Good evening. Okay. Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington City Development Review Board of October 18th, 2022. Pardon me, my name is Dawn Filibert. I'm chair of the board and with me tonight are fellow board members Dan Albrecht, Stephanie Wyman, Quinn Mann, John Stern, and we will be joined possibly later by Mark Baer and also from the city of Vermont, city of Vermont, city of South Burlington, Marla Keane, our development review planner and zoning administrator and our director of planning Paul Conner. Thank you all for coming. There's a couple of ways to participate in this meeting. One is to attend as many of you are doing tonight. The other way is to attend virtually and you can also call in and participate that way. If you are here in person we ask that you sign up back in the sign-in sheet and with your contact information and if you're participating remotely please give us your contact number in the chat function so that you can be registered as a participant should you ever wish to attain party status in any further action. And if you're on the phone you can register and provide your contact information by emailing marla at m-k-e-e-n-e at southburlington-v-t dot gov. We ask that you keep your microphones muted and your camera's off unless you're actively participating in the item before the board and during the public comment section if you wish to comment turn your camera on raise your hand or indicate you'd like to provide testimony in the chat room and we will acknowledge you and then you when you are acknowledged you can turn your camera and your audio on. And we ask that you keep the chat function to just administrative use only by registering your contact information it's not part of the public record if you have cross conversations about that. Okay first item on the agenda is the emergency evacuation procedures there are doors in the back on each side of the room the auditorium in case of an emergency you would simply exit through those doors and turn right or left and you'll be outside quickest ways to to go that way. Are there any additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none. Couple of announcements this meeting is being recorded. Any other announcements? Are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Hearing none we will move on to agenda item number five. Pardon me. This is continued site plan application sp22045 of SRTB Holdings LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of 3980 square feet of building of a building addition on two facades and associated site improvements at 1650 Shelburne Road. Before we introduce the applicants does anyone have a disclosure or a conflict of interest to announce? I'll just say that I love adjacent to this property but I don't think that'll affect my ability to be impartial. Thank you. Who is here for the applicant please? Hi Kevin. Any other people? J. J. A. Y. Thank you. And anyone else? Have you all been sworn in at a previous meeting? Matt are you there? There is no Matt online yet. Oh there's a friend. Oh yeah there's a Matt Tyler excuse me. Matt. Thanks. Okay thanks we can't hear you. Wait I got two hands. Two people raised their hands. Okay. Yeah Brent with the Yale. Have you been sworn in at a previous hearing? Yes. And Matt? He was he was sworn in last time I think we're not hearing you Matt. We can't hear you Matt. Okay. Okay. What we have tonight is a draft finding of facts and decisions conclusions and decisions for us to review before we start is there anything that you would like to say or are you good with walking through the decision? Yeah. Okay good. Let's let's do that. So Dawn if you recall this was one that Marty was taking the lead on Marty is at a training this week so I'm going to do my best to fill his shoes. Perfect. All right the first comment I don't know why my comments don't this is about landscape budget minimums staff considers that every effort should be made by the applicant to come into compliance with this criterion and that the addition of three more shade trees would sufficiently increase the subject properties level of compliance with the above criterion. What are your comments thoughts about that? I think based on the last hearing we came away with the understanding that the stone wall which is the landscape item for the second vehicle display was an acceptable landscaping feature to apply to the landscaping budget but maybe we misunderstood. So that's really in staff comment number two and it's unfortunate that this is just sort of the way the order of the decision works out that but if we want to sort of discuss these two things together staff comment number two is about the landscape budget and gets to what Kevin's talking about. I think that makes sense. So as Marla said staff comment number two is about the landscaping budget and let me just review this. Marla could oh this isn't well Marty isn't here so your concern is that the that the pedestal for the car should not be part of the landscaping budget. That's correct. And you were under the impression that it it is. Well so at the last hearing I think Mark and it's unfortunate that he isn't able to join us right away. Mark suggested well you could even do another one of those stone things for a vehicle display and you know it was just sort of an off the cuff comment. I think the applicant really ran with that. Reviewing the regulations you know this is a the landscaping the back up the board is allowed to allow credit towards things other than plants other than trees and shrubs when the landscaping standards are otherwise met. You know so they typically include things like hardscape decorative features sculptures that kind of thing. This feature is really more like an outdoor storage outdoor vehicle or outdoor display of merchandise I'm sorry it's not outdoor storage it's under the same LDR though outdoor display of merchandise and it's also if you don't think of it that way which by the way that's a conditional use if you don't think of it that way it's sort of parking in the front if you think about it the other way of looking at it. So neither of those things are really things that well first of all parking in the front is prohibited. Outdoor display of merchandise is allowed as conditional use but we haven't warned it as conditional use so it's not really something we want to just take lightly and the third point was that this vehicle display area is 25 percent of their proposed required landscape budget which seems like an awful lot for something that isn't really consistent with the objectives of the LDR so that's where we thought you know if they wanted to plant around it that might be great plant around it and the other one that might be great. Increase the trees on the north side of the property to better comply with that front yard landscaping those are three ideas that we had. And would three or more shade trees do it? Well it depends on the cost of the trees but I think that they it would be six of the trees at the price that they had been quoting them. Is that right Kevin? Yeah the 7500 for the natural stone vehicle display would require just a little bit more than three trees for the of the green gable variety. What would be just three then? Just a little bit more than those we'd have to do another half a tree. Okay yeah we had we thought we had done the math wrong like after we had already published that. I think so so what we'd probably do I mean I guess I'd be interested in a little more discussion around the display since that was something we left with that impression I don't know if stone walls in general are allowed I understand some of the finer points that Marla made with regard to parking and outdoor display but it'd be certainly interested to hear that if stone walls have been used in the past to meet the landscaping budget we'd be curious about that president but it would be a little more than three trees I think the equivalent would be three trees and then a few additional flowered areas landscaped areas. And I certainly don't want to put words in the mouths of of you all up there but what I thought I heard again are we're very fortunate in the instance that our property is very well landscaped as it is and there's a lot of trees all the way around it. I think you know we were discussing there's certainly an opportunity to put a couple of trees in the back and we were talking and agreed to put a couple of trees on the north side by Green Mountain Drive as well which has been added to the plan but certainly the there is a precedence when we talk about vehicles in certain instances like this and very artistically done well hardscape for them to park on for the Jeep brand out front and other dealerships I know do have specific parking out front including but not limited to the other store that I own across the street. So I'm just hoping if it's a matter of adding some pernials and whatever around it that we can find a way without having to add a whole lot more trees because trees do damage to paint and that's one of the things we're kind of avoiding in the back inventory area where our storage parking is to the paint cars I see they do yeah yeah so I mean we know that we're going to have landscape but it happens to be where we park a lot of our inventory doesn't have a lot of trees and we're hoping to avoid adding to that. So let me just be clear do you I know you have one kind of rock display for a vehicle do you have one and are you proposing another one? Correct. I see. And I thought I understood that as a suggestion from the board as a way of saying hey look this is a this is a property that has a lot of landscaping already maybe there's a way we can work into this budget a way to get your budget to meet the meet the dollar figure of the budget but also allow the applicant myself a little leeway here um in a creative way is what I thought I understood but uh the existing is in the in the northwest corner okay closest to Green Mountain Drive and we were talking about and would you have a vehicle on each one? Yes I see. Yep. So one of my concerns here is that outdoor display of merchandise is a conditional use and we didn't warn it as a conditional use hearing I don't think that the board couldn't entertain a proposal like that but um I don't know that we can approve it as part of this application and I'm just double checking that because sometimes they get mixed up um other other thoughts from the board? What are your plans with the existing trees that line Shelburne? Are you going to leave them or take them away? I think they're they're maintained yeah I have to look through the plans and did we need to remove one I have to go through the back to the existing conditions plan but no those are the the goal is to maintain those. Yeah they're all staying yeah they're all staying. I mean I could envision and I understand the display of merchandise is tricky especially if it needs to be a conditional use but I could envision um plantings and bushes at the base of each of those rock structures um now in one respect that would bring the visual the eye to that those cars which maybe might not be what we want to do but um certainly understand the problem with trees falling on cars we don't want to be ruining paint. What are other some other thoughts about the landscaping? Can they build the wall without displaying merchandise and then go through the conditional use? Yeah I can feel that becoming an enforcement nightmare. I guess I would question I mean isn't parking a car for sale at a approved car dealership outdoors in accessory or allowed use? I can I can certainly understand that you know merchandise display in another situation would be a you know conditional approval if you were if that wasn't accessory to the approved use. Yeah it gets approved for certain areas when the site plan is approved for a car dealer so this would be adding a new area got it and actually this property did have approval for three but that approval lapse they only installed one and then the approval for the other two expired. It expired because because they weren't installed enough time with but what had to be what permits expire if you don't actually construct the project um I suppose we could do something if you were really interested in pursuing this if this made sense you know it's going to take you a while to construct this addition you could get approval as a site plan you know and say this is what we're going to do we're going to do the trees and then amend it while you're still under construction I don't know how much of a hurry you're in for conditional use yeah that's fair means a little more work you gotta keep Kevin on salary a little longer yeah I like Kevin so does that work for you yeah so can you enumerate what your specific sort of lance so just I guess is the board okay with that and they're okay with this the vehicle display area representing 25 percent of the like the required landscape budget or did you want to see some plantings around it I think it would be really nice to have some plantings around it it doesn't have to be it doesn't have to be elaborate but you know I think it would be very nice it would make it less hard but that's just my opinion other people would the brand allow you to do that I know that sometimes your hands are tied in certain ways I can't imagine as long as it didn't totally obscure the rocks as long as you could see the stones in the rocks I can't imagine that that would be a problem if some sort of landscaping were really soft around the bottom of it I would think that would be fine so I can imagine an approval where I say the board finds that the applicant may amend their plan to you know provide this feature in such and such a way however as approved the applicant shall provide and then I want you to tell me what you told me again three trees of what species and and some additional three green gables and additional um a little quick fire to meet the budget and that would be in the front yard along Green Mountain Drive I think what we would look at is one tree um on Green Mountain Drive and two trees on the rear slope by the stairs and green gables are is a type of tree that's right that's what those trees there are okay okay um how does that feel I'm good with that board looking at the existing looking at the street view the Green Mountain Drive is somewhat bereft of trees I don't know if it's feasible to do two and then two along there and one one somewhere else but at least looking at the street view and I get it your people want you want a proposing tool already so that oh I have a third there okay gotcha so just to be clear the two on the plan are in regardless of the discussion tonight okay and we would add a third um that's these two right and then two out back near that stair okay and then you would undo an amendment to request permission to not plant those that you just described and instead do a the stone area that was I think on the bottom of the page or correct to this just to the bottom of the plantings around it all right that's right okay so we end up with in the end if they come back with an amendment we end up with no trees at all you end up with the trees that are shown on the plan as the two there today yes but not the third okay all right that's fine as long as we keep the two trees then I'll be hit looks okay to me okay are we ready to turn to public comment sure let's uh ask if any members of the public have any comments to make anyone in the audience anyone online anyone online nobody okay sorry I didn't realize those are not to me oh sorry okay all right um I guess then we will um entertain a vote to close the hearing make a motion to close the hearing for site plan application sb dash 22 dash 045 of srtb holdings LLC 1650 Shubin road we have a second second thank you all in favor is there any discussion all in favor of adopting the motion say aye aye aye any opposed okay it's carried thank you so we will be deliberating on this at an upcoming meeting thank you thank you good evening uh agenda item number six is the site plan application sp22047 of the university vermont to amend the plan for an existing agricultural complex the amendment consists of adding outdoor storage as a use at 650 spear street my son goes to uvm okay but I don't think okay yeah there's a few other students there yeah and and done um I worked on the design for the solar facility at this location but I don't think that that will affect my ability to be impartial thank you any other disclosures or hey um who is here for the applicant please my name is Lonnie Raven I'm an associate planner with the University of Vermont and here today with me is Derek Reed a stormwater consulting engineer for the university Derek is it Derek Reed of Krebsen Lansing someone else is with you too yes we have loose Hillman the executive director of facilities management um and Dave Blatchley might be online I don't see his name up there but no it's just how you see not there okay and so it's and the woman in back of you I I'm sorry loose loose okay loose Hillman executive director facilities management okay thank you I thought you said Bruce so I was a little okay um before we get started do you have any comments you'd like to begin with brief very briefly well I could introduce the project or address the comments of staff I would like to address the comments of staff at something and we will have you do that we'll walk through the the staff report but I'm wondering if you have any introductory comments sure why is this an issue why what happened okay yes that then I can explain that um in 2019 the university um got permitted to build a the Tarrant multi-purpose event center uh farther up on Spear Street um and then March 2020 happened and as we know that was a little bit of a disruption um that disruption included a mandatory work stoppage for a number of months major unforeseen expenses interruptions and construction supply chains so the university needed to step back from active construction however we had already received a shipment of large pieces of steel so we talked with the city at the time we needed a place to store it quickly and a place that was appropriate was here near the compost pads for many reasons it's it's close to the main project it's it's an appropriate area it's it's not going to disturb anyone it's not visible there were a whole bunch of reasons why that was a good place for us to do it um however um so so we got permission to put it there temporarily and today as time went on we realized that the delay in construction will continue so at this point we do not have a timeline for completion of the the future phases we have done one phase of construction but the phase uh that we will need the steel members for we don't know when that's going to happen yet so um for that reason the university is applying for a site plan amendment in order to continue to store the steel at 650 spear street the steel itself is piled is piled very carefully by the way up to eight feet high um and it's uh mapped so that we can remove it we know what we're removing when it comes time to remove it because it's big it's heavy it's complicated to remove um the site is accessible by way of an existing unpaved farm road off of spear street and there's no added traffic as a result of the storage when the university is ready to remove the steel there'll be a one-time removal of the steel with trucks from the um access road on spear street and it's going to go up to the project site where is the project site again please a 147 spear street it's the athletic campus okay so there's one small area that sort of nestled between um the gutterson field house and uh Patrick Jim and that's going to be infilled with this multi-purpose event center i see okay and that was a whole permitting thing we got all the permits for that and then pandemic yeah okay thank you that that's very helpful another question i'm sorry um it's maybe it's none of our business but why is the project still on hold um i explained that before there because of the pandemic the prices went way up and the university was no longer able to complete the project and other reasons you know supply chain whatever so the prices the cost of the project went up too much so we had to stop construction and it now because inflation is going to be here for a little while i would assume um you're saying that that steel might be stored there for an indeterminate amount of time right now it's an indeterminate amount of time we don't i don't know and there's no specific plans however we did do one phase of construction a lot of internal uh improvements and one small portion of the multi-purpose event center but the the multi-purpose event center itself that's what the steel is for and that's what we don't have um a timeline for thank you good questions one other very naive question i noticed from the photographs that the steel is very rusty is that what steel does and will it still be fully usable when you go to build so i'm not the technical person here but i believe it will still be completely useful okay steel is steel anybody want to know it will be very useful okay thank you one other thing that sort of we kept in mind when reviewing this project is the steel itself has value so even if this multi-use center were to the university were to decide they weren't going to pursue it and they were you know tore everything out and put it back to parking lot um they would still have an incentive to move this steel along because it's capital that's tied up sure absolutely yes that is correct okay so um be any other questions from the board before we start moving through the comments question number one is about the wetland buffer protection and the question is is it likely that the buffer impacts are um are i can't read my own writing proposed or do we need a new delineation um and an expedited delineation i might as well have read the comments but sorry yes so we have um we have plans from 2005 that show that as a class three wetland and it's an appropriate distance away from the steel storage um so the question here is that is there a likelihood that the wetland will shift and do we need an updated wetland delineation right so so our opinion is that we recognize the wetlands move and they have to be delineated every five years this location is steep slopes so the water isn't really migrating up the hill and so the ability for the wetland to migrate based on wetness is just it's not really present so we don't expect that the wetland has moved with the steep slopes that they are they won't move three feet four feet basically we're 56 it's 120 feet roughly from the outside of our disturbance to the edge of the 2005 map or 2002 map of wetlands our opinion is they're not going to adjust that much more that it would impact the project so we're asking you believe you don't we don't or you don't need a new delineation that's our opinion that's our request is that that be viewed as an acceptable wetland delineation even though it's old even if it was a class three move to a class two because the wetland rules changed it's still as well beyond the hundred foot okay buffer thoughts from the board about that if the storage time is indeterminate is there any risk of leaching into the soil and expansion of some leaching material to the it's on fabric yeah it's it's on fabric i um i just can't is it covered what's that covered it's not covered now so i mean there's small amounts i'm sure but again the point in time where i think that would be an issue this value of the steel i think would have to well and we're talking about steel and steel is made of iron and carbon and soil is also made of iron and carbon might increase the levels a little bit but i don't think it's a i don't i don't there's nothing toxic there no no i don't think there's anything toxic there i just think it's right it might migrate into the soil a little bit but i just don't see it anything that's a concern but but the distance appears to be sufficient in terms of the other ways if it was a steel building when we regulated the same way the setbacks the distance is enough then and what might not be as apparent on this plan is there's a berm around this i read that and we're within the berm which contains the um runoff i guess um and i just have a question because um these are newer regulations for us so um just uh i assume we are considering this because the regulations do not outline how um current a wetland delineation has to be to be valid is that correct no the city relies on the state wetland rules which consider a wetland delineation current for five years okay but it's almost it's proving a negative in this case yeah so that's why there's some interpretation necessary gotcha so yeah just for consistency i wanted to um understand that and i agree given this particular situation with the topography and and what informations from the previous wetland delineation i don't see a reason um to have to have that is there anyone on the board who believes that we should require a new delineation you do oh no you were nodding yes no okay okay good all right let's move on staff comment number two is really about prohibiting any expansion of the um the stored items or any adding anything to it so we are fine with that condition of not adding to it we don't think there's room we have no intention of adding to it and the situation is that we're not in the business of just storing stuff this is for a specific purpose so that condition is fine okay great and that is it for uh staff comments are there any other questions from the board before we move on to public comment hearing none um let's move on to public comment are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this project all that you see online okay good then i guess there are none and um i guess the question is we take a vote on closing this hearing um i move that we close site plan application sp 22047 do we have a second thank you any discussion all in favor of the motion aye opposed okay the motion is carried thank you very much thank you good evening agenda number seven certified site plan application sp 22028 of riley cohen partnership LLC to amend a previously approved site plan for a 13 000 square foot contractor or building trade facility with outdoor storage the amendment consists of constructing a 5 500 square foot addition and additional outdoor storage at four harbor view road any uh any disclosures or conflicts of interest to declare hearing none who is here for the applicant oh i am matthew cohen yep and i'm dan hyle with trudel consulting engineers okay and i'm lucy there with trudel consulting engineers hi lucy that's it for the team did we swear you all in last time no this is continued without being heard so this is your first time talking with them about this project oh okay i thought we heard from them before all right so would you all raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty perjury i do i do good thank you okay um could you make sure at the beginning of your you have about 12 comments on this um do you want to start with a very brief overview of what you're wanting to do sure do you want to just launch into the comments oh we can give an overview to begin with okay yep so uh the project is located on a 1.8 acre parcel it's approximately a 10th of a mile to the east of the harbour view road shelburn road intersection sites occupied by pinnacle properties a landscaping and property management business pinnacle will be the sole occupant of both the existing building and the proposed expansion upon construction properties currently approved for a 13 000 square foot existing building and 1694 foot accessory structure as well as outdoor storage of contractor supplies site is accessed via a shared drive off of harbour view road the proposal will maintain the existing access off harbour view road and 5 280 square foot building expansion is proposed to the northeast corner of the existing building the building expansion will consist of four bays with four overhead doors and the expansion has been designed to match the existing building architecture site improvements also include additional outdoor storage and parking as well as stormwater management improvements for the increase in impervious area as well as the redevelopment area there is an existing privacy fence uh surrounding the existing parking lot which is to be expanded upon and follow the new limits of the proposed outdoor storage and parking area that's that's pretty much that's it yeah okay thanks let's go ahead and just jump into the staff comments number one the question is there seems to be workspace areas with independent entrances restroom facilities and fire rated partitions what is the pro the post function and use of that space so as our business has grown we have um we require us to have separate spaces one being a mechanical space for repairing vehicles the other for being a fabrication space for doing welding or fabrication and then we also do wood shop or woodworking so one would be a wood shop as well okay individual spaces would have doors going through to each space along with bathroom so the staff is not running all the way to the office going back so the bat each each space would have a bathroom or be fitted up to have a bathroom but there's no intent to um or no plan to sub sublease no the the space okay no not at all all right questions can i ask a question sure um i would have to think about the implications and whether this would be necessary but would it be a burden to you if we included a condition pending review and if it actually made a difference um that said if it were to convert to a multi-tenant space um additional cyclone review would be required even if um it was still contractor and building trade facility yeah i would assume that and expect that if at some point the property was to be subdivided that we would come to the board again and ask for you know approval to do so but that is so we'll just include that as a condition it's not my intent at this point yeah yeah it's not an issue at all for me thank you um number two it is really a request to improve the appearance of the building um i is it fair to say it it was little too industrial and uninteresting that's is that fair pardon what are the standards in the right i mean the standards and the standards are what we rely on here we're not making judgment calls as to beauty of people's buildings but it should be consistent and mitigate abrupt transitions um being pedestrian oriented you know these are the standards of 1406 yeah and the building was oriented um to extend north to south that's how we have it on the plan right now as the existing building that's the way it's oriented so we were trying to provide consistency between the existing building as well as the proposed expansion the design of the building was designed to match the existing building with the flat roof the existing height would be the same the colors and the materials would be the same as well there will be a proposed fence around the perimeter of the parking lot outdoor storage which will provide some screening however there's a 48 foot section of the proposed expansion that northern most section that has frontage along harbour view road that would not have fencing around it but we have proposed dense vegetation in that area to help screen it from harbour view road and lucy is on the call as well and she can go into a little more detail on that plan either now or i know there was a comment further down about that landscaping so the ldr is really about um you know the neighborhood and the setting but then just the existing building and i just wanted to remind the board you know if you drive down that road it's a transition right the transitions from the c2 where this project is to the r12 some residential district allen road to c2 so that are four up right so it kind of transitions from this kind of more multi-purpose use um to group group housing for seniors and then to single-family homes and duplexes as you go farther up so we're really looking for buildings that work well in that transitional setting the building um to the east of the site is also similar material a metal shell building so it is consistent with other buildings in the area and you know as i mentioned the majority of the building will be screened from harbour view road with that fence or at least partially screened from harbour view road due to the six foot high fence um it's really just that 48 foot section that would be visible um from harbour view road and that section um you know we tried to screen it the best we can but you have any photos of the building as it currently exists that's a good area there um i i don't believe we submitted photos of the building i do have photos but you want paul to pull up just the google street view yeah is it the one right next to o'reilly yes correct yeah paul's going to pull up this video okay thanks i'm kind of curious how to look afterwards how many trees are getting a lot while you're planning you're doing the bioretention areas on the front on the north side with your and which will produce some trees and then you're adding trees to replace it so correct and there's also a evergreen hedge running along with the perimeter of that fence as well too which would provide some additional and that that's the fence with the the fabric screening in it or the the so like i'm sorry that's the building going to the um east of our facility yep that's so that's show that's old shelbin plastics actually so if you were to so you're farther to the right i'm farther closer to shelbin road oh so we would be the next building the one that's yellow on the screen right now i can't see that i don't know that i this one ksi commercial kitchen so if you were to other way yeah and then yep that would be correct you can barely see the building because of the screening right so all those trees in the front are supposed to be removed and the building will move a lot closer to the street and that may be what oh okay i see so that fencing that we see there that will be gone that will be uh relocated and we are proposing i believe the plan said um a screen mesh around it but i it would be we'd be going with privacy slats privacy slats instead of the cloth fencing privacy slats and then a row of arbivitis i think six to eight feet tall in front of the fence okay and then a large variety of shrubs and plants perennials and then also with a large amount of trees as well and the trees that are now existing there are actually all um mostly pine trees that are old and that are not doing well um they're unhealthy a lot of them have actually fallen in the past year and from from that street view too that we were just looking at there will be a bolt or retaining wall in between the privacy fence and harbor view road right next to the buyer attention to that would be approximately two feet high what do you think board well back to the issue this is more about the buildings that model is being up and i guess the question is what's this text is it a is it new text from prior years or is it new text compared to previous years in terms of what the planning commission was trying to achieve it is yes but from my point of view if there's that much screening and it is an area that's kind of industrial you don't really even see the building so is is it seems kind of burdensome for the applicant to have to change some of their architecture or detailing if it's really not going to be visible unfortunately the standard probably doesn't say that that if a building is not visible you don't have to abide by the regs so we need some help guys it's all such a mixed orientation that's what's the issue though so it's not like they're all lined up neatly with similar setbacks in a row and we're trying to make them match up it is a it is a hodgepodge and it's along that area so what are the proposed can we put the proposed building thank you so that little section is the section that's proposed to face the street facing west north north correct north you know I think 48 feet and it's just the proposed part so it would be that left part and the right part is stepped back pretty far correct yeah the right part is stepped back and that would be behind the privacy fence so two proposed additions we have two buildings two proposed additions oh one existing building one proposed addition so what you're looking at right there the north elevation on the left hand side that 48 feet is the proposed addition and then on the right hand side it's the existing building and that's stepped back actually 110 feet from the northern edge of the proposed addition the note here says windows and things that are those particularly hard to put into this kind of construction or is it their panels so they're raised panels with a steel structure so they're you know they're not easy and they're the facility doesn't have any windows existing already except the front door which has glass and then on both sides so there are no windows in the existing building as it is is there anything decorative simple and decorative you could add to make it more interesting I mean so seriously in other projects of us you know we're not trying to say that your form shouldn't follow your function but other projects have been slightly bigger and had more opportunity but have done something like you know the top of the panel is blue and the bottom of the panel is gray and maybe there's like some window up at the top I mean I'm not opposed to on the north side of the 48 foot section using some sort of um metal corrugated siding with putting some windows in for the woodshop you know two maybe four by four windows with some sort of coordinated steel and just on that particular side um it would look it would make you know would probably look better than just the panel raised panel of the existing drill I don't necessarily know if you would be able to see that after all the shrubs in front of it as well as the shrubs grow tall that's you know yeah Lucy what would the mature height of those shrubs be so there's a variety of trees placed in front and and shrubs but we did plant along the frontage uh street tree type trees so those would be the same height as your typical street tree which will you know be the same height as you know the building are taller so you know 45 feet of maturity um and then we also have you know the topography varies a little bit but we also have um I think we're kind of getting a little bit ahead of my when I was going to talk about this but just there's a lot of layering in the landscape plan so there are shrubs at the base level then there are a small tree so that that carpinus the ironwood that will have a canopy that's lower than the street trees will eventually have so we really tried to take an approach with the landscape plan that we would hit all of those areas to provide screening on multiple levels against that northern facade what does the board think thank you for entertaining these questions the um from a quality of work life do you think that some amenities that increase the attractiveness of the facilities might help with employee retention or anything along those lines or maybe you don't have a problem with employee retention I don't know I wish now we're very blessed that um putting windows in I don't know if the guys are going to quit or stay for a couple of windows it's nice to get some natural light in there I mean it you know I appreciate there are skylights actually in the main facility yeah I mean I appreciate the willingness to do a little bit of that on the north side it's getting you know a little making a little more interesting down the road and so what if we table this because we're going to talk about the landscaping a bit more um and I think that one of the interesting things here is this site is burdened with a historically very high value landscaping plan and so you know we usually try to think about what a property will look like when pinnacle has gotten so big that they want to move to you know a bigger facility in in and you know commerce way or something I don't know um that's in willis I don't know I couldn't think of a good example I got nervous um but you know we think about what might happen over the lifespan of this building rather than the lifespan of their use of the building and with the landscaping that's going to play a really big role in this so um let's let's put a pin in this and go back okay let's move on to number three and this is um a request to revise the parking plan because the parking spaces as proposed are blocking the use of at least one overhead door yep so um right now there is five existing parking spaces directly to the west of the existing building um and then back on that google image you could see actually nine more parking spaces um further to the west uh across from the existing building on the west side of the existing parking lot we were proposing an additional uh five parking spaces on the northern yeah that's the google image right there so you can see nine additional parking spaces on the west side there closest to the entrance our proposal had five parking spaces next to the northernmost portion of the building expansion those parking spaces were in front of an overhead door um talking with matt those cars um really are just going to be there overnight and then employee comes in gets them goes off to a job site it's gone all day so it wouldn't prohibit the use of that overhead door um when it's needed but um I think we're looking for feedback from staff and the board to on the parking width requirement how the parking width is limited to the width of the building and I don't know if you have that PDF I sent you today marla um if you could pull that up because there's a couple different ways I was looking at measuring the width of the building um yeah well Paul's pulling that up it's actually um more straightforward than it used to be in the revised in the recent more recent ldr it's um the width of the building that is to the side of or in front of the parking is the width you get if there's parking between the building and the street then that doesn't count as the width of the building it'd be in this case just your 48 feet because so it'd be the 48 feet um okay yeah I was looking at in this case now with this revised plan you don't have parking so this is what I looked at trying to move that parking away from the overhead doors because if we're only allowed parking within that 48 feet with the overhead doors there's not really enough room I looked at adding parking in between the overhead doors there I think was six or seven feet you know you've changed the measurement in this plan right because now there's no parking that is proposed between the other existing parking the existing building of the street I was looking at the width of the existing building that 108 feet as long as it's not separated from the street by parking you can count it okay does that make sense separated from the street by parking yeah I can draw on it hang on I think this plan also does help address a couple other comments further on in the staff report I was looking at that 108 feet of the existing building and if you scroll down a little bit on this pdf I believe it's uh the existing parking to the south would be 101 feet wide including the travel way the proposed parking to the north would be 86 feet wide as an extension from that northwest existing building corner so if you're looking at that 108 feet for the building width I think this plan would work well it would remove the parking away from the proposed building addition and overhead doors I also pulled the parking a little bit to the south to provide some additional snow storage area behind the parking which would be outside storage during summer months and the outside storage area line work has been tweaked a little bit to allow for vehicular circulation on site too so I was looking for feedback on that with requirement could we use that 108 feet from the existing building rather than that 48 feet because we're really limited if we use that 48 feet on what where we could propose parking with overhead doors on that side Paul can you just either zoom out or pan so we can see the street so the way the rule works is if you pretend if you project everything out to the street the building and the parking in your previous plan your parking was actually from here to here so it's blocking this portion of the building right but now you've gotten rid of that parking and your parking width is here to here and your building width is actually I'm going to switch colors now here to here so in this scenario you were meeting it but when you had your parking in this area you weren't meeting it and that was that was blocking the overhead door I mean we were still within the width right you're just blocking the overhead right so if you kept this parking and this parking you know that wouldn't work but since you've removed the previous one I think you're I think you're meeting the LDRs for parking width you know not speaking to any of the other staff comments but just the parking width comment at this time so we're we're good on the parking width issue I just have a question the way that the parking is being shown now I mean can they really maneuver to those spaces further to the west if there's no storage in front of it with the fence behind it over to the spaces to the west I think that fence is going to be removed right that fence is going to be removed along the completely removed and completely removed and it's going to follow the new perimeter of the parking and storage area so that fence will be gone that fence isn't going to go through the middle of the parking lot same with that light that light would be relocated as well okay perfect thank you yep so are we ready to move on we have what we need okay comment number five um so staff has determined that the shape and size of the park is not really compatible with the concept of snippet park so we need a qualifying staff site amenity and I believe Lucy was going to address this okay Lucy hi yeah so I think that this is a little bit confusing in the original staff notes on the comments it was identified that we needed to have 317 square feet of site amenity space so that's what we went with that was the goal we were trying to reach and I know staff says to comply with the the site amenity requirements and that a snippet park I agree that that is the most applicable of the typologies allowed that the minimum snippet park is 600 square feet I think what is unclear is that if we're only required to have a minimum of 317 square feet of amenity space based on the addition but the minimums that there are no minimum sizes that comply with that I think that was a little guess it's unclear that we are supposed to provide additional and extra site amenity space because there's no typology that fits a project expansion of the size so I think that what we did provide I think I saw something about you know too linear too geometric but I think that it does actually meet all of the parts of the snippet park it is it meets the requirement of what our site amenity that we need to provide is but it is you know a little smaller than that 600 square feet it is located adjacent to an operable building entry I know staff had mentioned that maybe in my conversations with Marla it would be a possibility to put it by the road but in reviewing the site and the usage it really made the most sense from our perspective to put that near an operable building entry where staff could use that as a respite and this this location made really a lot of sense in this existing you know with all these existing site conditions which is why it's linear and geometric but I don't see anything in the the you know snippet park description that talked about layout having to be non-linear or non-geometric so I think that it does in fact meet it seating is the primary focus of that snippet park and we've provided a shade tree a birch planting throughout brick pavers underneath the bench so we really feel that it does meet all of the requirements and I guess we would ask that even if it is slightly smaller than the size that it is appropriate to the site and does in fact meet the other requirements Marla do you have a response to that yeah so each open space type does each sedimentity open space has a minimum square footage and I understand what Lucy's saying is that you know they are only required to provide 350 square feet or 17 but you know if they're going to choose this type they have to meet all the things that go with this type so it would need to be a minimum of 600 square feet you know our perception of this is that it's you know there's a lot of description of a snippet it should be small sitting area clearly intended to provide welcoming respite between or adjacent to buildings may serve general public employees residents or customers seating must be main focus of the space must be present year round fixed seating is required landscaping shall be a primary component because the space is inherently small shall be carefully landscaped but landscaping should not interfere with seating and but instead should complement it you know should appear warm and inviting rather than temporary all of these things are the requirements for a snippet and you know I don't mean to be a jerk but I'm looking at it and looks like a bench next to the door I wonder if there's a way to you know use some of that space that's between the building and the property line to maybe expand that way if you don't want it up by the street there are other open space types I tend to agree that this is probably the most likely to be used of the types for this kind of use so I'd love to see you you know make this work but I don't think it you know it can't meet unless it's 600 square feet so there's no wave ability to that size requirement even though we're technically only I guess I guess we're and this is probably a question for you know regarding the LDRs but it I guess I don't understand why I understand we need to provide the typologies but there's no typologies for small projects and I think that those come up and this this is a perfect example of a business in South Burlington that is you know trying to expand and and you know meet all of these regulations but in order to do that we have to go above the minimum requirement that's actually and I know it's only like a couple hundred square feet but you know that so I guess my question is is this this is not waivable to have a reduced size even though you know because we are meeting the requirements I'm going to let Marla speak to that please well I mean the board is familiar with their waiver authority in the case of site plans the board has limited waiver authority in the case of site plans to waive some of the dimensional standards for site plan review but you know it just doesn't seem like a win to wave that when there's all kinds of space there's space to the south I don't know what that kind of box is next to the between the the bunker and the handicap space that was a snow storage area you know it's up to the board what you want to do here but you know we're we're looking for 600 square feet and I work in a cubicle that's about 100 square feet it's not really a ton of space if you if that's the 317 square feet that Lucy's saying they have picture double that and what what is really the we can we can work on expanding that area to 600 square feet with the revised plans I forwarded this morning we have a fair amount of snow storage on the northernmost portion of the parcel so if we eat into that snow storage area in between the accessory structure and where the proposed snippet park is now I think we would be able to get to 600 square feet okay good thank you um number six this is a request that your plan needs to indicate where the underground utilities are and that there are underground utilities yep so we are showing um electric lines on sheet two the grading and utility plan right now they're just called out we're trying to revise that to UE for underground electric as they will be underground electric thank you and there's a need to enclose the dumpsters we're okay with that as well okay thank you um number eight uh back to parking again what would const constitute adequate and legal parking yep so in talking to Matt it sounds like there's 20 registered vehicles for pinnacle properties um four of those go home in the evening so it would be you know during the day it could potentially be up to 20 spaces but a lot of time they're out on site over overnight it would be 16 spaces that plan I forwarded this morning had a total of 24 spaces in it so that would be a little bit more but it would also allow for a little bit future growth if they get another registered vehicle for the company are we good with that board okay comment number nine um we had hoped to have an update from the city arborist I don't think I heard from him he's usually so good hang on let's check my inbox in case I missed it well I don't have anything um I know that Craig has reviewed some of Lucy's plans in the past and she's been really good about um adopting going forward so I'm not terribly concerned about it that's a bummer so what do we do about this um so let me just get to that comment I mean I think that you know Dan just described that they're going to make some revisions to the plan we do have an opportunity to get Craig's eyes on this before before we close the hearing but like I said Lucy's been working with Craig on some stuff in the past and I wouldn't expect major changes I wouldn't worry about it too much but I'm gonna make sure we get it for a continue so does that preclude closing tonight well the other things that we just talked about already do all right yeah and we're just that we're happy to make changes if Craig has them and discuss anything he would see that needed to change okay thank you so number 10 um we need some clarity about the snow storage please so uh I think before the plans that were submitted um there was outside storage snow storage it wasn't very clear very well defined where that snow storage would be in relation to the outdoor storage of equipment so these plans I forwarded this morning kind of refined that um put the snow storage in the northwest corner of the proposed parking lot behind the existing parking so any outdoor storage wouldn't be blocking that snow storage area okay good with that yeah I'm you're the board um but just for my understanding what what do you store there in the summer that doesn't need to be stored in the winter we don't really store we have the storage facilities on the south side and um those are filled with material throughout the years but technically we don't like store anything on the facility you know mulch and salt or topsoil but they're covered in those sheds and then those sheds are empty during the winter and the snow we truck out generally speaking but Dan mentioned that that area to the north would be snow storage in the winter and outdoor storage in the summer I would assume outdoor storage could possibly be for um stones that were keeping for another job that would be there it could necessarily be for a trailer from time to time or a loader but generally speaking most of the facility most of the storage is inside for equipment and then for materials it's stored in those facilities that the board approved okay thanks it helps me understand you know just how this kind of a business operates so when I have these conversations in the future yeah of course you know we'll have trailers from time to time there um if we are doing huge stone patios of something we'll we'll get a pallet of stone and we'll store it there for until the job starts and that could be you know a couple of days but um we generally are pretty neat and organized in the sense of storing I don't like to see gives me anxiety to see a lot of stuff all over the place all right we don't want that okay board are we good with that sounds fine okay let's move on to number 11 this is about screening and buffering um the question is do we consider the proposed site to achieve a level of screening and buffering consistent with the previous approval or whether they will require the application the applicant to provide a similar total caliber of trees or a similar total value of trees in today's costs so we saw their plan and heard about their plan for screening yeah so does this all make sense the previous approval had sort of a beyond standard required level of plantings and so once an approval is an approval then you have to maintain that those plantings right forever um or replace them and so the question is about whether they've achieved what was previously achieved by the plantings with their revised plan and so when the packet towards the end are the that's the previously approved plan that paul has up now and in this orientation left is harbour view road left is north what do you think board can we bring up the current the what they're proposing now just for comparison I know we looked at it earlier but sorry I was just could we look at what they're proposing now just I know we looked at it earlier but just for quick side-by-side sheet nine would probably be the best sheet to look at yes it is and roughly speaking how many of the existing trees will be removed due to the how many removed versus how many added roughly you talked about a lot of dying trees there are um most of the trees that are on site now are pine trees yeah I mean I would have probably think like in my count there's probably 15 full grown pine trees that'll come down yeah that are either going to come down by other nature or come down by chainsaw um but it's all all of the trees that are there today are proposed to be removed yeah yeah I'm counting roughly 30 roughly when I looked at the plan prior when they planted when they built the building it didn't look like there were a lot of trees installed there look like there were a lot of shrubs when I was just glancing at it so do you board do you do we think this level of screening is adequate I mean to some extent given the topography I think what makes it sort of like look nicer I mean nobody likes to see stormwater ponds but at least it'll you gotta treat the stormwater it's number one goal and then should look pretty nice in the end once it's fully grown out but unless i'm mistaken I'll treat you thank you really blocks so much anymore because and we want people to see the windows on the north side of the building so that they're effectively transitioned without abruptly as they move into the residential district are we being funny no I'm I'm serious we have to change this so these this whole idea of you know hiding everything behind a wall no I agree I agree so what do we do with this board Lucy did you have something to say no I was just going to give a little bit of a description of what what's proposed in case anybody had questions but I think it sounds like everyone maybe understands and I don't need to elaborate well so I actually I do have a week if there are 30 trees there today what are you how many trees how many but what what's what are you putting in counts from there on the upper right corner there yeah so what's existing on site right now is mostly white pines and then there's also some norway maples which we know are invasive and those should come out anyway so this is kind of a good thing there's also cornice that were planted dogwoods that were planted in the original plan so what we're proposing in this plan is a variety of we're really taking kind of a multi pronged approach here we have our street trees our deciduous street trees kind of where your ornamental trees along the road frontage and those include you know maples but not too many because I know Craig doesn't like too many maples on any one project so we've got some maples we have some quarkus in oaks in the stormwater area and then also some sweet gums so we tried to focus on you know native plantings plantings with broad crowns and branching habits to provide that screening year-round for our larger deciduous trees and then also giving fall color and then for the smaller story tree we have those ironwoods the carpinas the american hop hornbeam and those are your kind of middle canopy they'll be shorter than the large deciduous trees and we've kind of placed those around at you know different elevations to try and screen an interstitial level of the building and the site and then we also have our large shrub plantings again focusing on native plants with different you know ornamental and benefits other you know for pollinator species so we've got our cornice we have our button our button wood button bushes so all of these sort of stormwater plants that transition and we'll provide all of this like a different level of screening and then behind all of that along the fence we've provided a evergreen um our providing hedge that will grow up and be you know 15 to 20 feet when it's mature and that will line the entirety of the building frontage and the wall uh i'm sorry the fence and it does turn the corner along the fence to the west so it kind of borders the entry road and then we've got a couple pines along the entry road as well to provide some more of that evergreen screening but that those are the plant materials that we used on here to try and create a similar density of screening using similar materials it is a little bit different just because of the conditions and i think dan had noted that we are working around a stormwater basin so there are certain areas where we just can't put these larger trees so we are confined by some of those factors so is the question to the board is the proposed new planting and landscaping equal to either the value or caliper total of what's being removed more or less i mean the question is is it achieving the same objectives so you could look at you could look at the value you could look at the caliper or you could look at the objectives which is what staff is kind of suggesting you do here because you know this is a 70% lock coverage district and it seems unfair to say well you can't build out to your 70% because you have this previously approved landscaping um no lost whatever else i was going to say okay that's the whole thing apparently all right so i guess the question for us board is do we believe that this is adequate screening and buffering um i'd say it's pretty robust yeah i'm gonna go out on a limb and agree with it okay good all right i'm at a pun i totally missed it totally missed it all right um so let's move on to the last let's branch out to the last number 12 as long as you don't get stuck in the weeds on it yeah okay we're gonna leave that behind sorry number 12 let it grow we need an update on the storm water please yeah so i sent it to again like the city arborist i sent it to the storm water department and did not hear back from them have you talked to jave wheeler i haven't since i submitted my responses to his initial okay we got to get these people in line i know i mean they've been working really hard on other projects of course and they are short staffed yes yeah that day's position oh right storm water is okay so we pretty much know we're going to have to have you come back again we're going to continue this yeah so let's circle back to staff comment two and four please um so staff comment four we skipped over um but it's also about the appearance of the building and it gives a little bit more of what the criteria are it's also part of 4.06 which is the sort of character of the area standards um and it talks about you know the pattern and rhythm of the development defined by the existing area architectural features in the area and then limit impacts and intrusions to privacy and adjoining properties and the staff comment on number four was you know that that could be done a little there could be a little bit of enhancement to make it better comply with these standards so where where is the board after the rest of the discussion understanding how the landscaping is going to work where is the board on my question right do we feel a prevalent pattern exists yes or no do we feel what number do right there in the middle of page just above the red text and number two red red letter two says maintain established considering to street and where a prevalent pattern exists the rest of the clause applies so my question is do we feel there is a prevalent pattern uh in the area I guess or in that street I drive that street regularly and I don't think that what they propose is inconsistent with what's there and the right and then my my larger point is there if there is a pattern the pattern is randomness of the orientation of buildings the uses this relative setbacks so that to me all that really matters is the clause before that which is maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street so they're basically moving a little closer to the street the orientation of the building remains the same they're not creating an l or a t or an h so to me that standard is met as far as b others I'll agree okay yeah does anyone not agree I think we're all in agreement okay and so going to staff comment number four um do they need to improve the parents of the building in any way um are we assuming that what Matt suggested about adding a couple windows and corrugated metal or corrugated panels is that part of your decision are you accepting what they proposed and polish on on the screen tonight what think it's the board but when I look at excuse me I look at the text starting at the bottom of page four to accomplish one and two pattern and rhythm I'd say it's consistent with the other with the overall pattern of development in that street grid block of the area because there isn't really a distinct pattern um respond to recurring or representative architectural features there is not a prevailing architectural feature in there except but it would probably be consistent of industrial buildings it's not a barn um and it definitely does not with all the robust screening and the plantings it does limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties so to me that standard is met I mean I don't see anything that's calling out the need for I mean the the very beginning of the standard number one does trying to encourage more variety interesting visual interruptions to create a track to create attractive transitions it's just hard because it feels like we're piling on to try to do something that's hard to achieve something that's already been well it's I get the standard it's just it was basically just a series of of light industrial buildings in this whole area right so I mean I over time LDRs have the ability where you if you compared them you know 50 years apart you can see the improvements that were generally desired so this is one of the first applicants probably under the new rags in this portion of south broads along the street so just if we if we do want them to put in some windows there and otherwise provide some architectural interest like we do with all the car dealers then we just need to be sure that when we're all dead and gone five ten twenty years from now um whatever that other applicants also have to make their additions nicer that's all I'm gonna say so do we want to require the applicant to do some interest windows different color whatever we talked about earlier are are we good with what they're presenting well the applicant proposed I though I mean I did propose it but I would now thinking if the arbor bodies are going to get 15 to 20 feet in five to 10 years those windows and that siding will not be visible to anyone so the windows will be opened up to a bunch of arbor bodies so am I just including the windows and the siding but but these standards are separate from whether or not things are screened or not it's just talking about the character of buildings in the neighborhood as a whole so that am I right I have a crazy thought so I'm not a landscape architect Lucy is maybe she has an answer to this are those arbor bodies likely to be successful actually that you probably know this in your business too um are they likely to be successful there and if are we going to be having a conversation about a site plan amendment to no longer require those trees in three to five years and then are we going to say darn I wish we had required some architectural interest but if they're you know if it's very likely that they'll be successful I don't think that that's as big a concern they're very hardy so they'll they'll strive there even though they're right up against the building and cut in the shade well there'll be a little bit away from the building but they will you know I've seen them grow in other areas that they grow very tall in South Burlington off of like Inverness or Ironwood by the golf course where the huge large hedgerows of those to block out or Glen Eagles or Inverness where and they get large and they're shaded as well so they do do well as a shade which form like a barrier would you agree with that Lucy uh yes I would say they do I mean they do best in Sun but they also grow in you know part shade conditions so I think that this is a appropriate application for them and I mean Marla if it came to a point where maybe the building the ones that are north of the building there are species if we found that there was not success with those species we could use a taxes a a you an upright you in place of them that accomplishes the same goals it's just a different species and we were trying to maintain a continuous hedge so I think that the the species is appropriate and it will grow to be its mature you know height and width and we did plant them at very close spacing their four feet on center so the intent like Matt said is to create a hedgerow okay so having heard that and I'm looking at the time are we willing to let go of the windows board my yeah and I liked Dan's kind of outline of what we're looking at here um so in this situation I agree that um the windows aren't does anyone disagree with that I'm just a little disappointed because applicant said you go and then immediately in the same meeting right pulled the recommendation just a little bit surprised but I mean I'm going to either way if you feel like it's going to make people driving up Harborview road look at the building and be like oh I want to move here um I mean to me it's it's a few windows and some siding I'm not like opposed to it if that's what you want if you want and I think Matt's point too was that with um you know evergreens in front of those windows too perhaps those windows did go in maybe we don't put in that hedgerow in front of there too so they would be visible I think that's point was just they wouldn't be visible upon maturity so okay so we're going to go with windows is that what I'm hearing it's his call really the applicants I mean for me I think in party was answering that question that way because he's sitting here watching this political process go on and it's seeming like oh yeah you got to do this but on closer reading of the bylaws like I mean he there is no recurring or representative architectural features to define neighborhood character other than what already exists in the area I don't see a lot of other buildings in the area that are doing interesting things they're all older light industrial buildings um and then yeah its orientation is correct and it's definitely doing privacy so it's it's not required and the standard does a number one it speaks to architectural characteristics landscaping and buffer so it does seem like that it can be taken into account here that that's going to be implemented on the site um in absence of good point putting architectural characteristics so um for this particular standard it does seem like the visibility is being taken into account so do we have what we need board to make a decision we have a drawing that's about to show us I was just drawing what what I was thinking I was seeing I thought I was on a screen share so this is essentially I think what what you're looking at right that's about 17 foot story uh about 10 eight to 10 feet of arbor mighty that was the was the mature height can you can you go about seven feet we'll probably be getting them at six to eight feet tall so they'll go in at six feet and they get pretty tall they get to 15 20 feet yeah I thought they were going to be relatively quickly so they would get to 15-ish feet then okay so then you're talking about like I'm curious the question for the applicant for the I mean just data is a straightforward question why do you want the arbor mighty why um well personally I if I was driving I wouldn't want to see a building and I think it makes a nice screen you know for the number there are some decent homes up there I mean I think it would just we are a landscaping company so relatively speaking I want to look at windows if I was like going to a business and I thought it would be nice to have a row of arbor vities does it see the fence the fence is kind of like the fence is a little tacky for lack of a better word prison um not that I've ever been in prison but you know I just wanted to clarify that though I think the arbor vities would be nice in front of the the fence and dude do they indirectly with that density four foot on center almost act as a form of security in a way just because it blocks anybody you might want to go look in your yard and see what's there yeah yeah hopefully no one wants to steal our catalytic converter so all right I'm aware of the time so I think I'd like to move toward closure so we need to um continue the hearing yes to address um the couple things mostly the open space um and then we'll do a full review of the plan that they submitted today for you for you guys to look at um but I didn't nothing stood out to me I just want to make sure we're thorough I'll make sure I poke Craig and Dave Wheeler on their comments um what's the date so we need stuff two weeks before the meeting so I can get you on November 15th if you can get stuff to me by November first yeah I think really I can send you the rest of the plan sheets I think we'd like to go off that pdf I forwarded you today with the one change being the snippet park being expanded upon to the 600 square feet okay um and so the board will have some time to digest the conversation about windows um I think that we're probably specific enough that we can close with the board's feedback which means close with well sorry at the like it you guys will digest have a conversation and deliberations come back on the 15th and say this is what we decided we want you to do and write into the decision and what Matt has proposed was pretty specific it's you know two windows um four feet high and six feet wide um on the north side of the building and that would replace our providing that location so if the board decides they want to go to that direction I think we have enough to do it without actually seeing a plan is what I'm trying to say so we will be reviewing draft decision on the 15th um I guess do you want us to close the hearing now or do you want to no I want you to make november 15th we're going to continue but we're going to take public comment okay all right thank you is there any public comment none here okay um can I move please please move move to continue the hearing for site plan application sp dash 22 dash 028 for harbour view road to november 15th second thank you any discussion all in favour of the motion say aye aye okay the motion is carried thank you very much yeah thank you all see you back here next month thank you I have lost my I don't know I'll see it up there okay uh agenda item number eight continued site plan application sp 22 032 of uvm medical center to construct a one and a half story 84,006 square feet medical office and outpatient facility with associated parking equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing unfelowed 13.5 acre lot at 119 tilley drive um and I have lost my my power I ran out of juice which is surprising because I had it plugged in this afternoon um and my comments which I write on with a eye pencil but um this is a pretty we're pretty we have a limited number of issues so who is here for the oh first of all are any uh uh disclosures or um conflicts no who is here for the applicant uh myself gail henderson king of white and berk and we have ashley bond from the uvm medical center we also have derrick lead from krebson lansing dan schneider from e for h and then online we have kori mack from wall consulting group i believe james finley i never can remember how to pronounce his last name from wagner hodgson and i think dav kilty is on from iceland 12 a.m his time wow that's impressive okay um since there's so many of you i'm not going to ask if you've been sworn in already some of you i know have but i see some new faces so why doesn't everybody raise their right hand do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury i do thank you i do okay um the night is getting on um we we've had you hear many times so i think it it makes sense to move on to the staff comments um we're reviewing tonight a draft decision of findings of facts and conclusion and um decision conclusions and decisions that were the last pieces finding the fact findings the fact in decision yes okay good could i just request that um could we just have two minutes to kind of go over what we've done since the last meeting because when we left there were some specific things okay needed to address make it as brief as possible please i will uh first uh there was an issue regarding the proposed recreation path surfacing of the poorest pavement and we were instructed to go and work with the department of public works which derrick reid our hero did provide lots of information and work back and forth with them and as of yesterday they are in agreement to allow the pervious pavement i believe marla has received information from dav whaler and okay um i think that's one of the comments we'll talk about it when we get to it okay and then uh we uh also have provided a three-foot gravel path connection from the rec path near the proposed pocket park to the parking lot as requested so we have done that uh we also did adjust uh the shade trees around the parking lot onto the western side of the parking lot again we uh are being respectful of the requests of our neighbors so they're not a continuous line along there but we did adjust them so that is noted on the plan we did review uh the neighbors um arm strong uh concerns about the existing utilities coming onto the property and making sure landscaping was not an issue we've checked that and we're we're good with that uh let's see i think oh in the water comments um the water department comments as of this afternoon again we've got confirmation from the water department that issues have all been addressed and when you said a water department um a J natto of shampoam water district uh through who who represents the city is my understanding okay but there was some comments that were provided storm water division no no okay no there was comments that had been provided that were in the staff report last time we thought they had all been taken care of they showed up again in the decision so again we reached out okay Derek got those taken care of good thank you so let's start going through the comments um yeah the windows looks like they're proposed to be opaque but it looks like can you just clarify this for us please there will be no spandrel windows they will all be clear clear vision panels and we have provided color rendered elevation of what those look like and Dan Schneider from e4h can address anything further on that but there will there's no opaque windows okay for this building thank you for that clarity we're in puns tonight okay let's move on to the next the next comment we were showing off the windows yes there's the the elevations and of course it's hard to tell because the windows are blue but um they are clear glass panels clear vision panels excuse me is what they're called the bottom of page four so this is the comment about the surface of the recreation path connecting the o'brien eastview project to tilly drive um and i just get really excited about this so i'm going to say it again this is the path that connects from heinsberg road at uh what used to be known as eldridge street through the o'brien hillside development through o'brien eastview through this project across the community drive and all the way to wilson so this is a big deal i actually saw when i went for an i ran for ran an errand during lunch and i saw a couple people um on their bikes with like bike packing gear on that rec path nice near the wilson line so this is really exciting um the applicant is requested to make this path pervious pavement because um otherwise they don't think they can get stormwater state stormwater permit for it um derrick as gail mentioned has worked really hard on um convincing city staff that this is going to be okay um you know there is this reservation about allowing a permeable pavement path because it is a technology that we have not seen very much success with yet in vermont and we don't think it's oh poor us we have the worst weather in the world we think that there's just not a lot of experience with installers with the manufacturers with the people who do the maintenance so um the city stormwater section and dpw said that they are okay with it being pervious um but they'd like there to be some legal documents associated with that um and so what we would propose is that it can be pervious pavement there would be an easement authorizing public use and we'll find a better way to phrase this but plowing and lawn maintenance um you know if we wanted to mow along the edge of it just if you guys for whatever reason stopped mowing you're alone because we can't obligate you to mow your lawn um until such time as the city accepts the path at ownership of the path the applicant would be responsible for repair and maintenance necessary to maintain its status as a permeable surface and the medical center is fine with that okay thank you moving on to the next comment and i believe the next one is a request i have to wait till it's called up yes thank you yeah that was more that i just need your help in deliberation um with how you wanted to draft this and you're certainly welcome to talk about it tonight but this was more not not for the applicant more just for you guys okay so we hold this off till deliberation give us a chance to think about it okay thank you and is there one more staff comment paul number three okay and is there a three did i hear you say yes stand three page 15 i don't have my notes so i'm just reviewing it so it sounds like gail spoke to this already correct i did and if you wanted to pull up the landscape the the illustrative plan which is the first plan in the packet that will show the proposed adjustment of the shade trees gail just to clarify do you mean in what the supplemental that you provided or in the packet itself in the packet itself okay and you're looking to be in the staff report whatever you're calling this the decision draft decision staff report information this one yes so this comment was originally about the distribution of the shade trees there's a minimum of one shade tree per five parking spaces but they had them all on the north side and the board had directed them to distribute them a little more evenly okay and you've done that um yes kept the windows of view sheds from the two abutting neighbors who had requested that and we've worked hard to maintain that i bet yes thank you for that dan that's not what the standard says the standards evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare that's what the standard says and i just i know you're all afraid of a lawsuit that will shut this down and if people want to do that they can do that because that's unfortunately the way the state operates but we allow this then anybody can just say i don't like this i want those trees removed and it doesn't there's no standard in there for there's this if they wanted to see the view protection zone these neighbors should have got it 50 years ago like all the people on doors it's dorset and swift spear street did for better or worse so i think this is a bad precedent to set if people don't want to don't buy a house next to an empty lot that's the number one rule of house buying or on the edge of a different zoning district either so i i know they're trying to be responsive to the neighbors but the standard doesn't allow for the board may vary on the interest of views or sunrise or sunset or whatever wouldn't say that and we and we are religious in requiring every other applicant to do what this reg says so removing the neighbors who would complain with what they have achieved here or have do they meet the reg now or is it not meeting the reg regardless i'm not sure i understand your question well so regardless of the reason why they adjusted trees the way the adjustments have been made i can't i don't see part of the picture here what should it be based on the reg and or does this meet that requirement i'm not able to judge that okay maybe marla can help us out with that so the rule if you want to pull it back up just kind of shift your split screen um is that it's one major deciduous shade tree within or near the perimeter of the parking area for every five parking spaces evenly throughout the parking lot minimum of 30 feet apart generally um you know it doesn't make sense when the parking's right up against the buildings or the board generally doesn't require trees between the parking in the building if there's not a lot of space there otherwise but otherwise as dan said you know the board does look for both the numeric and the spacing criteria to be met um this is pretty dense planting of trees compared to what we usually um i don't know how it ended up being so many maybe because there's a bunch against the building that don't get them so it just seems like a lot in the areas where you have them um usually we see them more spread out but evenly spread out no that's the patient parking the patient parking so right so the patients there on the west side after they're done with their appointment can get into their cars that are baking hot for the purpose of keeping a nice view this is James the landscape architect we have the correct number of trees um we could absolutely move some trees up in that where you're looking up uh in that sort of lawn box there closer to the to the parking to have additional shade down there that's uh helped so yeah just paged down from there the trees and the ones to the left also we can move them up closer to the parking lot or to the parking spaces the patient parking could to get more shade on that particular little area the parking if that helped James are you speaking about this area no i'm talking about the one page up into the left here no sorry just to the right of that sorry here yeah that one so those trees that are just paged down from there we could move those up and get some close some some better shade on those ones to evenly distribute it better so we do have the correct number of trees what about what about those two those are just the two that are that's the area i'm talking about because those yeah there's an obvious clear gap there is not even spacing and there's no shade or reduced glare for those parking spots i mean it does say minimum of 30 feet apart so you might be able to spread the trees out but the idea is that they're spaced evenly not arbitrary and capriciously yeah and i would just echo that because i know we gave this direction at the last meeting that um based on this uh criteria my understanding was that maybe they were a little bit more spaced out in this area like you you would use that kind of 30 feet but we would see something that looked more even and wasn't a clear gap that we're still seeing now so i'll just say that was kind of the expectation i was thinking that that would be um established here as well that you you all would kind of work with where trees could be placed wise without creating this gap but still maybe not trying to be um uh responsive to the um concerns of the neighbors so i just i go down that this isn't meeting the criteria right now well we can go ahead and adjust um as James mentioned to make it more evenly larger spaces and still try to be responsive to our neighbors i understand Dan's comment about the the concern about the lawsuit but the lawsuit is a big deal for the medical center it will stop this project and and that's not what they want to do so they've really been working very hard to try to work with everybody to come up with a solution so yes we can go ahead and adjust the trees more and get them more to meet the standard it's tough for us because we know you've gone the extra mile to try to be responsive and we like to encourage that by the same token we feel very bound by our responsibility to adjudicate the ldr's um consistently right and and you know this this is hard for us to do because sometimes we understand things make sense but if we break them for one project we then set a precedent so it's tough were you going to say i understand yeah so um i don't know if we're going to have any other things that need to be addressed i would love to i mean it's nine o'clock um and i think that may be it for comments well i just thought it was one about the stormwater buffer okay i guess i might my big picture point in um is that i'd love to find a way to close and if that means like james gets really specific about what he's going to do okay try to make time to do that sounds like john had a question yeah i just um i mean the applicants stated that by meeting the rags there will be a lawsuit and that lawsuit will stop the project it may postpone it but i don't know that we can assume that the lawsuit will fall one way or the other so maybe you'll still win again we'll go ahead and make the adjustments so that we match the regulations as best we can we'll absolutely do that i i can see where this would help with access overall to health care in this part of the state right this is important to do important growth this is a pretty important project yes this is a replacement of the fanny alan hospital but it's not up to speed right now because of issues there so is it possible i'm sorry your name architect landscape architect is yeah james finblays james okay james is it possible for you to show us what you could envision doing yeah we think you have the ability to draw on it if you want james oh well i would i mean my first move would be to you know along that southern edge of parking there we were just talking about we can move trees up there so that edge is fully james can i interrupt i think that we've given you the tool to annotate from your end so that you can actually draw what you're describing okay um where do i choose my tool i don't uh it's my first time doing this um i think if you have it full screen it's up at the top of the screen underneath the bar maybe under view options it says annotate you may have to bring a cursor all the way to the top and it'll appear got it okay i think i found it how many parking spaces is that where those trees would so i think in this area right along here i could bring all of the trees up closer to the sidewalk so these guys would all come up in here so what happens when your annotating is we don't see it until you let go of the mouse which is real weird but just to let you know okay can you see what i've drawn in yes okay so what i would do is i bring those trees that are further to the south and push them up so we have even spacing all along that edge and then um i mean gail i think you have to help me here i we can obviously we have the right amount of trees we can space them evenly along this edge i can pull these ones up close i think you know um we just would have to you know really reduce brian's view view shed i guess or his view opening um and i guess basically just he's obviously this is a a difficult topic for the neighbor so i perhaps we go back out and meet with him and get to a place where we're framing his views in in different direction and get another couple of trees you know we can pull them down here and perhaps you know we pull another through in you know do this area and just kind of give him oh sorry i wish we could undo that one can i yes but yeah where where is his house exactly this is his house right here okay so if i can you know leave him a view corridor like that i can fill up with trees like that is that acceptable so the entire southern edge would be so you're near what you're doing is in an attempt just narrowing yeah the view and again and perhaps we'll choose trees that that actually do sort of get up big enough so we really do frame that view okay what do you think board i mean i just thought that we have hundreds of trees on this site i mean this is a very amply landscape site because college has gone or the uvm has gone really to the max with this landscape i mean i guess i would look to staff a little bit and has there been has there been a general standard of trying to be sure every space has some shade or is there um no so it's really one par five parking spaces um if paul you're probably gonna just don't just don't look i'm gonna pull up a previous and different project and show you something that's a little more typical of what we see for parking lot landscaping yeah that's fine um this is a form-based code project so it never came in front of you um it was approved administratively landscape planting plan i think this is a Wagner Hobson plan uh no maybe not anyway here goes sharing share screen so this is meeting the number of shade trees and the even distribution in staff's opinion because this is approved administratively so it's fewer trees but they are more evenly spaced but there clearly are some parking spaces that have no shade yes in a direct 90 degree orientation yeah and i guess here's a weird question do you need every single last one of those parking spaces yes yes we do right i don't think it's a weird question actually i think it's yeah no i guess it'll be the first thing you know we're all supposed to be on electric bikes in five years anyway too so and then the cars will be like you know in 20 30 20 years all the cars will be banned anyway and we'll have no car dealerships anyway so exactly looking at the spacing of what you're seeing on this plan versus if you can go then back to what we're proposing and what James added onto the plans i think we're pretty close to yeah i i just want i think the biggest question is just confirming that 30 foot distance i mean that's that's the kind of threshold the regs do layout as far as a maximum to say it's probably not even if you're putting gaps that are bigger than 30 feet at least that's how i'm kind of a minimum minimum oh sorry yeah i'm saying a minimum oh sorry it's up there on the screen right now those oh yeah more than 30 feet spaced right right sorry absolutely yeah so keep in mind you know the difference here i'm going to try to zoom in here on the left uh accept it loads really slowly because it's a color plan um you know this is a totally different scale the project that we're looking at with this applicant those parking spaces there's 20 maybe long and this is maybe 10 long um you know there's three rows in between each big landscape island this there's no real big landscape islands at all so it's a different scale of project but um you kind of get a feel for that's just the first thing to I mean in some respects if you wanted to show you were treating all the neighbors equally you would spread out you're only acknowledging the one who's threatened the lawsuit so ideally the ones on the west would be more evenly spaced so that every neighbor would have a little bit of a gap depending on how how much the foliage was expanding well but the neighbor we've worked out with each of the neighbors exactly what they want so some of the neighbors want full screening and and somewhat views so we've catered to to all of them and I would just say this plan actually to the right is a wonderful example if you look we have you know trees covering these parking spaces on four sides if you look at the plan to the left and on many parking lots there is absolutely no shade you know at during the east and west you know as the sun moves through the sky there's there's no shade at the at the east and at the west we have shade on all four sides you know each of these sort of parking lots on the inner parking lot and on the outer as well so I think we're doing a very good job of treating can I ask a question the picture on the right and the picture on the left was the picture on the right under a different set of regulations or our current it's the current regulations I mean I have to admit after seeing the picture on the right I feel like the picture in terms of number of trees I think that's true but the spacing you know there is I don't I don't think any straight face interpretation would view that as evenly placed no and I would say was uh you know the idea was to create sort of naturalistic drifts of trees you know we're trying to sort of give this um this this site sort of a more natural you know look to it as we're pulling wreck pass and have pocket parts we want this to be beautiful and while I do love you know obviously maintaining the same practicality of throwing that same shade but you know I think this is much doing much more than just sort of parking lot island tree placement so so if you take the according to your plan here what is the width of the view corridor and if you moved the um the trees as you suggested previously up how much would that narrow the view corridor I mean it's hard to say it's you know view corridors are kind of a a fudgy thing in a way um I would say that we could pull it down and reduce that view corridor to maybe uh if I you know 10 parking 100 feet or something like that 20 but we got there one you know 12 parking spots times nine like that 180 I mean the word evenly is not defined beyond the word even and so you have this nice spacing throughout it's kind of evenly distributed throughout the entire structure even if it's not some sort of soviet utilitarian five feet five feet whatever well can I make a suggestion what you might mean I'm sorry I have a suggestion for what evenly might mean if there's one shade tree required for every five parking spaces could evenly mean approximately one per five parking spaces it could or it could mean what we see here yeah um so I just counted the this parking spaces between the last tree and the end of this blue area and I came up with 15 so you know if we were to say okay one per five and evenly then we would be looking at three trees kind of evenly distributed through that area oh okay well right but that's I was just going to make one other observation about these that when we were looking at the two plans side by side and acknowledging that it's the applicant's responsibility having chosen to put parking around the perimeter but part of what looks so different between those two that you had side by side was that the black and white one had chosen to have circulation around the whole outside therefore circulation no no tree requirement so they had many fewer trees here they've chosen to put parking on the outside they have therefore a requirement to but it also then has an appearance of being much more overall sort of per total square foot of parking to be much more landscaped um understanding it's their responsibility but that you know might give some context as to this one does certainly have a feel of being overall more landscaped but I agree with Dan that those patient parking spaces that strip you know those cars are going to be mighty hot when people come out exhausted and hurting and whatever I mean so I think having some screening around there if there's I mean I I mean if right I mean if there were not that we not that the five one tree every five spaces is a rule but it helps to interpret this and spread it out I mean you sprinkle three trees there somewhere along the gap and come out there with a tape measure and a theodolite for the neighbor and site on Mount Mansfield or whatever he wants to look at and you know I just yeah I think that's what we're gonna have to do I mean yeah we'll I mean yeah yeah we'll work with we'll work with the neighbor and we'll adjust the trees along that western side of the parking lot to be able to accommodate what the neighbor's looking for but meet what you need for regulations so I can't I can't close on that um the board can't close on that but I do have room with in two weeks and we could continue them for two weeks that was gonna be my question and I just wonder if it seems like we got to like a number of like and I don't know if the applicant can commit to this without kind of looking at it more closely of like putting three trees in that area like does that feel comfortable enough but I understand that yeah so in order to write a condition the condition has to be specific so if the condition is you know I'd feel safer just I think they'd feel safer being consulting with the neighbor and saying all brick was being a hard ass he's gonna do this and they're gonna he's gonna micromanage every tree um right and and I think we'd want to feel comfortable that we're being listened to um and all so I think it you know come back on the 15th it shouldn't take that long it'll just be the mate among the primary item you know so I have a job to do and I don't think we want to feel like we're being held hostage by one neighbor um because it sets a dangerous precedent for us to respond to every right I mean I think that earlier suggestion of us we will place three trees along in that space I think to close this application seems very reasonable to me we'll work it out with the neighbor right I think that would work and and then again what James had shown for the adjustments I think we can do easily do those absolutely I mean we've added rec path pocket parks we will absolutely put these three trees in that area and close this application if you can close this application so if that's so you're suggesting we close can we oh should we continue I don't feel come I'll personally vote against closing because I want to see exactly where these trees are because I don't I know you're trying to be accommodating and moving along but you know well it's two weeks yeah and then for for for what it's worth I do like that idea of the the trees that were on the north side of the building I do like moving them closer to those parking spaces and all that as you propose when you're first drawing there James I'll do that as well yeah so typically it's meaning the intent we're trying to those the all southern side of you know there so so typically require materials to be reviewed um two weeks prior to the continued hearing we don't need to do any work on those plans we don't need to look at them the board needs to look at them so if you could get them to us one week before the hearing I can just kind of send them to the board when I send the rest of the stuff sure yeah that's fine we can we can easily turn this around fairly quickly okay once we can reach out to our neighbors and make sure okay we get their comments so before we take a vote to continue let me see if there are any members of the public who want to provide comments do you see any online I do not see any online okay nobody's here okay um I'm going to move that we continue site plan application sp22032 to our next meeting which is November 1st November 1st the day after Halloween um do I have a second second any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed okay the motions carry we will see you back here on November 1st okay thank you for your willingness to work with us thank you we appreciate it and just just to clarify this is the the last remaining issue we have correct I'm sorry this is the last remaining issue that we need to deal with correct yep the board has a couple things that aside in deliberation right right so was there anything related to the stormwater buffer not the stormwater the wetland buffer that we needed to talk about no no okay thank you something all right super okay great thank you so much we'll be back on November 1st thank you thank you thank you thanks Dave for signing in from Iceland wow that's amazing um okay um I did not review the minutes but did anyone else review the minutes we can get that you know that's the next business comes after past the minutes right okay I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of September 7th is drafted I will second any discussion all in favor of approving the minutes say I I post okay is there any other business yes what's the latest on well two-part question what's the latest on Wheeler dog park and what's the latest on Farrell dog park which I walked by this morning again and hung my head in shame Wheeler dog park briefly what was physically installed was smaller than what the board had approved there was a discussion with the council the council asked for some specific minor changes in terms of the gates and entry and materials so that it was more accessible public works said that they could do that immediately and that is not at the level of what was reviewed by the board the party and then the council said once those are done open up the park there was then discussion of bringing back some of the areas that had been approved as maybe more wild areas within the within the park what public works that expressed concern was that there's some undulations and it's difficult to maintain the council was saying as long as we set expectations for everybody about what those areas are so they're going to come back with a specific plan to council on that and we will assess whether that needs to come before the board or not likely if it's not changing wetland impacts it would be administrative right if anything yeah the only reason it came in front of the board is because the entrance area was in a wetland but a fence in and of itself outside of wetland doesn't require a board review so will some of the wetlands be within the fence yes and that's not changed from your previous approval oh okay so we're talking muddy dogs well or less right it would be either the same as you approved or less okay i don't have an update on ferrell what's wrong with ferrell oh no it's just work to close the ferrell for the last several years it's still not done and i can't remember where it is right now so but i can talk with that about offline with paul or whoever he tells me to talk to okay i think we're done any other new business thank you for being with us tonight my pleasure and uh driving thank you great job as always all right we will see you on the first thank you