or at least a majority in that direction, I promise to stop now. Well, this is John. I wanna make sure that we do the right thing. And I'm not sure I have a sense of what that is right now. And so I don't want the applicant to incur greater expense than is necessary, but I also wanna make sure this is a big development. And I wanna make sure that we have at that intersection the right infrastructure to handle the traffic. So I don't disagree with you, Frank. Maybe we do need more analysis and information. Don, if I can just interject, this is Evan again. I mean, I do think that, you know, we don't have any sort of knee-jerk reaction to roundabout, but I do think that there's other considerations and it's not just level of service and it's not just Q in this location. You have a great issue coming from a steep hillside that we have planned development on, which would change the character of the entryway into that development. You also have existing development on the streetscape beyond what we're planning that's actually existing and existing there. And the amount of land required to implement a roundabout as I think we've demonstrated is problematic in this location. And I think maybe that second point might be what John Wilking was waiting to speak about. Sure, sure. Sure. Because that I would require acquisition of land outside of the city's right of way for a single lane roundabout. And a two-lane roundabout would, Roger, what would the size of a two-lane roundabout be? We had shown, I think, 115 foot inscribed diameter. What would a two-lane roundabout diameter be? Thank you. I think you're looking at about, at least 130 feet diameter. Extremely impact, you know, 20 feet further outside of the right of way. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Don, this is Dan. I mean, the conclusions on the bottom of page 10 are pretty clear and we're at preliminary here. So I understand we obviously want to be mindful of traffic issues, but I'm not seeing sort of like a slight judgment call here. The analysis is by Lamar on Dickinson is pretty declaratory, so I'd like to move on. And then, see, Mr. Wilking has a comment, though, before we, after the board members are done. And Dan, when you say very self-explanatory, you mean in terms of supporting a signalized intersection? Yeah, yeah. Okay. There's not much equivocation on the list. Yeah, okay. Thank you. And I do want to hear what John has to say. I do just want to chime in and add that I feel like a signalized intersection is a better choice than a roundabout in this case. Not saying roundabout isn't a good idea. It works great in Waterbury, but I think this is a very different circumstance. And I don't see it necessarily being the solution, especially based on the traffic study we were provided with. I concur with the list's assumption or interpretation. I think that they all have their place. And I'm not in opposing frame standpoint of wanting to look at it, but I just think that given the look of it and given the proximity and the configuration a roundabout would be more problematic than the signalized intersection for these two instances. I'm wondering if we can hear from John now? Mr. Wilking, is that appropriate, Dan? You're hearing me. Sorry, yeah, you're still on the line. I didn't want to take your responsibility. No, okay. Go ahead, John. Take the power and run with it, Dan. Okay, if only say the word. Go ahead, Mr. Wilking. You're muted, Dan. Thanks, Don and Dan. I own 30 Kimbell, which is the entrance way across the street from Evan's project here. And as you can tell, the offset is significant if this is a standard circular single-lane roundabout. It clearly can't be. Our easement allows only so much space and to exceed it will stop entry capability to both the corner property, the old Merchant's Bank property, 20 Kimbell, 30 Kimbell and 40 Kimbell. So it's simply infeasible to do the offset roundabout, to do the inset roundabout that pushes further on to Evan's property I think is unfortunate. I think it's a mistake because it's kind of confused people. And to do a two-lane is, I think, impossible. So I'm simply pointing out that, A, we will not sell any land, B, we will fight with every force we have to make sure it doesn't happen. And I'm sure we will have additional folks involved in that from the corner and 20 Kimbell. And we just feel strongly that this should be signalized. That's it, thank you. Thanks, John. Well, somewhere between persuasion and fear, I'm going to withdraw my objection. I just have one question for the applicants. As a former regional planning commission used to be in 30 Kimbell. And on an icy day, climbing out of a 30 Kimbell driveway was always a hassle and putting your life in your hand. Will the road align with the driveway to 30 Kimbell? Would the signal serve those people exiting 30 Kimbell? Yeah, it's directly opposite the curb cut to 30 Kimbell. And originally it was offset, but now it's directly aligned with it. That's awesome, that'll help. Okay, any more on the issue of the roundabout and the signalized intersection? We'll get back to the start of the staff comments. That's good. Thanks guys. Thanks, Roger. Thank you, Roger. Thank you, John, for weighing in. I think that the next agenda item is, and I think the only remaining one on this hearing as it relates to our project is the issue of the community rec path or pedestrian accessibility on the south side of Old Farm Road as it relates to our project. And I think just to kind of clarify things again, the community rec path that is being discussed in the packet is not being driven by the applicant. Several meetings ago, four or five meetings ago probably at this point, board member Bayer had asked the question or pointed out, I think a deficiency, rightfully so a deficiency in our plan which is that we did not have a pedestrian or bicycle connection to the Tilly Drive area specifically to the new red barn market over there. So how do folks living in our development access the Tilly Drive and that new market and potentially other amenities that could be over there or employment opportunities? And so we went back to the drawing board and we have proposed and are still including in our application a community rec path, a 10 foot rec path, asphalt paved path that would connect from our development on the Eastern slope of Old Farm Road. It would be entirely on our property until it crosses over onto the Pizzagalli property. And we have been given a verbal agreement by Bob Bouchard at Pizzagalli that they would support that that we would continue that rec path over to the pedestrian facilities over there. What is being discussed in the packet and there was a sidewalk which unfortunately I wasn't able to attend, but I know Andrew was there was to demonstrate the existing conditions on the south end of Old Farm Road, particularly with the existing development pattern there and the tight relationships to homes, parking facilities, garages and existing mature landscaping on both sides of the road, the east and west sides of the road. And the challenges associated with putting a pedestrian or bicycle facility along there that would connect to Tilly Drive and we'll get essentially to the exact same location. It may be a more direct line which is pointed out in staff commentary, but I still think that what we are providing is A gets us to the same location, but just as importantly, it does so in a manner that I think doesn't have any negative or adverse effects on the existing neighborhood which I'm sure that some of our neighbors would probably prefer that the development at Old Farm Road didn't occur and that it had all stayed the way it always had been, but they've been I think fairly supportive of what we've done. We've tried to be good neighbors through the first phase and we've tried to be good neighbors during this permitting phase and the second phase of it. And we would prefer to be sympathetic to their concerns and I think those concerns are valid. And so we have proposed again our alternative and we've also engaged a different transportation engineer, Corey Mack, who is on the line right now who has also taken a look both at what we proposed but also the Tilly Drive transportation study which originally was what called out the need for this improvement in that location. So I don't know unless the board objects, I think I would prefer to just turn it over to Corey assuming he's still on the line, I can't see and just have him giving, give a quick summary. We did submit a letter today, both from O'Brien Brothers as well as a supplemental letter that Corey had written, it did come in late so it was not included in the board packet but we'd be happy to either read it this evening or submit it as a supplemental addition to our packet. So if it's in and the board can consider it, you don't have to read it if the board wishes and I would really like the board to be driving the conversation here but if the board wants, they may want you to summarize it but the exact memo can be given to the board and will be given to the board before they deliver it so just be assured that they will have that paper available to them. Okay, thank you. Dawn? So if the board wants to decide if they wanna discuss some of the points in the staff memo or if they wanna start with the applicant's testimony, Dawn, how would you like to proceed here? Again, I don't have the documents in front of me but I know it's a single issue. Pardon me? I'm gonna hop in, I've got a paper print out in front of me so it's pretty easy for me to- Oh, okay, Dan, take it away. Yeah, I think to some extent since the information by Mr. Mack is sort of new information, I think it'd be good to kind of go through staff comments. I kind of felt they were, the staff comments were very helpful for me that was not aware of the history as much for this project so I found them very useful and I don't think we need a point by point recap except to say that and I can do some of that here just to move things along to get to the kernel of the staff comment if that's okay with the board. Is that all right? Yeah. Sounds good. So the, because I had asked about during the sidewalk about policy and plans. So staff comments and I guess if the lilo you can bring them up on the screen for the benefit of the public or anything. So the policy document supportive of the multimodal strategies, number one from November, 2020, the Vermont 116 slash Kimbo app slash Tilly drive area land use and transportation plan November, 2020 recommends a shared use path along the entire length of old farm road bottom of page two responses to questions to the bicycle and pedestrian committee from the DRB. So the committee, bike and pet committee provided a thorough response in their February 17th packet with the following relevant excerpt bottom of page two in the staff but minimum should be a sidewalk on the west side of old farm road better as it reads there. Number three on the top of page three the memorandum dated May 4th, 2021 from the bike and pet committee and again looking at the bullet points the key reasons we support this alternative over the proposed connection from O'Brien to Dilly drive along the new industrial road as follows great along old farm is more gradual conducive to walking and biking connection along old farm is more direct both for residents as well as commuters we think that walking in and around a residential development should be a paramount concern of the proposed advisory lanes on the section of old farm field to provide a solution for walkers and then last bullet point it is our understanding that old farm road currently sees significant pedestrian traffic our assumption is increased volumes of drivers and walkers from the new development would only increase what is already a significant safety concern and gap in our pedestrian infrastructure the alternative path directly east to Dilly drive does not sufficiently address either of these issues along this section of old farm road and then there's citations from the comprehensive plan objective 1720 and 21 the land development regulations the gist of which there on the page four of the staff comments is that the staff acknowledges that this project is utilizing an existing road is this 15.12 am it remains relevant that were this a new project the applicant would be required to construct a sidewalk or rec path along this roadway project is located in the transit overlay district and act 34 the complete streets law staff considers it appropriate to advocate for complete streets when reviewing private projects there are several more bullets there at the bottom of page four which I won't read this sort of re recaps where we are some of the discussions and all references the field fit is it on July 6th at least for me as a member one of the most salient points of number five page five second bullet encroachment of private landscaping into the public right of way is inadequate justification for changing how the way in public way is used et cetera and then there's the last bullet point the position of city staff city committees and the independent technical review that is shared use path along the entire length of old farmer was an important element of the proposed project and the recommendations of staff three possible options and I won't read them there basically some sort of bike pet facility is constructed second bullet point payment and view of and third a bicycle advisory lane option by the applicant and then again comment the key point there in red you can all read that there I won't I won't recap it but the staff we understand that the staff acknowledges the strong public opposition et cetera et cetera so that I appreciate the staff that's definitely helped me get up to speed on the small and larger issues affecting this consideration of the past that's kind of a summary of things I'll open them up to the board members how they they want to discuss some of these particular points with staff so this is Dawn I was on the site review on July 6th and I found it there I found what the neighbors said to be pretty compelling and looking at all the vegetation and the screening that it provided them but as I thought about all of that and I think Marla did a nice job of spelling it out in the staff report that encroachment on a public right away or public land is not justification for not doing a project that is being by the appropriate authorities to be the most appropriate alternative so we've all probably encroached on public land on our from our property but it's unfortunate but the reality is that is public land and I'm not sure this is the right place to put the past but it certainly sounds like a lot of informed people think it is so that's my comment on speaking to the neighbor's concern and so forth. Well, the other board members. I have something to say but I also I'd like to reserve it until you're other what other board members have to say first. Dan, can I weigh in for Dawn? Hey, go ahead, Mark. Okay, I think in attending the site visit and seeing the existing conditions and looking at both sides of this I hear the neighbors concern but I think that's a big picture and the sort of history and the logistics and rationale that are laid out by staff in the comments are very compelling to say that I'm not willing to sort of just write it off. I think we need to study it further and we need to have the applicant to come back with something, you know? I'm not saying I think one thing that everyone I think one thing the neighbors are fearful of is the idea that the word's going to get this take the 21 feet and just clear cut it, level it and put a 10 foot rec path on the far end of it with a 10 foot strip of grass between the road and the rec path that's obviously the extreme. I think there's something in between that can be a compromise. I don't think I don't think given the existing situation that anything is going to not set the apple park whatever the expression might be but I think we need to come up with something. You know, I think that this is going to be the most direct route. We're going to increase pedestrian traffic we're going to increase the extra traffic and if we don't provide something people are still going to use the road for walking and it's going to only increase the number of people and the amount of traffic is going to increase. So I'm a big picture standpoint we have to come up with something and I think that the direct connection between the development and Einberg Road you know, the middle of the deli area is what's needed.  Thanks Mark. Alyssa do you have any comments? I felt pretty torn about this. I don't know if it's at all feasible but I'm even wondering if there's a way to sort of do the bike path that the developer is proposing and the place they propose and just do a five foot sidewalk along Old Farm Road. So we really minimize how much we're interrupting that space. I think the biggest issue is that pedestrians clearly are using it and no matter what happens they're going to continue to use it and it's not a safe place for people to be walking but do we have to put in a bike path there? Maybe the bike path going in an alternate place is a better alternative and we sort of try to minimize what happens in terms of interrupting all of the neighbor's front yards as much as we can. Jim Langham. I have very similar thoughts I have very similar thoughts to Alyssa on this. So that's my concern is pedestrians here as opposed to sort of the bike sort of circulation flow I think can be given sort of alternatives, you know, there's still will be alternatives for safe bike passage but I have pedestrian concerns and perhaps a sidewalk may make more sense to me but I'm definitely open to hearing more from the applicant and from other members of the community. Frank. Well, I am for once completely preempted by Alyssa who said exactly what I intended to say and I support what she said. Unlike Jim, I'm not as open to hearing an argument the other way. I support Alyssa's view 100%. I support Alyssa's view 100%. Yeah, I think Alyssa's view. I'm not adding only that having looked at the site and I guess Mark and others would know more about this than I, you don't have to run a straight shot. In other words, I will add this. I'm sensitive to the idea that private landscaping can't preempt the public way. That's true, but that's not really the issue here because we have the right to take quote, our right of way for public purposes doesn't mean we ought to pull the full extent that we can. In this instance, however, I agree with Alyssa up to the five foot limit. And I think some effort ought to be made not to do, you know, just the shortest and quickest and maybe something a little bit windy that respect some of the landscaping that's there for the aesthetic standpoint. That's it. My comment. Thanks, Frank. Yeah, I definitely think it's, for me, what impressed upon me on the site visit is quite that road's pretty narrow already. Yeah. And certainly very dangerous for biking.  I'm going to go fast. Especially going downhill or going to the south. And I think something in between, just somewhere between five and 10 feet and maybe there's some creative approaches that complete streets people have used that can, and I like to see that shoulder improved. I think there's going to be different types of bikers. I think the path that developers propose is a great amenity in the standpoint of like, that's the bike path that the kids go on or people from Chili Drive, they'll want to take a walk after work or probably during the work day or people, ideally, there's going to be people living in this development who are walking to work at the medical industrial complex at Chili Drive. But there's got to be something for pedestrians there along there. And I think ultimately sidewalks improve the value of that neighborhood and somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but long-term-wise, as somebody who lives in an old established neighborhood with sidewalks, definitely amenity. That's my thought. One more thing. I didn't mean at all to suggest that I saw this as an alternative, the five-footer as an alternative to what the developer has proposed through Chili Drive. Again, freely spending Evan's money. I think they should. Yeah. That the bikes should go through Chili Drive. That's entirely logical and that there ought to be a sidewalk on Old Farm Road. And ideally, there's some, for me at least, in addition to a minimum of sidewalk along that public right-of-way, to try to meet the various policy documents that are laid out, there's got to be improvements to that road as well with some adequate shoulder, because the hardcore bikers will go on the road. The people are real commuters and real, quote-unquote, regular bike users, not just recreational. They're going to want to zip up and zip up and down that road. Any more board member comments before we just go back to... Yeah. I actually really like the suggestion that Alyssa made and others have supported. I walk a fair amount on that road and you're always looking over your shoulder and switching to the other side. I mean, it is a real safety issue. So I think having a sidewalk makes perfect sense. And I think having the bike avenue off the development makes sense too. Thanks. Any other board members? Staff? I would just know if someone from... Kathy Frank from the bike head committee has joined the meeting, I would just want to make sure she gets the opportunity. Thank you. Mark, can you hear me? We can. Yeah. I have several concerns. One is clearly you need a way for both pedestrians and people that bike, whether they be hardcore bikers or kids who bike or older people who bike to get from the top of the hill down to where the action is. And I'm afraid if you just put in a sidewalk that the kids will start biking down the sidewalk and coming back up the sidewalk because it's the shortest route. A recreation path does not exclude pedestrians. In fact, if you walk along our multi-use path, almost everywhere in South Burlington, you'll see as many pedestrians as you'll see bikers. So I don't think delineating between the two types is necessarily a good idea. I appreciate, and the bike pen appreciates the problem with the limited space on that road and in the shoulders. But a bike path doesn't have to be 10 feet wide, or let's call it the recreation path, doesn't have to be 10 feet wide. It can be, excuse me, 15, was it? I'm confused. It can be less. It can be eight. And you can still get by with having your use on the path. And I'm afraid if you make it uncomfortable for people that are on a bicycle because they have to go further to get to where they want to go, they will, as I said, probably ride down the sidewalk. Thanks, Kathy. Any other members of the committee back to any board members? Before we turn it over to public comment and the applicant, Andrew, Evan, before we go to the public. Yeah, we just want to point out a couple of things. You know, one item that was mentioned in the staff comments. Actually, I think it may have come from the bike and pet committee is about the grade located along old farm road versus what the grade is along Tilly Drive that it would be more conducive to have folks traveling along the old farm road. The grade is the exact same. There wouldn't be a preference one way or the other. And I think that the other last point that was made by the bike and pet committee is that there's significant pedestrian traffic already on old farm road. And while there are people that walk on old farm road, it's also, you know, important to point out the fact that there is no other alternative. If there's an alternative pedestrian route via a rec path that's going to the same location, I don't necessarily think that folks would be walking that old farm road route or biking that old farm road route as opposed to taking the rec path that we're proposing. But I think what I would like to do if the board is okay with it is just simply have Corey Mack, our transportation engineer, at least summarize some of his comments that he had put in that document because I think they are important more related to the process than necessarily whether it should be a rec path or a sidewalk. Is the board okay with that if he speaks quickly? Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Great. Thanks everybody. Again, my name is Corey Mack. I am a transportation planner and transportation engineer with WCG. I reviewed the comments. I was forwarded the packet and reviewed the comments from city staff and just had a couple of points to bring up from the overall recommendation here. Just in general, I think that the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along old farm road is a great idea. I think that that's exactly what we should be having. I think it's consistent with a lot of the city documents and everything, but there is a process in how we get there and how the east view development is building paths on its own property is often very different than how paths are built outside of private property and along public rights of way. And that process usually follows a scoping process where we look at different alternatives. We look at if it should be a sidewalk or if it should be a sidewalk with bike lanes or a 10 foot wide path, a 10 foot wide path along the shoulder of the road with curbs and drainage or if it should be a 12 foot wide path with a green strip and trees. It just evaluates a variety of alternatives. And it does that by looking at who's going to be using it. It will have pedestrian counts. It will have bike counts. It will have a lot of different information that backs us up. And then it will also look at the existing land that's out there. So you'll have the adjacent properties, the presence of utilities or fire hydrants or ledge or anything that makes construction of these different features, these proposed features more or less infeasible. And then very importantly, it also goes through a public process where you go and you talk to everybody that lives along the route and everybody inside the town. Usually this process is driven publicly. It is something that the planning commission would oversee or some other publicly appointed board. And that's so that it is not seen as having the hillside or Eastview team kind of putting their thumb on the scale in a certain direction. So really what has happened or what it looks like here is that we're going by this first from 116, Kimbalab Tilly Drive Area Land Use and Transportation Plan document, this one from November 2020, that cites Old Farm Road as a location for a shared use path. And basically they drew lines in all the through streets because that's great. That's what we want. We want to have a bike and pet infrastructure on all these streets so that people have viable alternatives to get around. But the scale of their study is very high level. They're just looking at what would be a great idea. And I think that everybody would agree that it's a great idea. But the next step in what their ultimate recommendation in that land use and transportation study is a scoping study to figure out what the impacts are to figure out what is the right infrastructure. So I think that would be my first point is that the process really is to go through the scoping process so that you really figure out what the impacts are, what the appropriate infrastructure is. And that is exactly what the Land Use Transportation Plan came to. That's a conclusion that they recommend. They don't say go out and build a path here. They say study what the path would look like and what's a reasonable and feasible alternative here. And then just going through some of the bike pet recommendations. I think Evan already mentioned briefly that the great along Old Farm Road and Tilly Drive is about the same. So I don't think that that really is necessarily going to keep people from taking the path. It's also a little longer. And if the elevation difference is the same, the longer path would theoretically, if there's no dips or anything else, would be a little less without having a design. It's impossible to really say for certainty whether or not what the grades are. The next comment that they had was that the Old Farm Road is more direct, both for residents and for commuters. And the thing that I think that is important there is, sure, that it's a more direct route for cyclists going straight from like the south side of 89 along 116 or Hinesburg Road to Kimbalav or to, I'm sorry, Wilson Road. But it's not really looking at other origin destination pairs that we would use. So like all the residents there, if they're wanting to walk or bike to the south side of the highway, that would be the most direct route. If they wanted to walk and bike to the open space by whale tails, the easiest route would be an alternative route. So it's not necessarily that it's the most direct route for everybody. It's the most direct route for one pair of origin and destinations. So I think that that's the kind of thing that the a scoping study kind of highlights, like who are we trying to serve and in what sense. The next thing a comment from the walk and bike committee was that the, you know, walking and biking should be a paramount concern. I don't think that anybody is saying that that's not at all true. And I think that it's not necessarily a binary choice that like either you have the Tilly drive alignment or you have the old farm road alignment. I think that what we should do is just slow down and breathe and figure out like what is the right alignment. The Tilly drive alignment we can build is being proposed to be built all on this private property. And that can be done with no, no impacts. It can be the alignment can be set to avoid any utilities because there are no utilities out there. When we're talking about this existing road and this existing built environment, we have to start weaving this infrastructure around and we want to make sure that we're doing it right. And I think Evan also mentioned another point to where we see the next bullet, there's lots of pedestrians walking along there on old farm road. Now, you know, I, it's, you know, I would be curious, you know, I don't have a survey or anything of the people that are walking and biking there. And I'm not sure what the purpose of their trips are, but I mean, that's an important thing to consider. If you're walking and biking for a recreational purpose and are they going to the south side of 89 or are they going to walk their dog just to stretch their legs. And if that's the case, I would say, I would venture a guess that many people would prefer to be off the road entirely. And you know, if you're walking and biking to the market, you might prefer to be off the road where you're not adjacent to traffic. If it's a rainy day, you're not going to get splashed by puddles from cars that are driving by you. You know, the Tilly Drive alternative alignment provides much of the same access. It may not be the most direct access for through bicyclists that just trying to get from point A to point B and it happens to go along old farm road. Although it's only a thousand feet longer and people will learn that it's there and you know, what's a thousand feet when you're on your bike. It's not that long to avoid driving or biking along old farm, old farm road. All that being said, I'm not trying to suggest that no infrastructure is necessary there. I'm just suggesting that we could go forward in one direction what the developer is proposing here along Tilly Drive and then also consider what the right direction would be on old farm road. I think that ultimately there should be some sort of path or shoulder sidewalk combination and just the conversation that was happening before this kind of, I'd say if anything corroborates my point here about the scoping study people have been talking about, I don't know if it's a path or where the path should be or maybe it should be a meandering path or if the sidewalk is more appropriate. That all kind of leads into the idea of what we should be doing is having a community driven publicly managed scoping study that really identifies the right infrastructure here. And another reason why this is all important is that if you start doing these things ad hoc you start building this infrastructure which is going to be around for generations. And if you don't put the intersection or the crosswalk in the right place at the first time you're going to end up having a problem. How the path intersects with Hinesburg Road or Route 116, that's a state highway. I don't know if anybody's talked to VTRANS about how they would like to see a path intersect here or how the path would then go down Route 116 and intersect with Tilly Drive. There's a lot of complexities here and that's really all I'm saying is that this is a complex decision and it is one that should be taken with that community driven scoping process to really highlight what the issues would be and what the right infrastructure is. And that's essentially what I kind of found when I was reviewing the recommendations here. I think that often when we go forward with these types of things, making sure that it's the right infrastructure for the right place is very important. And I'll just leave it there and happy to answer any questions if anything else comes up. Thanks Clark. Yeah, this is Evan again. The one last thing I will say on this is that I hope that there is not a perception that this is a discussion about cost. As I said, we're planning on putting in that Tilly Drive path. I mean, assuming that it's approved by the Development Review Board, we will plan on putting in that path regardless. We're just saying there should be a process that goes and takes into account the neighbors as well as the general public's perception of this. But the reality of the situation is we're going to be pulling zoning permits for years on this overall site. And if this is a transportation improvement, we're going to continue to be basically tapped to pay for this. So it's not us saying we don't have an interest in paying for it. We just want to make sure it's the right improvement and that it fits the location. I'll let it rest at that. And just to the last point that I think we made in our letter was that the sort of the path that we're proposing is a viable alternative that connects people to destination points, right? It gets you to the red barn market. It gets you to the existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And it sort of opens a valve to connect our project and to serve our project. The Tilly Drive study has recommended an important regional traffic improvement. And they recommended a next step of a scoping study to determine what that should look like. And we feel like our alternative has relieved our development of the immediate pressure that not having that connection would create and enables the space for that public process to continue for them to follow a statutorily defined process of creating a recreational impact fee and for us to contribute to that over the course of our project as we develop the homes within the project.  And I think we just wanted to make sure that that was understood. Yeah, I don't want to contribute to the path. I want to build a path. And I don't, and I, and I, and I, I'm sorry, Marlon. Well, I think the, this, this business about community driven process is off, off the point. I mean, I believe that it's stopped me if I'm misperceiving our authority and responsibility, but whether or not to approve either a sidewalk or a rec path or anything else that goes into that right of way lies or to require lies with us that we're charged with that responsibility and kicking it into some wider sphere does nothing for anybody. We have the requisite expertise both from the private developer who seems open to having, I think I'm quoting from their expert, some sort of path or sidewalk and our own consultants. So we don't need to over complicate it and let the, you know, let the project go ahead without having the path or the sidewalk. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Frank and also, you know, we are not saying we're designing it by committee, but, you know, we've had a lot of public input. We've had a lot of committee input. We've had the board input with expert testimony. We've done site visits. We're not responding or commenting about this issue in a vacuum, you know, and I think that you, what the board has sort of indicated is a willingness to sort of look at alternatives that, you know, offer some compromise, but I think we've kind of established our priorities and our focus here, which is long-term pedestrian safety, you know, over sort of short-term simplicity of avoiding a conflicted or, you know, complicated situation.  We've got a lot of testimony and input from committees, staff, you know, departments. And, you know, I think we've given enough flexibility and latitude for the developer to come back to it. Absolutely. Hi, Dan, you're back. Yeah. So Mark was just commenting that we've got a lot of input into this decision and it's not being made. Exactly. Right. Right. Yeah. My other concern is that if we don't address it now, just contributing to it in the future, we won't get another sort of, I guess, fight at the app. You know. Right. You know, I think addressing it for a problem or a project that we have before us and taking public input, taking committee input, taking staff input, taking the city department input and proposing and coming up with a solution is what we need to do for the infrastructure project that we have before. And that is our task and our responsibility. I think Mark is hinting at this, but I would just like to add that it seems as though the, well, I'm sure that the board has the ability to say, this is the general thing. We're going to do the design and we'll review the design at final plot. You know, this is not the final, it shall be exactly, you know, eight feet wide and it shall be exactly this far from the edge of pavement and it shall be exactly this. I think that I know that the decision can outline some general parameters and say, we'll hash out the details at final plot. Exactly. Sounds like a good plan to me. I would support that approach only because this is an important issue, but I don't feel it needs to delay further work on the rest of the development. So I like that solution and we can certainly set parameters in our decision. I agree with Mark and Dent. Yeah, I do too. Where do we stand on public comment on this item? I think we should definitely hear from the public so that we have their opinions and comments before we, so that we, when we move forward, we can take those into consideration. Sounds good. Delilah, do you have the list of the order of people that showed up who want to testify on this issue so we can, I don't know if it's in the chat or something else, but do you have a running list of people? Marla Wiener is on. I believe there's also Brian Armstrong, but I'm not sure if he wants to speak. Okay. And then there's the gates is, but I don't know if they're here for this item. Yeah. Okay. So the gates is are also here. Okay. Who was who was first in the chat Marla? Brian. It's switched a few times because when power went out, people. Yeah. We'll go with the screen here. So I'm looking at my screen Marla, your highest on the Hollywood square. So go ahead. Put your mic on there. Marla Wiener, you want to go ahead? She was having connection problems earlier. I'm not able to unmute her. I don't know why. Marla, can you unmute yourself? There you go. You're green now. Go ahead. I think she's still, I think she's having, I think we've had this problem with Marla before where. We can see her, but we can't hear her in other meetings. We've had that situation. Okay. Marla, you want to keep working on that? Check your microphone settings. And then I'm going to go to, I guess we're going to Brian Armstrong. Go ahead and Marla, keep working on your mic there. Go ahead, Brian. Your mics. There you go. First and foremost, thank you for the board for hearing me out. And I apologize at any point in this, if I become emotional, because I'd like to first and foremost, politely challenge Mark Bear. Well, as I knew the census of 19, so there is 19,000 residents in the South. We've sampled the residents of old farm road and the applicant. Maybe a couple of bike bed committees and a staff member. I support fully the applicants right to develop. I also support the applicants, you know, traffic person Corey Mack that really argues this needs to be part of a major scoping process. I'm looking at the intersection. I can't really see it because of the, of the, the landscaping that you guys will politely remove to all the floodlights, the headlights will come in my house. The noise barriers will go away. And I can tell you in the morning, that is a very busy intersection with the traffic light that you have going in it till we drive right now. There is going to be difficulty getting from old farm road onto 116 to head South. That will, that will exist as soon as that traffic light is in. So my point there again being there should be a major scoping process to analyze with Vermont trends, dirty circle, Butler farms, the development that's going off the process through the industry because it's all going to affect this. And I feel that if the board moves forward in this, they're going to do a variety of things. First and foremost, they're going to short change the citizens and taxpayers of South Berlin. One, because they're going to project the area improperly and inadequately study and scope the entire project. They're going to require project to deal with it. And tabling it saying, Hey, we'll just deal with the actual designs later. It doesn't really work because it's not going to require a scoping process with tremendous respect and humor. The only scoping is going on as something that occurs more like at the hospital right now. Now, with that being said, I think the board is going to be short-sighted not to do a scoping process because I think once again, the only way to get into the end of old farm road is really the only way to mitigate traffic cube buildup onto that late until he drives. And if you're worried about the pedestrians, first and foremost, I have a wonderful staycation here last week. There's hardly any traffic. Walking, running, jogging, so forth and so on. But the better way to do that possibly would be to get into the road, then make it more actually suitable. The other thing I'm seriously concerned about, and where you may potentially short change the citizens of South Burlington is, and I apologize folks, I don't want to operate as you'll probably win. The city has more money and resources than neighbors do combine, but there's already talks amongst the neighbors joining forces to hire legal counsel with action against the city, not against the applicant because we feel that procedural missteps of not scoping as properly are so significant, it's going to tell us to pool our hard earned resources. Now, Green Mountain Power will probably move the lines with no problem. After all, you won't land. Today's Green Mountain Power, the city, the citizens in South Burlington. I know from owning this land, two inches deep parts across that front lawn, there's ledge. When they put in water across this, when my house was connected to City Sewer, they busted two $500 drill bits in one day. So you end up blasting, which may impact foundations to neighbors. We have old houses. That's right. They're more susceptible from damage to blasting. I assure you, it will occur from digging in this land for 25 years. Now, the other concerns that I have is, and I will politely again with tremendous respect, challenge this board. Back to the lack of scoping, I feel this is, and this may sound insulting, and I do not mean it as such. A side door process with which to get this, to be able to bite that through as opposed to whoever really owned it would have to file a permit, file designs, file depth. It's going to be five feet. It's going to be eight feet. And all you're saying right now is table it down the road, kick it down the road. So when you do that, what's going to end up happening is that I'm in real estate, which means I respect the right of our applicant neighbor to develop the need, the tremendous need for housing in the state and in the city. But you are ultimately going to delay it for years because it will be appealed that every single step is much as possible in the environmental court, state court, and federal court if necessary. And that's unfortunately binding the applicant to your process of not properly, in my opinion, possibly wrong scoping this project. And when you do that, you're going to tie up the applicant's ability to deliver housing units, which is only going to drive the lack of affordable housing in the area. And the housing prices and pressures for South Burlington president. So I implore the city of South Burlington, this board, to approve the applicant's request to put the path on their land on Pizzagalli's land. And I'll remind this board, they approved a three acre variance to one acre for the red barn deli. Well, guess what? You guys keep talking about the traffic to the red barn deli. You created it. So once again, we've got Pizzagalli who benefited from the variance. They offered the free bike path across their land. And then you have the applicant who is being basically kidnapped onto the neighbor's objections and core challenges to this. All because we're trying to avoid more properly scoping and weighing in, getting input from 19,000 as opposed to 50 people. I'm just guessing. I'm just guessing. The real fact of the matter is if the city wants to build this, it's my opinion. The city should file the zoning application. Folks, I respect and I apologize. Respect your time. And I apologize about offended any of you. But. Excuse my language. This is asinine. The neighbors don't want it. The applicants don't want it. We're not going to know if we need to blast or we need to pledge. It could be two feet. It could be five feet. It's going to be 10 feet. We're just saying, hey, put a requirement in. We'll deal with it down the road. This is a miscarriage of our tumor dollars because there's going to be core challenges below. When. Thanks, Brian. Any other last comments, additional comments and new comments. Yeah, I implore the city reopen the discussion of dead traffic. I'm going to go to the south end of old farm road. And respect the traffic study in the guidance document that said it should be properly scoped because it's not being scoped properly now. And you can delay this project for years. If you do it like this. Thank you. Thanks. Marla. Yeah. My car. Don't need it right now, Marla. Marla, you can come on down to my house. If you want to talk to these guys. How's that? There you go. Yes. I'm on my phone. Hallelujah. Hi. So you can hear me all right now. We can't Marla go ahead. Okay. I just want to reiterate my strong support for everything that Brian has brought up. I also thought the testimony of Corey Mack was very eye opening and very well thought through. Years ago, I've said this before the. I have my husband and I happen to be one of the longest term residents still remaining on old farm road. And for years at numerous development, development review board meetings, when discussions came up about development being approved. Along old farm road. Assuming by the O'Brien family. We had been assured that there would be great weight. Put on the idea of dead ending old farm road. In order to maintain this very old existing neighborhood. Personally, we feel that should have been included in the planning. And the approval. For this huge, huge development that's going in on both sides of the road. If it wasn't happening. If it wasn't happening, you wouldn't have any reason or need to take land away from anyone or worry about anyone's safety. Walking or riding or biking. Between the new development outlet on old farm road. And Heinz Berg road. It's a dangerous intersection. It's a dangerous intersection. It's a dangerous intersection. It's in the. In the city. So we, we understand that there are lofty goals to have connections. We cannot understand the neighbors. And I cannot understand why that this small stretch. Of this. One of the last remaining beautiful historic. In the city. The streets in the city needs to be thrown under the bus. Because people who will have an alternative route. To do anything they want to do. That is already being proposed by the developers and paid for by the developers. Because of somebody's whim. And that's the only way to do that. And that's the only way to do that. And that's the only way to do that. Or entrance onto old farm road. To Heinz Berg road. You all approve putting that. Little. Deli there. Nobody wanted that deli there. Developers wanted that deli there. We did not. We do not need that. There and we do not utilize it. We do not use it. We do not use it. And we strongly that this is a very ill conceived concept idea. And. That we should not be as as I say we should not be the ones that have to. Suffer for having this encroaching development all around us. And then on top of that. Someone's lofty ideas about how they want everything connected. And then on top of that. And then on top of that. And then on top of that. Of South Burlington. I'm sorry. I sound very emotional about this. I feel very strongly about it. And I feel very. This served. By my representatives. Thank you. Thank you. Any other board members. To be any other members of the public. The gate says.  Do we have. Jessica and Jeremy. Jeremy. Hello. I would like to. Just make no make note to my prior testimony. I guess. And then just add that. We continue to support. The board members. And then. Evan and Andrew's existing plan. We think that they've come up with really good alternatives. We would not like to see any paths. Or destruction of the landscape. At the site visit. I mentioned that. The noise is already a huge factor for us here. From the interstate. And if we cut down any more trees, it's just going to get worse. But. There is hardly any bike traffic. So I don't know who is thinking that that is necessary. But we see. Maybe one bicyclist a week. On this road. I will concede that there are. Pedestrians. It's not a lot of pedestrians, but there are some pedestrians. And of course we want those people to be safe, but we think that there are alternatives. And to put so much weight into the fact that. There's a lot of. There's a lot of. Accommodations for bicyclists. There just are none. And so I don't know. Why that's being prioritized over all of the other factors. And if a study is needed in order to. Figure that out, then that should be done. Thank you. Cover it beautifully. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Any other members of the public. Thanks. What's the. Thank you. Pleasure of the board here. Don. That's you talking. It's a lot of echo. I'm not sure what's going on. Brian, is that a question for staff of the board? Or is this a comment? You just needed yourself. The car. Question. Go ahead. The question I'll ask. Is it there was truly proper. Why did I just find out about this two, three, four weeks ago, maybe four weeks ago, I live on the road. Probably in the city of. The city of. In the city of. The city of. In the city of. In 19,000. Why did a resident just find out about four or five weeks? That's the question. Thank you. I'll let Marla and speak to how long. This. This is been now. I was just contacted by the city. Four weeks ago about this. Now I respect to neighborhood was having up. But my point being it's not properly scoped because. I respected the rights to develop. So a challenge that that's going to be the basis of the actions. Thank you. If the board would like me to go over the responsibility of the board and the public notice process I'd be happy to do so but the board I think is very familiar with it. It's been in the comments. What the responsibility and public process is. So if you'd like me to reiterate it, I'd be happy to or hope we can just discuss any questions. You can just say what was the first date of the first time in this applicant this application has been a. A live issue for a couple of years now the whole overall development and then the issue of the issue of the transportation along. A lot of old farm road has been in the public domain for how long. Um, since before my tenure with the city I started in about four years ago. But this first hearing on preliminary. In February of this year and the first hearing on. And who I want to say was about a year before that, right. And don't you, aren't you considered and a butter. And I don't mean to use that term. So somebody accused us of using that term inappropriately, but as in a butter, haven't you been notified by mail of this project since. The. Um, sketch plan stage. On Mr. As in a project. I'm sorry. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Somebody that. Two devices on, or does somebody have a phone and a computer going at the same time? Thanks. I think I might have been you don't always respect. And now you're muted. So Don. Is that a question, Jeremy or a statement. Uh, just on the last point. butters to the project being that it is in our backyard of our property. We've never received any notice by mail. The only reason we know about all this is because Andrew has educated us on it in person. Yeah, we've never been given in. Okay. The board can look at the record of who is in a butter and all the documents file and move on from there. What's the pleasure of the board now on the application before us? We wanted to emotionally want to do? Or is this? Was there any other items that we needed to address or was it the roundabout? I think we covered the roundabout and then we collected testimony and materials regarding both of the items in the staff notes. Marla, is there anything we haven't covered? No. There is. You have covered everything. Let me say that in the affirmative. Okay. All right. So the question is do we need to collect any more information? Are we comfortable making a motion on preliminary plan application? Well, I move that we close the hearing on preliminary plan application. Isn't that what's appropriate at this point? I'll defer to Scott for more experience. Absolutely. I think I understood the question you to be asking was whether the board was in agreement that it was right to close. Could I just make one maybe more comment? I understand the discussion that you guys are having in the direction that you're heading. I think the point that was made was that a decision could be written in a way that was sort of flexible. It appears as though a number of alternatives were proposed in the staff comment. Five foot path, eight foot path, ten foot path. There doesn't seem to be a specific consensus from the board or the community as to what that appropriate infrastructure is. So I guess the request would be that we can create a proposal and not have something, not have a decision that says you'll add x, but rather to have the flexibility to propose something that might work in the situation. Is that work? Is that what the board was thinking? I think we hear you. I think the tone of the discussion of all the board members tonight was exploratory in nature. We have a motion by Frank to close the hearing. In recognizing as well, we also need to make a final plan proposal, which is going to require extensive construction drawings and details for the path that's proposed. I think we'll have to sort of work through the details of that with staff. The other request that it has is if the fee and lieu of option could be preserved in terms of how we work through who constructs this and what that relationship is. I think there are certainly issues with a private developer constructing in the public right of way adjacent to people's homes. The city I believe has immunity from civil lawsuits pertaining to damage from blasting or removal of trees or things like this that we don't. We're going to have to work through what that looks like. It may or may not be possible. The fee and lieu of maybe a necessity in order to sort of facilitate a successful project here. And so if we could just preserve flexibility on that aspect as well to work with the Department of Public Works, city staff to figure out a solution here that gets this thing, where you guys are looking to get it, that would be helpful. Can we look at for a second? I think we'll get a second out of motion, yes. I'll second. Thanks, Alyssa. And then just so again, I think what we've heard tonight is the board has enough information about the staff comments, the public comment, the comments of the applicants, to craft a decision that captures the direction that's appropriate. So we have a motion to close the hearing on SD-20-400, 500 old farmer owned preliminary qualification. The motion is in second. Is there any further discussion by the board member? Yeah, I think just the comment saying we have 45 days to assure our decisions. And I suspect we're going to have a couple of deliberative questions prior to even crafting our decisions and giving staff a direction so that we can have these issues in detail. Obviously we won't be taking any additional testimony, but I think I feel comfortable we've gotten what we need to be able to deliberate and provide pretty clear direction to the applicants and what we're going to be looking for in final plan. Thank you. Any other board members? Okay. All those in favor of the motion to close the hearing on the preliminary plan, please say aye. All right. Any nay votes and any abstentions? And then Marlowe, we do have Stephanie not participating right. Any other recusals besides her? Nope. Just Stephanie. So six. Okay. That's it. All right. Thank you very much to the applicants. Thank you very much for the members of the public. I appreciate you taking through the thunderstorm and all that stuff. So I appreciate the input and the process continues. And again, as Mark alluded, it'll be 45 days. I think it's pretty clear the board's going to take some time with this decision. Okay. Thank you all. We appreciate everybody's attention. It's been a big project and a slot to get to this point. So we appreciate all the efforts from the board and staff and the public. Have a good night. Thank you all. All right. Okay. Nine o'clock. If everybody's okay, we'll keep grinding on. Don, you okay with me putting my little, what's the word? Extended relief. It's a middle-endings pitching. So here, save our vote pen. Frank, do you have a comment? There's your hand raised. Yeah, I have. I don't feel I should be sitting for the Von Turkovich application. Okay. Thank you. All right. So excuse me, Dan. Does that mean I'm excused? Is there some deliberation I have to come back for? What happens now? Can I just leave? Marla, help me out here. Given the time, I do not anticipate delivering afterwards. And the items we have to deliberate on are relatively... I think you're excused. Let me get to the point. Thanks, Marla. Thank you, Frank. If you haven't excused, you were breaking up a little bit. You're excused, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Frank. Thank you. Bye-bye. I will just add, when I unmute Don, she is creating feedback. She's on the computer and also on the phone line. When I unmute her phone line, that's where we're getting that feedback from. So just to be aware that I have to unmute her for short bits or else the feedback starts to build. Okay. Don, you can actually, on your second device under settings, go to where it says phone, and then there's a big red button that says turn off computer audio. And that should solve the problem. Audio settings. Well, you're working now through whatever you're doing without the phone. The phone's on. Yeah, that's why we were getting feedback, because you had your computer and your phone on. I thought, I don't know how to turn it off. I can kick you out by phone. Throw it out the window. I'm going to dismiss your phone, Don. Okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Okay. Move on to item seven. So for the record, Frank, Brooklyn has left, Stephanie Wyman is back. Limited application SD-20-19 is 600 Spearspeed FJP, LLC for plan unit development on the existing 8.66 taker lot developed with 7,000 square feet. Storage building and single family home, the plan unit development consists of one 6.6 taker lot containing 32 dwelling units and four family buildings. The 1.24 acre lot containing the storage building and the existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex. The third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spearspeed. Who is here for the applicant? Okay. I see Frank Von Turchovich.  Lucy Thayer. Abby from Trudell, I believe, is with us. Andrea Dottolo from Trudell. Got the full team. Okay. I believe we're going to need to swear to you, and I don't have the magic words in front of me, Marla. Do you have the magic words in the line, like, Don? I can do that. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're good, Don. Please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks. Marla, do you want me to do an applicant to all recap first and then staff comments for the first time we've heard this, right? This is the first time we've heard this, yes. I would suggest a little summary of where we are, what's happened since we saw you at sketch, and then when you're ready, jump into the staff comment. Okay. Before we start that for the record, I do know I've worked with Frank Bontergivitch before in my capacity as a regional planning commission staff member running the Brownfield program. We did support some of the environmental studies there, however, I do not think it will affect my ability to rule impartially on this matter.  Okay. So last December, we asked the city council for permission to move this project forward. And the council, after a couple of hearings, agreed that what we were proposing was close enough to what the planning commission was planning for changes to the city's LDRs to let us proceed. Once we had the city council approval, we brought the concept plan, a sketch plan to the development review board. And after getting feedback from the board and working with staff, we have further refined the plan and submitted a complete application to move ahead with this and our before you tonight to ask you to look at our preliminary plan submission. Not a lot has changed with the project layout, with the basic plan. It's very close to what you saw earlier this year and but we have resolved a number of technical issues that are important and would like to talk about that tonight. All right, I can take over. Marla, do you have the rendering that Lucy sent over yesterday? Maybe that would be a nice one to display, the color, night rendering 2D? Sure, yeah. And just so you know, Delilah's running the projector. Sorry, I only saw your, I saw you. Delilah, please. Maybe later on. Okay. All right. So this, yeah, thanks for the introduction, Frank. And I'll just walk you through. First of all, do I in the go to meeting, is there a like a laser pointer or a way that I can draw? Attendees can draw. You have the ability to grab tools. Okay, I'll use words to describe them. So this is the next iteration of the sketch plan that some of you have seen before. This is the preliminary plan version. And what we're proposing is to connect a new city street to Spear Street in the location where an existing single family home has a driveway. And that new city street will run east west along the south side of the property where the pink line stopped. Thank you for whoever's drawing that new city street. Thanks Lucy. We'll run north south with the intention of in the future connecting to the UVM parcels to the north and to the south. That's going to be a future street that the applicant is hoping will be taken over by the city off of the new city street is a new private loop road with on street parking. And that will serve that roadway network will serve eight quad plex buildings for a total of 32 new apartment units within the site. We have 61 on street parking spaces on street or off street in smaller parking lots to sort of spread out over the over the site. And that would accommodate the the guests and residents of this of this piece. Proposed water connection would be a municipal water connection off of Spear Street near the location where the new city street intersect Spear Street wastewater disposal is a municipal pump station. And right now the current plan is to directional drill underneath 89 to the east and pump wastewater into a gravity sewer system on the east side of 89. That is an overall landscaping is mainly a mixture of different species of street trees. Here's a rendering that was prepared by Lincoln Brown illustrating the architectural style of these quad plex buildings and also gives you an idea of how the the development fits within the surrounding landscape. So that is I mean that's really the engineering in a in a brief overview. Lucy or Andrea do you have any general items to add before we get to staff comments and board questions? I don't think so. I would just reiterate what Abby said and that you know we've created a strong streetscape presence. The look in the field of the this neighborhood development has been really important. We've worked with staff to get something that fits on this site and is cohesive and speaks to the vernacular of the agricultural uses in the area in the farms to the north and south. So yeah. Thanks very much. Go back to the staff comments. I'll let someone say board members have some quick questions they need to clarify right now after that introduction. Okay. Let's see bottom up see can we get the staff comments bottom of page two. Dan can I just have a quick question? Yeah go ahead Mark. Okay in terms of the site layout I totally understand why you're doing the private versus public road circulation. So will there be any sort of delineation or differential between what city street and what's the private drive and a perspective standpoint like you know perception of you're coming down the road and continuing on as a private drive but if you turn left it stays a public city street. I know you're doing it because you know you can't park perpendicularly on a public street. So it's more like a big driveway but is it really is it going to read as more of a public street? I think it is Mark the intention was to make the interior of the project feel like the continuation of the city street model if you will. So it'll feel like it'll feel very formal we have sidewalks we have street trees we have a kind of a rectilinear layout there which once you're inside the project you don't the a person driving or walking into the project really won't know when they're in or out of a public street location. Okay thank you for the clarification. I'll add that the new the private road will be two feet narrower than the new city street so visually it would look a little bit different. Mark what are the other things? Echoing something that the board said at sketch which was make them not feel like public street. Just remind the board that that was the feedback that they provided at the sketch. Will there be sign saying if the street is not loud call Frank? Right absolutely. Okay so item number one staff does the applicant have any comment on comment number one on the bottom of page two there? Yes I do I'd like to address that. So the existing single family house that's located on the corner of that's located on Spear Street is part of the project part of the property that we acquired to do this project and that acquisition was made earlier this year. We soon realized that we needed to try to put that house back into operation if you will to try to generate some revenue from it but it's a big house so we it's in our plan was always to convert it into a duplex so what we have done is we have we have separated the four bedroom section of the house from a suite that exists over the garage area and that suite area will become a another unit that we will rent to put it on put it on the market as soon as we have permission from the city to do that but I think Marla's and she could speak for herself on this but I think Marla's point is that we have we have taken steps to actually make that separation in the house so we need to address this immediately with the city and we intend to either do it as part of this permit process that the DRB is working with us on or if we can do it more efficiently or more quickly working directly with staff we will we will do it that way but regardless we want to make sure we're in compliance and we intend to make sure that we are. Thanks Frank and Marla what's your recommendation for him as far as just do a straight up zoning application? Yeah Delilah and I had the opportunity to discuss and we think it's faster and there's no advantage doing it if it's part of this project so it should just be done as quickly as possible. Okay thank items number two and number three both deal with updating the computations comments Frank and consultants come on items number two and number three on page three Abby I'll turn that over to you if you will. Sure yep and we I mean we can provide the the separate computations for lot A to B lot A and lot B at final I mean I know I understand the road needs to be in its own right of way so that creates a lot for itself and then there's there'll be the commercial lot and then the new lot with the the 32 units on it and that's something that we'll be able to provide I think we show that from an overall perspective we meet the coverage calculations and you know perhaps at final once we do the calculations on the individual lots we'll find that we may need to ask for a waiver if if we don't meet the the lot coverage requirements but I think we've shown as a whole we will meet those coverage requirements. Okay thanks and staff and also thank you staff has also identified some issues with with the use of the building for no longer as qualified as commercial because it's supposed to be common space for the residents and the applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the front setback is the board members have any comments on on both of those issues um there's a little bit more later in the staff comments about the front setback okay all right and then so with the existing use the existing use is commercial is that still actively being used or is it okay if it just converts to residential there doesn't even need to be fixed as far as that building goes Marla? No um it just means that they so it's more by way of explanation the front setback coverage is relevant today and will not be relevant when the project is approved and reverting back to the underlying zoning is okay thanks very much okay and right and just to clarify um for us the the use will be commercial for use by residents but not by off-site so commercial no it will be an accessory to the residential use okay will not be commercial no no unless you're proposing to have like you know a business thank you mayor are there which is a thing you can talk about but we'd like to talk about it now that's what you're really trying to do home-based business I don't know yeah let me let me try to clarify when we spoke with the city council and we spoke with the DRB about this earlier in the year there there is a concept in our we just have not focused on programming the floor space of the building but there is an intention that in the future there would be uses in the building that would be I guess commercial and character because the existing use of the building is commercial and it had you know historically it has been a much heavier use we wouldn't we don't propose and wouldn't propose to go back to the sort of industrial use that the buildings had in the past but as an accessory to the project it would it would provide employment opportunities workspace we certainly are thinking about storage space for the units that would be part of the project some amenities for the residential units as well like a we talked about a workshop and a bicycle maintenance area so it's just we just don't have a real a complete focus yet on specifically what those units what those uses might look like but we would propose to come back to the city and talk about that yeah so your application just mentioned the sort of accessory residential uses like a you know a bike parking and you know storage and that sort of thing so staff had understood that this was no longer going to be commercial it was going to be accessory to the residential use if there is the intention to have commercial uses in there that's not necessarily a problem that just needs to be part of your application and needs to be vetted we'll need to determine what type of use it is and whether that needs conditional approval or whether it's even allowed in this zoning district so that's a pretty big significant it needs to be figured out and we can't say without having those conversations whether it's going to be a challenge or if it's going to be an easy anything to do right thank you we understand that marla it's just since we don't know today or probably won't know in the in the near future what those uses might look like we were hoping that we could leave that aside as a future a discussion with the city once we have those opportunities in front of us okay well if i'm looking at the allowable can i just say that the underlying zoning is residential yeah and if you revert back to if you right now the commercial is a non-conforming use if you remove the non-conformity it can't be re-established right we don't want to we don't want to remove the current use we we and we are using it now as part of our business operations which is a continuation of what was happening before but we would propose to transition at some point into some other uses that we realize we'd have to ask the city's permission for so that needs to be continuous as part of this process yeah what Delilah's saying if you stop using it as an existing non-conformity for more than six months you lose the ability to continue it sometime down so you need to amend your application to say that and continue commercial use in such and such a way consistent with the previous approval so that you don't lose that because right now your application says it's going to be bike parking and it's going to be storage units and it's going to be you know whatever um and that's not a commercial use it can't go on indefinitely if it's not actively being used okay well we will we'll work with staff to clarify that uh immediately um so board is i guess this is kind of sprung on us and i'm not sure Delilah what are your thoughts on preliminary versus final for sorting this out um like before we close preliminary i have room for them on the next agenda yeah if we want to continue if i did yeah if there's if there's nothing else we get through everything and there's no other big hanging questions and the board feels ready to close um i think our recommendation at this time is to work really hard over the next couple days just to make sure that this preliminary plot is closed with the right information um and then we would just continue this hearing to the very next meeting i would work with frank over the next couple days and we sort this out um but let's see where we are with all the other stuff okay so marla our stand can i interject go ahead marcia you know i think one thing you know yeah i think this is definitely an issue of frank working out with marlon delilah the solution but i think something we've always done in the past is you know look at what the underlying approval and zoning district allows and then look at what would be a complementary use for the the property and the proposed development and come up with sort of like some approved uses that as frank wants to develop a business model done already has the flexibility of just working with delilah for zoning permits but if he goes outside of that it would trigger having come back to the board to review on a per-use space but just gives him some flexibility to look at some things he might want to do down the road that allows him to change over the businesses that have been come back to us every single time um that allows us to know some control over what might go in here in the future that's a totally admirable sentiment and this zoning district is one of the most residential of the residential yes so the opportunities for allowing a broad array or even a narrow array of uses is actually pretty limited this is the r4 okay but in in many zoning districts that's a great suggestion yes okay next um moving along item four staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide architectural elevations demonstrating compliance of the existing building to be retained with this criterion staff recommends that the board determine whether she should be prior to closing for my flat or in the final flat board members comment uh yes like uh this brings us back to the question we were just talking about I think um we do we have explored a number of different ideas for how to uh modify the existing steel building that would make it more um conducive to other uses uh I think what we would like to do or like to ask the DRB to let us do is to come back with those exterior modifications once we have a better program for the uh for the uses it's we know that you need to know that uh before we take steps for other uses but it's just too early to present uh plans for the exterior of the building until we're there board members that are acceptable Abby I don't know if you can clean up our perspective drawing again that the rendering it shows the building in its context and um one of the things that we would probably uh we would certainly propose to move ahead and install you know landscaping parking lighting all of those exterior uh landscape features would be done it's just the physical changes to the building that might be wanted in the future in terms of window placement we talked about a possible uh Clara story across the uh across the ridge things like that we won't know if they're workable until we actually have some possible uses for the interior so this comment is about um the criteria you know our our bugaboo here proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves the terrain existing buildings and roads that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures so um you know they have these buildings you have elevations in your packet there's some shown on the screen right now um the question here is okay these buildings are nice um have it how do they relate to the existing building and so what are you since you're proposing to reskin the existing building are they related and um does the board want more information on that now or um that final thought well if I may continue uh just to to respond to that because this is something that we did think about early and I believe we had some conversations with the city about this at the outset we really see value in keeping the steel building uh one of the earliest thoughts was hey should the steel building remain in place or should we consider uh demolishing it it's been there a long time it's part of the um streetscape if you will on on spear street it relates strongly to the buildings that are at the uvm farm and uh even to to some extent to the uh buildings that are across the street on the west side of spear street some of which are not visible but they do exist it's part of a mixed use area that it's one of the things that we liked about this project is that um the connection to the farmland uh the the very existence of the steel building is something that sort of in some ways feels comfortable today so we decided that it would be best to continue that farm development theme so the houses that we proposed they do relate to the colonial house on on spear street the large house that we were talking about but they also look like they might be farm buildings or residential buildings that are close to an existing uh barn like structure that the steel building represents so we think keeping it intact as as a organized development is something that is still really positive um I'm I was specifically responding earlier to what the exterior of the building might change to look like we don't propose putting bricks on it we don't propose making it look like something other than a utility building which it is today we'd like to keep that sort of functional look to it in the future comment's pretty clear that that criteria is there and it's still operable so think about it and we'll move on here and having some more points here I guess um I'd just like to hear from the board before you move on in response to Frank's most recent observation that they'd like to keep it looking like a functional building um is that going to meet this criteria I'll dive in Mike I've been around the property a little bit once ago back in the day of winter I get that the farm landscape is not characterized necessarily by one type of building but it's basically an odd commercial steel building I don't I don't I don't see if it relates much to anything right now so the extent the exterior can be modified to be visibly obtrusive especially the goal of the applicant you have to be quote unquote belong to the residents there should be some linkage in style or etc I realize sometimes that's you know putting the lipstick on it but so be it that's what we try to do when we when we approve developments is bring some cohesion whether or might not have been so that's my thought yeah I agree with you Dan I mean I think that unfortunately it's sort of like without knowing what the use is going to be and now hearing from Marla that there's a very limited number of uses I think we need as a board more information to know how it's going to fit harmoniously within the development this isn't sort of like a separate parcel and then you're proposing the development you know behind it this is all part of the same parcel and part of the same development and you're proposing sort of integrating it and it's not off the side or behind it's sort of a kind of a focus piece that throwing some landscaping it isn't really going to hide it so I think giving some thought to what your use is going to be and how it's going to fit with the development and then how it's going to look as it blends in with the rest of the development is a little more important than sort of kicking the can down the road um and I'm not sure if I think we as a board and staff and as you the applicant can talk about whether that has to be passed out as preliminary or figure out you know you can work on it and come back to the final but I do think it's something that we ultimately are going to need to sort of see your ultimate final use or proposed variety of uses and how is the architecture going to fit in with your overall development neighborhood development which I expect a lot of support for the initial meeting and it hasn't wavered I think it's a great little project it's a great infill project I really like the rectilinear pattern of it so I think that this is a little more important than trying to figure out down the road respecting as the partners feel building you know at this time okay we agree I agree um I have to be honest it has an element of eyes soreness for me um but you know we'll see what you can come up with okay thanks for the other board members I would even agree with Dawn real quick that it does have an element of eyes I think you know it's got the large overhead doors you can play out those you can throw on some minor architectural elements and it can get a little more successful like those you know terms you know the arena which has a similar feel to it but we've got some architectural elements and the use is sympathetic to that with us so I think looking at what your proposed uses you can come up with some I think easy solutions and easy tricks but I think you'd be immune to look at it and come back with a proposal that makes sense right thank you comment number five regarding dumpsters facilities to solid waste what's the it's not showing a plan what the applicants plan for that uh the each building um has will have its own receptacles for solid waste so there will be recycling and rubbish containers at each building they will be serviced weekly or more often as needed and again each building has four units in it so it'll be a fairly uh just diverse excuse me um it'll be spread out amongst the project so we will essentially have a route inside the development where the rubbish uh collecting collection company will come in empty out the units bring those units back to their place in the um in the hallway between the sections of the buildings that's also where the bike storage areas will be located and then uh residents will also have access to the um larger collection facility that would be behind the steel building if something bigger needs to be disposed of right then if you wanted to pull up elevation um a one the first floor plan um the the trash that frank is talking about is shown trash recycling area at each building thanks um gotta make fun okay board members any other comment on this or no i just said i've seen the trash recycling area will also have a dedicated composting area uh we haven't uh addressed uh composting inside the uh between the two sections of the building that'll probably that would be something that we'd have to uh understand how to safely do that in a in this location or we'll have a centralized facility for that okay um i would just note that uh i just heard frank say there'll be a dumpster at the larger common building is that shown on the plans abby it is thank you i did not notice it um i will look for it and we will provide comments if we have them so it's on the north side of the existing yeah the r right there oh r yeah i thought i didn't know what r was it doesn't look like it's labeled dumpster trash it's just a graphic graphic representation of one all right thank you all right i don't want nothing more on this we'll move on to comment number six on top of page eight regarding screening or buffering so this is regards to no screening is proposed on the north side of the project as noted above the parcel to the north and south are agricultural institutional zoning districts that are not zones for development time that recommends the comment is that number six that recommends the board require the applicant to provide screening to the north to protect the enjoyment of that lot so we're protecting the agricultural lot from a view of the new homes that we're saying well yeah and dan this is a little bit from um you know my experience with development in general um it's all well and good to say well that's already screened or doesn't need to be screened from anything the standard is to to screen dissimilar uses and if at a later time that agricultural lot does see more use it doesn't seem equitable to me to say well put in your own screening because you came in you came in second all right so i'm open to what you guys have to think about it but that's sort of my personal feeling on this i would agree only from the standpoint of this is not a parcel located in asin county or franklin county where people are used to large agricultural operations i mean you know so not to say people wouldn't be aware that uvm is they make perceptually so i think having landscaping there could could nip a complaint in the bottom dust or you know what if they're telling the field or things like that so uh right if you have any comments on that or yeah we we since it looks like we're going to have an opportunity to talk to staff a little bit more about some of these other issues we'd like to explore that further with staff one of the points that i'd make to the to the board tonight is that we like the idea that the farmland on both sides is somewhat visible in fact the field to the south that you can see on this rendering which is somewhat open is a is a real attractive feature so we definitely want people in our project to be able to see that open landscape and have that long view uh the land to the north is already there is a fairly thick buffer it doesn't show up really heavily in the winter time but there is a vegetated buffer to the north um uh we have focused our energy and and and resources to having really good interior landscaping uh without as much thought to the perimeter so i guess we'd like to have a chance to talk to staff a little bit more about their thoughts of how much should be provided along that parameter i mean this is a board's decision this isn't the staff's decision i was just explaining um where i was coming from with that comment i the board's call on whether they want to require this uh dissimilar use to be screened i i got my question go ahead mark go ahead though i ramble enough well i'm looking at the rendering and the applicant just noted that there's some screening it looks to me like there's a lot of screening there what were you thinking marlo what why did you think that's not adequate sure um so some of that actually well if you could go to the third page of the plan set i'm sorry i don't know what she did um yeah la la one dash zero two fill in i can you tell me the number it is that's that that is more helpful because i don't see i don't see the in the pad what number is it in the packet i don't have that in front of me i'll get that up so i can in the future because i don't i can't see those that's perfect that one's perfect okay um so my point is that much of those trees are on the abutting property um and my experience has been that well it just doesn't seem equitable to require an abutter to retain trees because of something someone else did um so that's that's my point okay board members well one question i was what's the setback from the building to the property line on the north i believe it's 10 feet 10 feet is that even enough distance to put some decent screening if we were to require screening along the north edge i think 10 feet is the the minimum setback in that zoning district okay but i mean in terms of being able to put some screening in to put you know because i see what your point is marla that you know the the heavy screening from the north is predominantly on the adjacent property and whatever is on and parcel is going to be cut to put in the houses you know so you know what could we be doing to provide screening in a 10 foot plot well and maybe 10 feet isn't the right setback yeah there's definitely about i think we're about 15 feet um we're from the houses to to the property the northern property line and i'm wondering if you know maybe the compromise here is you know screening the any other utilities exterior ground mount utilities um with fencing providing low you know low growing plantings and i'm sorry i know this is landscape architecture lucy i'm sorry but just you know maybe not a hedgerow to screen whatever future tree clearing uvm decides to do but more of a buffer should in the future those trees go away it's not just you know white side of building up against the property line one thing i would offer as the landscape architect here is that it is a challenging uh site condition if you have planting on the north side of the building that has just there's less plants that will grow with screening capacity so i think that 10 feet is enough is adequate to put plants in you can put trees and whatnot but i would just caution that it would be best served kind of in between the buildings and not i do not think that we could effectively accomplish a consistent hedgerow here from an actual logistical standpoint from plan well i'm going to ask this question to present an extreme um so it's so know that i don't think this is necessarily the solution but it is a solution um the board could say okay retain the trees on your lot and move everything further away um so that you're not require you're not planting new trees you're just requiring you're just maintaining some of the existing screening on your own lot um and so you know as as the far opposite extreme of what's being proposed that that could be a solution i don't know how much that would require them to reconfigure the whole layout probably a lot and that's why i'm saying it's like a very extreme reaction but i did want to you know bracket i'd like to follow up on this fair's point you know i before she was speaking i thought to myself won't be nice to have some screening of those park cars and a little landscaping obviously not a hedge because you couldn't fit it but if the corners of the building northwest of the northeast corners of the building in an area where that's where they were appropriate things to grow and then a little more screening on the commercial building or whatever that existing building i should say things like that it's a way to to beef it up a little bit out of consideration to the above a lot my thought board members no i'm in agreement i mean i i i think that i don't see this as being something where we need to do just a line of screening to hide the project if anything ever goes into the north and those that edge row of the tree line on the uvm property goes away i think planning for the future if it ever goes away to provide some selective screening to stop them for development i'd like to see something i'd like to see some some proposal that does that but you know i just imagine the entire uvm part of the clear cut what would we see and what would you want to be seen thanks any other comments from the board or move on uh staff comment number seven page nine this is all regarding stormwater um applicant indicated the staff they designed the system based on a request to the board of sketch of the distributed stormwater management system staff does not like elect such a comment to recommend the board discuss with the applicant need to consolidate the stormwater system in order to reduce the impact on the site staff recommended the board ask the applicant to discuss what they believe the solution might look like provide feedback on whether they are on the right track in particular staff recommends a discussion address whether any other elements of the site be affected by a less distributed system so whether those impacts are accepted thank you staff or andrea are you at this yeah so during our preliminary design we headed down this path of looking at a dispersed stormwater system are allowing our stormwater features to be integrated throughout the development and as we got further and further down that path it just ended up in numerous amounts of very small uh by retention basins and as we got comments back from dpw it was very clear that they supported um more of a community or a larger system there's you know large maintenance costs associated with having numerous amounts of individual stormwater treatment areas so we just wanted to discuss with you all at preliminary whether the board had interest in this integrated stormwater system or a more community system i think you know when i say community system we would be looking at keeping three of the larger areas the one between the new city street and the existing or house building the one by building five and the one by building four and then potentially adding another larger system either in the northwest or the northeast corner of the site depending on what we find when we get into more fine-tuned grading of looking at getting everything to flow in one direction one you know big conflict with the stormwater system is just with this compact development we have tons of utility crossings between sewer stormwater and water so fitting all of those utilities in throughout the buildings and the roads is a challenge um and by having fewer stormwater treatment areas we would have a little bit more room to get those separation distances between utilities board members i know this kind of a confusing topic so in the picture that delilah has up every um almost every little red circle is a stormwater treatment practice um there's one in the top left corner that this is the pump station but every other little red circle is the stormwater treatment um so what andrea is saying is that um they're proposing to cut down from 30 or whatever to what like six yeah probably four four to six at the most um currently we're looking at doing this plan looks at doing fire retention systems or rain garden um likely if we were to reduce them we would end up with either gravel wetlands or a combination of rain gardens and gravel wetlands so marla as our engineer staff person what are your thoughts about four to six well i mean andrea just described that it'll help with their utility complex um one of the things noted in the staff comments is that there's so many of them that it actually gets in the way of the street presence so that seems to be an improvement um okay does anyone on the board recall saying like how they distributed stormwater systems i don't recall that comment or that discussion and i i like the idea of going to you know four to six consolidated um stormwater areas i think the idea of like you know the bioretention you know rain that are you know swell areas are nice um but i think that you know the idea that having 30 plus small areas does create conflicts and sort of takes away from it becoming sort of like a pedestrian neighborhood so i i'd rather see four to six sort of consolidated ones that are focused than spread out throughout the whole development yeah i think that's like go ahead oh i was gonna say i agree that it oh go ahead hello you go ahead um i was gonna say i agree that having four to six is probably a better design uh just given that some of these uh you know the felt area units there they require a lot of maintenance and every year they're gonna have to file um inspection reports state to comply with their permit application and sometimes that maintenance you know we it's recommended but it doesn't always happen and then these units can you know they degrade over time and they don't do what they're supposed to do so i think you get better treatment and easier maintenance in the future by spreading it you know four to six as opposed to having a lot of smaller units within the system i'm sorry go ahead frank no i was just gonna add that we we appreciate that comment and we have talked about this internally and we agree that uh consolidating these smaller areas is a great idea so we we will present something to uh to you at final or before that that shows that we can accomplish that i was i was hoping for suspended foot bridges over blacklands throughout like a cool place in germany but i have a question about the larger treatment area uh perhaps miss there can address it or uh is there a plan for some landscaping amenities i realize we don't want every stormwater pond to sort of turn into here is here is the community pond but i i have seen some creative things walking around uh you know from on and elsewhere and so i'm just curious if there's plans to make that on the east look less like it's the giant stormwater pond with a fence around it yes it will not be an open water system so likely the larger one would be a gravel wetland which has a oil cap on top of the stone and then it is heavily planted for a site like this we would be looking at a specific planting plan for the gravel wetland and i think that once we finalize the stormwater design that's also something that would be included in into the renderings um you know we can also provide landscaping around the stormwater treatment area but generally these gravel wetlands are planted and well vegetated and we will we'll incorporate to your point we'll incorporate we will not treat it like a you know wetland that's in the back that's back of house but we'll definitely um it will be integrated into the actual projects and then just curious um and i haven't looked at the plans in detail this isn't really a stormwater question but is there a plan for any kind of community outdoor amenities picnic tables uh community gardens uh gas grill area place for people to gather because i must say i'm impressed with you know there's the development right behind me on ferro and i see people out there hanging out with their friends and having a picnic right in front of the apartment complex you know there so i'm just wondering like what's any plans for that year yeah uh can you put up the colored or can we see the colored rendering um site plan that might be the best yep delilah's driving driving the show oh thank you uh actually the uh we have the uh there that plan thank you so uh what you can see in the middle of it is our common area uh and that is where in addition to every uh apartment having its own private um or well we'll feel like a private balcony well we'll be a balcony uh deck and a on the lower level underneath it will be a walkout patio deck for the lower level unit um the they will all the uh units will share that area that's been marked in yellow there which is a which is we will build as more of a formal park area but it'll certainly be open for programming to put up a picnic table or other kinds of uh community-centered uses that would be it would fit into that we haven't shown furniture per se but that can certainly be included um so that's where we envision people getting together and having a party or a gathering or something of that sort we're also looking at the extension of the new private road uh to the um to the east uh as being a location that we that we're exploring right now to to look at for um gardening okay do an actual community garden plot that would be fenced in to protect it from the deer and other animals and that would be a place where people could actually do garden plots and it makes sense to maintain the rural character of the area right yep is there any concern with like uh snow plowing in the winter i feel like that area is probably possibly a snow storage spot as well and how that could radiate the soils there for gardening yeah we'll probably push the garden area farther so the garden would not start immediately at the at the end of that there would be snow in the wintertime but beyond that would be a dedicated garden zone yeah the snow uh storage would not commingle with any community gardens right on the witching hour so let's keep moving here number seven staff comment number eight on page ten regarding criteria for public and private roadways comment number eight there are 20 dwelling units proposed to be accessed by a private road with two points of access on the proposed roadway staff considers that there may only be 19 dwelling on the private street and recommends the board require the applicant to modify their plan to leave these roads here that recommends the board discuss with the applicant their plan for addressing this comment and determine whether the required to be addressed if it's full of money played by state of review or allowed to be addressed final moral can you find us a little more for me sure so um 1512 d4 uh sorry b3 says if you have a private road and it has two or more points of access under an existing proposed roadway um it can only serve 19 or fewer felt going if if you want more than that can't be public roads and if you want to be public roads you can't have that in parking so i think it's in the applicant's interest here to have to be a private road but then we have this issue of 19 dwelling units um i did count generously anything that had frontage on the private road i did not count so buildings one two and three i did not count thank you uh yeah we were caught kind of by surprise uh with this issue um uh our mistake um we understand what the ordinance says we'd like the board to know that we looked at so many different uh configurations for the way these buildings could be laid out um and when you've given the fact that in the r for district we're limited to four units per building which is fine because we really like the sort of low scale and and the neighborhood feel that we get this this type of building the problem we have is that it's just difficult to arrange things and keep this sort of rectilinear plan um and solve that problem so we overlooked that uh it hadn't come up earlier so we were on we hadn't addressed it uh prior to this the only solution that we can propose tonight is that um if the board cannot provide any kind of a waiver for that additional unit to let us go to 20 then we would probably have to propose eliminating building six because we really don't have an architectural solution right now that we're comfortable with um and that would just mean that we would we would lose four units on building six um and bring us under that number um we would hope that we wouldn't have to do that because we really think that the concept here and the sort of the mission to to build a project of this type and add these units is is really important but we don't see a viable um design solution for this right now so frank i have a comment for you on that um and is to that kind of might it might kill two birds with one stone um take building six and rotate it 90 degrees and take building four and turn it into a duplex and that way you get rid of two units and you create sort of like you get some separation between the northern property line and the building and building one which is on a city street i would say is more inclined to be closer to the property line anyway for a future project and you could create some natural landscape buffer in that sort of areas and you'd go down to 18 not 16 meet the ordinance and sort of get that buffer landscape area and you could do it quite easily with building four by just almost cutting off and having the interior you know stair circulation be exposed rather than be between the two units or four units yeah um it sounds like the um you know the 19 you know going from 19 to 20 units on a on a private road isn't something that the board has flexibility to allow um is that that's not a waiverable um item correct marla i believe that's a maybe maybe we can waive that and have 19 units but i think there's you know what we would come back in final is if if that can't be waived we would just come back with less units i would want the board to have a robust discussion of whether they believe that as a waivable criteria or not um there have been conflicting opinions thank you uh mark your your point is is really well taken and we're interested in it um we it really hurt to think that we we don't want to lose four units and we really don't want to lose one unit because the entire cost of the project and the infrastructure is going to be expensive and you know the the intention behind these units is to really provide this sort of work workforce housing resource so if we can avoid losing units that would be our primary goal but um so we are going to we would like to ask the board to consider that question as to whether 20 could be allowed um and this is something that i i don't know what the rationale was for the ordinance in the first place but whether the board can do this or whether this is something that the planning commission would still have an opportunity to consider as part of the changes that it it's making but it just seems like it's an arbitrary number and it would be really great to maintain the consistency of the way we're building these buildings with the interior uh stairways well you don't want to go down the road of changing the regulations right because you're vested and you made an extra special effort to be vested oh absolutely we don't want to propose that marlo but if if this is a city-wide issue and the city has an opportunity to consider it we'd cer