So this is assuming that the state of the province will be seeing spaces and building something to build them. Right. Because there's more of this. I believe there's so much change. Hey, legislators, don't talk anything. It's a... I think they're bumping in there. Sisters having legislators try to work in their driveway yet. It looks after their building while they're just It's the half. I'm going for the half. Yeah. Do I need one? No. Here's Vermont this kind of year.  No, no, no. I'm just trying to get you. I've never been here. Take care of the worst of it. Everybody else? Yeah. Welcome to the... Now, Tuesday, January 22nd, meeting of the Montpelier Design Review Committee. I will let staff members introduce themselves. Hannah Smith. Meredith Crandall. Staff. Stephen Everett. Martha Scorsky. For anybody who has not been here before, we are advisory to the Development Review Board. We will hear the applications and move them forward to either administrative approval or board approval as required. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? I'm going to approve the agenda. Your second. All in favor of the agenda. Raise your hand. And welcome. Introduce yourselves into your... Ben Jean. Okay. Our first application is for 105 State Street, State of Vermont Buildings and General Services. Is anyone here to represent them? Come up and have a seat and introduce yourselves. Sure. Diane Colgan, Property Management, Buildings and General Services. C-O-L-G-A-N. Yes. And Stephen Fry, Property Management, Buildings and General Services as well. Okay. And describe your parking lot. Oh. Diane, do you want to do the honors? Sure. Number 105 State Street, former site of the Gulf Station. Yes. The state is proposing short term lease with... Yes. Yeah, and we have an application before you for 10 permitting spaces. And plus the one handy comp space with a very temporary mindset that we understand the landowners can start building their construction project at some point soon, perhaps in April or whenever it might... Whether it depends. Whether it depends. So does the weather so. Maybe the ground has to fall and stuff like that.  A little detail. Yes. And so I understand we kind of... Since there is a parking shortfall with Taylor Street going offline, there was some arrangements made that we were... Diane and I weren't necessarily part of the arrangements, but this state has opened a lot that it's on a temporary basis starting right after or around the legislative session kick-off. And it's in place as we speak with barriers and some of the elements that are part of our application. So we're here to talk about our application and all that and see if you have any questions. This would use the state employees. Is that correct? No, not legislators. State employees. Those are designated for legislators. Really? Yeah. And the hours of use are in the daytime only. There is no after-hour use by state employees. It seems like you've already got signage up there that says that it's designated spots. Yep. It was previously approved for some kind of barrier there or anything. Yeah. So these are all just jersey barriers set in place. All of what they're talking about is already in place. Yeah. Yeah. It's a small modification from what was approved before. Yeah. Well, and if you had other things that you wanted thrown in or some adjustments that you could put them in. We had everybody. Anybody else have any questions, suggestions? I was just going to say kind of a working model and actually Steve and I went and looked at it today.  Yeah. It's a visual. Yeah. Really, yeah. And we think that some of the science, in fact, we may need to move some of the science around to comply with our permit drawing a bit. Yeah. So we're coordinating that with our department. So that's fine. Again, it's a temporary. Yeah. Sort of anyway. Yeah. So deciding to have the capacity and short term basis to help out. Yes. I know that we had questions that we were, Mark and our office was working. Are you married? Yes. Okay. Hello. Hi. And I don't know if you have any questions following up from the stuff that you were talking about. No. I'm good. I just needed to run away. Okay. Anybody else have any questions, suggestions? In that case, I will run through. There's a set of criteria we have to go through to evaluate the applications. Design review recommendation form. I don't know if you have one, but I'll read it. As we go, preservation or reconstruction of the appropriate historic style that improves projects in the historic district involves an historic structure. I wouldn't call this an historic style, but it does apply in this particular case. Harmony of exterior design with other properties of the district, temporary parking barriers are acceptable. Compatibility of proposed exterior materials with other properties of the district, again, temporary barriers are acceptable. Compatibility of proposed landscaping, not proposed in this application. Revention of use of incompatible designs, buildings, color schemes, or exterior materials acceptable in this location for this purpose. Location and appearance of all utilities, no lighting or anything, and I think there's street lighting there anyway, probably. So that's not applicable either. Recognition of and respect for view quarters and significant vistas, including gateway views of the city and state house. Again, the temporary parking barriers are acceptable. All in favor of the application as proposed. Step for approval is administrative approval. Administrative approval. We're going to firm it. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Have a wonderful evening and thank you for your service for the city. Stay warm. Yes. And our next application is for 36 College Street. I'm assuming that's you. And introduce yourself. Katie Gustafson. K-A-T-Y. IE. Okay. Another temporary parking lot. Yes. And in fact, I've been working with Steve, so he may just be able to fill in if there are additional questions that I don't have all the background off. So again, you're using the tennis court or temporary parking? Correct. You can just sort of describe it. So we were approached by the state to potentially house the agency of transportation that was displaced by the fire and national life. It's temporary. It's a swing space as they make their way to their final location. And because of the square footage calculation and just because of the number of people potentially that it might be, we were looking at putting the about 25 parking spots in that area to accommodate that. The college has an interesting schedule where it's sometimes totally full and then other times not at all. And because of that ebb and flow, I'd really like to be able to offer the state a location where very close to the buildings that they're looking at leasing where it's dedicated for them so it's easier for them to be able to find parking during their temporary stay. When you say temporary, will you? I don't know for certain. I'm not sure they know for certain. So I think I wrote give or take one or up to two years with the maximum. And it likely wouldn't be that long. And I'm reading a sentence in here that I don't understand which is although this is temporary, request spaces will be marked and lot will be sealed afterwards or there would be no evidence of it afterwards. The lines, just the white lines that eventually when we can paint them on we would, so we could demarque and then afterwards just reseal it so that the lines aren't there after the fact. Really idea that it is temporary that this would be here when the state leaves. It will go back to being some sort of placement. Possibly, I mean again as part of this master plan we had in there the possibility that we might create permanent parking there. I think we will put that in our next master plan and whether or not we would do that. We'll see. So this particular request is absolutely temporary based on having this potential tenant in those buildings. I assume the tennis courts weren't used very often, anywhere. They were not used at all. I think I wrote in the application we used it one day for a state meeting that they were holding over at CAFS and that worked really well. Otherwise it's just empty. There's a basketball hoop that one of the schools who rent space from us put there. Occasionally there are kids chalk drawing riding bicycles. But because we would be using it for the state it would still be available on weekends and in the late evening or early evenings for the community to still use as they currently do. I haven't seen it play tennis there but I have seen people play basketball. I have seen it get used. There is a basketball court that's in the back and that's still going to be there. The parking places would not be touching the basketball court area. It would just be where the former tennis courts were. You said that this is a potential race for the state assuming that it goes through when would the start date be? I don't know. I don't think that they have a specific date determined yet. So we don't know then when this might start? Correct. The permit would be good for two years but that's something that will also hash out at DRB tonight. I know that that's going to be one of the things that will be questioned. I've never built a tennis court or a parking lot. It was originally built as a tennis court and I don't know what parking on it would damage it. We certainly don't ever plan to use it as tennis courts again. So I think similar to all our other lots there will be a certain amount of wear and tear that will have to deal with. It's only been there 50 years so I'm assuming a lot of settlement has already taken place. Can I just address something on that? Because I've researched the past permit history there were requirements as to research into how it was graded underneath what the underlying surface was and what they would have to do to then repave it and it's been paved over as the parking lot. In fact the previous permit to convert it into parking was done and then everything stopped. So I have a feeling that if this were to go on to a longer use the Department of Public Works would probably take a fresh look at it to take a look and see how durable it would be and make sure that the previous permit requirements for the gravel underneath and drainage and everything had been met. Any other questions? Comments? Questions? Again I can go through the criteria for this as well. Number one, preservation reconstruction of the appropriate historic style I would say that's not applicable in this case. Harmony of exterior design with other properties in the district acceptable. Compatibility of proposed exterior materials acceptable. Compatibility of proposed landscaping and unproposed in the application. Prevention of the use of incompatible designs buildings, color schemes or exterior materials acceptable. No changing utilities, lighting or anything of that nature so not applicable. Recognition of and respect for view quarters and significant investors including gateway views of the city and state house not applicable in this location. All in favor of the application as proposed raise your hand to get you to sign that one on the lower left above me and again this isn't for administrative or this is going tonight. Tonight? Oh okay. Nope. I didn't spot that. So yeah, that goes tonight. Thank you all. I appreciate your time. See you in a little bit. Does anybody have a chance to look at the minutes from January the 7th? Of course we have enough people to improve it. It's the Chevy family. I care. But the way I went back and looked and I had a period of 40s and early 50s and I had a fire there and they had somebody and I'm not sure I couldn't find anything that showed the front view from like 1875 or 1900 but when the fire happened there when it was the fire 70s there were windows there with a lot of small panes matching rules on the side but they were old old casement windows. So it's hard to tell what the original was and I think we improved a 1 over 1 or a 2 over 2 which really matches the building next door but who knows what was there in the 1920s but I think that either the small panes I think actually probably the 2 over 2 probably matches again the street front. It's more compatible with everything on both sides because the Mickey building has 1 over 1 so the next door the middle block is the 2 over 2 but I did take the pictures that I had and I actually gave them to the guy over at my house. And just a very interesting point when that fire happened it happened because the legislator from the Bennington area there was a cigarette issue and he was sued by the Antioch for the fire. Wow. I don't know the result of that but that's not where the capital market was. Yes. I think they were either in the nail place or the pedals and things pedals and things. It was closest to the lobster pond building. Questions or comments or suggestions or comments to what was reported on the minutes. The 5E State Street was the green color building. He said yes to the neighbors that I was numbering. It is bright. I only hope that it can mellow out over time. Wait a second. All in favor of the minutes from January the 7th of March again. The next meeting February the 4th. Right now we don't have any applications for it but we still have some time. Okay. All in favor. Raise your hand. Meeting is adjourned. Good evening. I would like to call this a meeting is for the Mozilla to approve the agenda and I am in favor to approve the agenda. We have a review for order. My name is Daniel Richardson and I serve as the chair for the other members of my right arm. Kevin McCarty. Tom Kester. First order for tonight is approval of the agenda. I think it is the motion Motion by Kevin. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Dev. All those in favor of the agenda, approval of the agenda that's printed please raise your right hand. We have an agenda for the evening. I have a few comments from the chair. One of our members, Ryan Cain, is missing this evening. That's because he's welcoming a new child to the family. On behalf of the board I wish him and their new baby Julia the best of this winter season. Second issue is I just want to simply put out there that I will be accusing myself of the second application for tonight, the VCFA permit application, the vice chair, Kate McCarthy will take my place. But however, given that I will not be chairing the second half of the meeting, I wanted to make a few housekeeping notes. Our next meeting is scheduled for February 4th, which is a Monday. Right now we do not have any items on the agenda, so it is likely that any items that will be in that meeting will be either issues that are not resolved tonight, or we do have training on the new zoning regulations scheduled for the board that will conduct in a public hearing session. But there are no new applications currently, but the board will still be meeting. With that, we'll move on to the next order of business, which I believe is the approval of the minutes of December 3rd, December 17th. The December 3rd minutes include Kevin, Deb, Tom, and Rob. We're all present, so we do have a quorum. Do we have a motion to approve the December 3rd minutes, or any requests to amend and then approve the minutes? So moved. Motion to approve by Tom. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay, second by Rob. All those in favor of approval of the December 3rd meeting minutes that are eligible to vote, please raise your right hand. The December 3rd meeting minutes are approved. December 17th minutes would include myself, Kate, Tom, and Rob. Do I have a motion to either accept or amend and accept the minutes for December 17th? So moved. Motion by Rob. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Kate. All those eligible to vote on December 17th minutes to approve, please raise your right hand. We have approval of December 17th minutes, and we can move on to our first order of business, first actual action item for the evening, which is 367 River Street, if the applicants wish to come forward to the table. And if you both state your name for the record, I'll then put you under oath. And I'm going to have Meredith do an overview of where we stand, given that this is an amendment to give the board some background. Fred Conner. Conner Conner. My brother John is joining me as well. And Jeff Velasquez from Wilson Consulting Engineers, the civil engineer for the project. Okay. If those of you who do intend to testify, and John, if you are intending to testify, it would be best to put you all under oath at this point in time. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Okay. You're all under oath. Are there any people in the audience tonight that wish to come forward on this particular application? Okay. Seeing none, we will go forward with this application, and Meredith, if you'll give us an overview, update, and background. Okay. So this is an application for a site amendment for an active open permit that's for redevelopment of the old John Deere site on River Street, and that building that development has been active on, so it's in process, but the applicants, Conor Brothers, are looking to add a new use, because they have a new tenant, to take over part of the space and then make some site plan changes. Some of those are related to the new use. Some of them are just things that got tweaked as they worked on the site plan and coordinated with the Department of Public Works about things like stormwater drainage and what was actually available there at the site. There's a couple of big issues that we dealt with. One is that applicant has requested to have the change of use be evaluated under the 2011 regulations, along with all of the site plan amendment requests. My analysis was that some of those site plan amendments could be made up of the 2011 regulations, but that the change of use and potentially those site plan changes like the loading area that are linked to that change of use can be evaluated over the 2018 amendment regulations. So it's all both sets are laid out in here, both analyses, but that's a starter issue that you're going to have to start a determination you're going to have to look at. The other big thing to note is that in here there were some open questions about traffic analysis. And since the staff report was distributed, we got that traffic analysis review from RSG as well as Department of Public Works comments on that. I'm going to pass those out to you right now. And what I think are probably the big picture comments from Tom McCartle have been highlighted in yellow, but please review his full overview. So the big item that came up in that traffic analysis was whether or not there needed to be a left turn lane. And after RSG's full review of the underlying data that's available, and then Tom's review of that, Tom's conclusion was that Tom McCartle's conclusion was that we did not need that left turn lane, but that it was something to look at in the future on 302 development that the applicant had raised that tractor supply did not have a left turn lane, which through Tom says, well, maybe there was more traffic there than they actually thought there was going to be. But for this project, we didn't think that they needed a left turn lane based on the numbers. And that's Tom's conclusion as of today. Tom's conclusion as of this evening, looking at RSG's analysis, which is also including that packet. I'm going to put two copies of this information on the table over there. Have you seen this final conclusion? Yes, we have. Thank you. So that new information addresses a lot of the red that you see in the staff report. Some of the other outstanding questions and determinations that you'll want to make are from the big ones are the pedestrian issue with removing the walkway to the rear of the building. There's a landscaping question that I don't have the discretion to make. And I think that the applicants have actually addressed the question I raised about capping a severed water connection in their letter, which is the new information you were given as well, which is 0.2. So that was a question I had raised on page 9 of the staff report. So that's been dealt with. We'll work through it and we'll... I've got my marked up version of the staff report, so I'll make sure we don't miss anything. I think... Okay, thanks. I think that's all I've got right now. I think it would be helpful, if you want to give us an overview as to what specific changes you're making from the existing permit that you have. I think that's a helpful framework because our decision is really based on what those changes are from your existing permit. Obviously, if there's things from the old permit, that's not under review at this time. So let's look at the things that are triggering these threshold issues. I'm happy to do that. In conferring with the applicant, we were helping our plan of attack. He was hoping to essentially provide a little more background information about the reasoning behind this as a whole and then turning it over to me to specifically buy an item, go through the proposed changes. So if it's okay with the board, I think... That's certainly fine. Okay. Through the chair, I'd just like to ask if the board can have a couple minutes to read my letter of yesterday that you just received. And simply, I just wanted to introduce the company. The San El Napa Company is a fourth-generation family-owned company based in Concord, New Hampshire. They've had this store in Montpelier for over 10 years. They operate on a hub and spoke system, so Burlington is the hub. This is one of their seven stores in Vermont that is a spoke. They have zero to two deliveries a day with their own company box trucks from Burlington. And they have half a dozen employees hoping that they do better at this location to be able to grow somewhat both the store and employees. So that's just a brief overview. Where are they currently located? Pardon? Where are they currently located? They're currently located at 373 River Street, which is up south of about 1,000 feet. Oh, okay. So it's in a general same neighborhood. They're just moving to a higher-profile location. Which might be your property. They're moving to a higher-profile location, which is your property. And a slightly larger space. Well, I'm happy to have us take a look at this memo. Thank you. Fairly short. This is a two-page letter from January 21st. Correct? Yes. Okay. Fred, if I can just sort of summarize as I understand this letter No problem. If I can summarize this letter and understand the import of it just so we have a record as opposed to us reading the document, you're pointing out that part of what's driving this is you've gone from a spec building to one that's actually going to be occupied by an actual tenant with whom you've contracted through release. Yes. The second is that your traffic study is well below the threshold that our current zoning regulations require a traffic study and a specific turn lane within 3024. Is that accurate? Yes. And that's been confirmed with McCartle. Right. As I understand that was the import of McCartle's letter in response to your letter. Yes. Was there anything else that you wished us to take away from this letter? No, just that in my tenure in working in this business I have usually experienced a capital P permitted use as being a zoning administrative decision. So, you know, we're almost at the point of paying rent for all the time we spend with Meredith in going, in living on the top of the fence between the old regs and the new regs. Right. It's just, it's been a challenge. I mean, for this issue to take 23 pages for a staff report, it's just a lot of work for Meredith and we hope we don't have any other remaining business before you until we jump into the new regs. Right. Well, I mean, and part of this is the fact that we went from zoning bylaws that had been largely unchanged with a few minor amendments for, you know, 10 plus years to radically new zoning bylaws that have added a lot of detail and process to our review as well as, you know, a new staff that are getting used to how we implement those bylaws. So, you know, to the extent that this has caused some struggle, part of that's just borne out by the fact of when you get new bylaws like this and a level of detail and scrutiny that they require, a lot of trees are fallen. I appreciate your comments and we aren't working through it. So, I don't think it's a reflective of necessarily the applicant or it's just the challenges that are posed by the timing and the new bylaws. I agree. Okay. Was there anything else that you wanted to present in the background? Good. Thanks. So, Jeff. So, yeah, I guess I'd start in by referring again the board to our letter submitted on the applicant's behalf dated December 26th of 2018 that attempted to highlight the physical changes associated with the site plan amendments that we're requesting, specifically driven by this additional change in use related to going from a spec building really to a specific tenant that, again, is not planned to represent the entire use of the building, which I think should be clear. The proposed building size of 10,000 square feet has remained unchanged. The lower locations remained unchanged. But the specific use will be 6,000 square feet of that, which, correct me if I'm wrong, Fred, is more or less the norther two-thirds of the building. That's correct. Six-tenths of the building, I guess I should say. And so that's a change in use component that the auto parts store, they really fall under any of the previously permitted or approved uses. And so some of that's the driving force behind this change in use, which I think gets to the heart of whether we're reviewed under the 2011 regulations or 2018 regulations. And I'm not sure, I guess it's obvious the board's discretion tonight as to whether three projects reviewed under those old or the new regs or some combination of both. But, again, I'll highlight just the physical changes and feel free to stop me if there's any questions on anything specific. But this letter references one through eight and the proposed site plan, we included in the application both the new plans, the previously approved plans, as well as two sheets that are essentially marked up with revision clouds, revision clouds, and then numerically kind of try to call out these revisions. So if you want to follow along with me, the first obvious is just this requested change in use or additional use, I would say, of adding the retail sales and service as we feel it best fits the new use. As pointed out in the staff report it was a permitted use both under the old regulations and the new regulations and we highlighted that on the plans. Item two was under the old plans there was similar to the front walkway, there was a five foot concrete sidewalk pedestrian access along the back and that has since been removed and the parking space has shifted two feet closer to the building to free up another two feet of aisle width in the back and then we've kind of changed configuration here. We still do have two concrete pads at the man doors where they'll be located and then kind of a bigger dedicated loading area understanding that the proposed tenant will need that space to be periodically loading up and unloading parts. But I think another component of this is that now under the new proposal the back parking area is really going to function more for really just the loading and employee parking. It isn't really intended to be customer based. So given the amount of parking that we're proposing versus what we necessarily require under zoning rigs we're over and that's another one number three actually I guess in combining two and three we're certainly proposing more parking spaces than would be required for this use. So we feel that we can kind of dedicate the back parking to this inter-employees and or loading. So part of that reconfiguration to accommodate this larger loading area was the removal of three parking spaces as noted in number three. So we've gone from 58 total to 55 with the three just being removed in the back here. Number four was again kind of minor but the exterior lights on the back of the building were realigned to go over the doors and the end doors obviously just from a safety standpoint. Number five was this northeast corner here. The previous plans kind of had the paving and curving limits kind of very close to the edge of the property line and there was a little more pavement right at this corner and in kind of going through the construction process and talking to the neighbor to the north. The old plan there's an existing kind of dilapidated old concrete retaining wall. It's only like two feet tall but it's right along the property line here and there was some interest in removing that wall and just kind of grading that out and this kind of little sliver of pavement really wasn't providing any benefit to the parking or the access to the property and we felt we could pull that in a couple feet and would allow us to naturally just grade this slope down on like a two or three on one slope and be able to eliminate that wall which the neighbor preferred because they would be backing into it with their cars and it'd be a little more room for snow storage there. So we kind of made that construction decision to kind of pull that in a little bit to allow for you know, again at the neighbor's request and we didn't see any harm in it. So along those lines though I think as mentioned in the staff report is when we pulled that pavement in it did narrow up this little throat here this traffic pattern being one way in a counterclockwise fashion opposed to the site. The main throughway width here is 24 feet for a one-way road which is obviously pretty substantial. At its narrowest before it was about 23 over 23 feet now and I believe a little over 21 now so we narrowed that down a little bit but based on the information we've been provided by the tenant as far as the size of their trucks you know, understanding there won't be any tractor trailers as well just be box vans at the largest and also understanding this is a one-way traffic pattern we have no reservations about this revised parking area being able to accommodate vehicles or creating any type of unsafe conditions for users. Moving on to number six I get kind of a minor one but the underground liquid propane tank we just shifted this to the south a little bit to get it further away from the through lanes just to provide a little more safety and by doing that previously we had guard rail called for this corner to protect it but we were able to eliminate that guard rail because we have enough clearance and separation now and we've just replaced it with a couple ballards. Number seven would be the drainage reconfiguration. As part of the original approval there was always some kind of uncertainty about the condition of the existing drainage features within 302 on the west side of 302 here and we were originally there's some drainage underground drainage around the back that we were tying into a one specific structure and then we had some drainage out front that we were tying into another structure Long story short is in excavating and review of these structures with the Department of Public Works we agreed that there was one structure that was in better condition to tie into so we've just combined our drainage in the back in the front to a catch basin in the front and regraded accordingly so that we can tie into that structure now and that was all done with the supervision of the Department of Public Works and I believe Tom did provide more or less a sign off on that and then the last number eight is just a relocation of the water service alignment previously we're tying in about the same location but just based on the tenant we desire to have the exterior water service enter a different corner building so we've just reconfigured that on our property so I think that's a summary of the physical changes obviously nothing major here but cumulatively they add up and that coupled with the additional use I think certainly it was a reason behind the meeting with the board here tonight so I think we'll be able to go through the staff notes and address those kind of in a substantial fashion if that makes sense I think it does one question that I have initially is when we had this application before previously one of the concerns I remember of course was the traffic flow behind the back of the building and Jeff if I understand your representations now is that traffic flow behind the building would largely be employee or these supply trucks that would be coming around the back to unload supplies to the loading dock behind is the customer then going to be directed to essentially take a hard left and park in front of the building in that area yeah I think that really only entrances to both of the tenant spaces will be in the front of the building the front doors so whether by signage or just common knowledge you know the intent is for all customer vehicles to do park in the what amounts to 36 parking spaces double loaded parking spaces in the front okay so all the pedestrian traffic would be coming from the front of the building and so if there was a condition that you know required signage to that effect such as you know stating that the portion the driveway around the back of the of the building is for employees or loading only would that cause a problem or would that be acceptable but to think about what I would say and I'm not trying to suggest wording but give a general impact or effect of what I'm saying as a condition or with signage just a condition that there would be some signage that would direct the flow of traffic down to the front because this starts to get into the issue of pedestrian traffic in these changes there would not be a problem employee parking or employee slash shipping receiving okay in part because that leads me to the next question which is if this rear parking then is for employees and or loading and unloading would they be entering the building from the back okay because there's a man door and an over you mentioned loading just as a minor correction it's a they're both overhead accurate overhead doors so for each tenant there's a man door and an over an overhead door okay and then they would be coming in from the back that I appreciate that correction and I think that's helpful because that leads me to the question as far as one of our concerns at least is on the pedestrian flow that you're proposing to change around the back and I'm understanding from your testimony that no pedestrian at least as you're envisioning it would be coming from the back around the building to the front that if somebody's parking back there they're an employee and or delivery truck and would be utilizing the doors in back correct and if we have this a new signage on the right side of the building as you're looking up in the road we also are going to have the other left and that was one of the requirements if I remember correctly from your last go round so this would just be changing the signage on the north side to to employee and or loading only or whatever configuration Mr. Chair I might suggest and would ultimately leave this to you but a more straightforward way to do the signage might be to say customer parking to the left of the building and scratching their heads about employee and loading they know that they're customers or customer parking employee parking only sure or even just the employees will know what to do because they work there it's the folks who may be coming for the first time who need the direction so you may want to focus your signage on the people who need the direction the customers but ultimately customer parking with an arrow to the left instead yes but that might be more straightforward I think that makes more sense both those suggestions perfectly amenable to where I'm coming from any other sort of overall questions to some of these changes if not we'll accept Jeff's invitation to have us dive into the staff report and I think there's a threshold question here if I can tee that up about 2011 yeah it's really how much of this is reviewable under the 2011 regulations generally if they were coming to me with just the site plan amendment I would have just put the whole and originally this is what we were discussing was that all of these site plan changes could have just been reviewed by me under the 2011 regulations and then we through the change of use into it the change of use generally would be something but they wanted it reviewed under the 2011 regulations which I didn't think I was able to do plus once you review change of use under the 2018 regulations it triggers a fresh site plan for that change of use which means you have to take a look at the landscaping which as we all know our current landscaping regulations are troublesome and we're working to change those but I can't do exceptions or anything like that so it's that's why it came to you because it is it is a permitted use so if we didn't have to deal with those landscaping regulations even under the 2018 regulations I would have been able to do that administratively we just we came we ended up with a odd little conundrum on this one if I can ask a few points of clarification my understanding is that when this permit originally came and obviously it predates you yes but my recollection was that we reviewed it largely as a potential medical office in part because that was the heaviest potential permitted use correct that's my understanding that was the big question that's how you dealt with traffic and number of parking spaces issues and really what this represents if I also stand some of the filings that the applicant has made is that now you are seeking this change of views based on an actual applicant and that this change of views represents a sort of rollback of some of the needed numbers as far as traffic and use is concerned yes and if I can just clarify we are asking for this other use for the entire building because obviously retail sales and service would probably lead to the other piece being retail sales and service but we'd like to preserve the other uses that we already have any of that we found a compatible user right I just want to clarify because I think it's more troublesome for me at least if you're going from a less onerous use to a more rigorous use that might trigger some of the site plan amendments and a need to review them because you're essentially going from something that may not receive the same level of scrutiny that it deserves but here we have really the inverse which is we have a spec building that now has an actual tenant which is driving the request for modification and so the question is are we are we really changing this in the same sense that I think the modification by-laws envision which is when you have this type of lesser use and you then want to swap out uses I'll just throw that out there as sort of where my thinking begins I think that makes sense to me as well if the original consideration which I was not part of was for more intensive use in this instance it's a I'm sorry is that the case that the original use approved I think was medical that was one of the three original uses approved was it medical clinic which is less more traffic than what we are currently contemplating it is more traffic hold on I want to look at the most recent item just because we got the updated numbers from RSG thank you I'm a little there were three potential uses that would improve practical use to be one of those the other two business office office states my recollection of the time when we approved it was that we were giving it a pretty broad brush type of approval if you were there right it was written up as such right that was that was my understanding and in part because the applicant did not have a specific tenant but wanted to carve out room so that the sort of heaviest allowable or likely use would be covered and I just wanted to make sure that that was consistent both with other members but also laying down and I think it's clear at least where I'm coming from that I think as a predicate to our question here we're looking at this specific amendment in those lenses as opposed to either a fresh amendment that was increasing the use yep I see that I guess just as a on an administrative level my only concern is future if somebody's just coming for a change of use to an open permit if there's a change of use going on generally that would be a new permit our evaluation criteria for whether or not which bylaws right for which bylaws do not be to account the intensity of the use being requested when deciding which bylaws thank you thank you yeah and so that's why I'm wondering if that if discussing the like you said the intensity of the use when we're trying to figure out which regulations apply comes into play can we determine to evaluate so this is what I didn't think I could do that and so this is why I'm just trying this is why I'm just throwing that out there is that a proper place to this whole comes into play when I'm doing this sure and I to a certain extent I would say that some of this is the is us feeling through these relatively new regulations and trying to interpret them so when I look at for example the section 40205 that talks about amending a zoning permit or site plan and says that allows the administrative officer to amend an open zoning permit or site plan without a new application or development review board if the proposed change and part of this is I think that you're seeking clarification is not a material change and does not affect the type of character or intensity of the improved development or use to the extent specified below and then it gives those various subcategories I believe that under under section two we meet that's where I'm going with some of the analysis is that what we're talking about is scaling back as opposed to an increase in the intensity and so then you know you've cited as well 40205A that talks about a material change means a change in the development of land or structure may have affected the decision made or any conditions placed on the permit if it had been included in the plans as approved so in a case like this I think it's also relevant too that part of the history here is that we it wouldn't have made any difference except for that we probably would have had less conditions so it's it's not a material I think it's it makes a material change a very fact-specific determination which doesn't make your job any easier as an administrator going forward because in some ways it has to be up to us as a DRB to make that determination and so in that case where you can't make a clear determination it's certainly I think legitimate to kick it up to us but then I would say that as the sort of quasi-educated body sitting in review of this it is our purview and ability to take this and look and say is this really a material change based on our collective and institutional knowledge of the prior purview? Perfect, thank you so I'm really comfortable with that analysis and I've seen and I've seen other boards operating this and I do also appreciate that this you know in terms of exercising your discussion it's appropriate to bring it to when it's not and I'll try not to do it too often for you Fred we're hopefully also ending the appointment where we don't have sessions in place soon so I've got one more coming your way Mary I know I know different builder but yes if Fred didn't have something to complain about you know but I think it's a consideration that the change of use is very compatible with the area it's not I can see this it's a situation where the change in UCS it may be lesser because of less traffic it's around the area and it's not the case here which I would agree yeah how does the rest of the board feel anyone wishing to express a consensus I mean I feel like we're generating consensus towards the 2011 reviewing this under a 2011 bylaws unless no it not only makes sense I mean you know we've been through this detailed analysis type of type of way it's through it's well-documented sure and I agree too given your analysis as well the facts presented in this specific case I think that makes sense thank you good okay so with that consensus then I think we really have to review the page of other maybe like a pick your chapter about the you know you pick a decision you go to a different chapter there you go well I'll simply before we do that though I think we do have to review some of those yeah other threshold issues and that's that starts with I think number five no six sorry under the site plan criteria now I'm skipping over in the staff report number five the dimensional requirements because you've testified nothing's really changing with with this lot area lot frontage lot coverage building height so really it's a question of the impact on the streets under section 702 and we've now received testimony both from you as well as from Tom Carter that the impact of streets does not reach any type of threshold where we're required to put conditions for actions specifically a left turn lane in 302 is that fair to with the board then the next one is is 703 which talks about pedestrian access and circulation and whether the board is satisfied with the level of pedestrian safety at the rear of the building when the concrete walkway is replaced with a three foot wide strip stone drip edge and granite curbing as opposed to the sidewalk that you had originally proposed along that back and I understand from your testimony that this is really going to be a limited access parking lot it's going to largely be employees which you know we've previously found are going to have a greater familiarity with the traffic circulation as well as the access points as opposed to customers who may or may not have that same level of familiarity and who will be parking in the front where there are no changes proposed is there any other questions from the board as far as a pedestrian circulation concerns and then there is the the 705 and 707 about the parking that are going from 58 to 55 you're removing three spaces however they're still in conformance with the zoning bylaws then under the performance standard to 714 talks about these regulations require that there is no offensive no noise odor dust smoke noxious gases reflect light because a fire explosion or safety hazard create electrical interference this is going to be a retail auto auto parts store correct and will there be any automotive servicing going on or is this simply sale retail parts these will create the type of noise odor dust noxious gases light reflection and this is going to be similar to the existing auto parts store that is currently about a thousand feet away as well as other auto parts stores in the area there is the water supply and sewage disposal and these were your points eight I think in seven and so just so I understand the water service to the shed and back is no longer going back there I apologize I didn't specifically address that I think Craig had included that in one of his notes as far as a comment but there was an understanding that when this project first started there were two separate parcels here there was a building associated with this portion of Moon Lake Terrace there was a water service back to the main and cut and captive per Department of Public Works requirements that's been addressed so we could certainly put a note to that effect on the revised plan if it was deemed necessary it was a mobile home that the city asked us to remove asked come on farms to remove which we arranged for them and as part of doing that job we were record keeping purposes to just have that noted in any final plan we do have to review whether the retail the addition of retail sales and service as a conditional use no it's a it's a permitted use right it's a permitted use is not conditional it's just that there's normally I would have dealt with it but because there were questions on how to go forward and I disagreed with the applicant on how to go forward the whole thing to you so you get to look at the change of use as yeah under here I'm just sort of so wait did I do the conditional use criteria for some reason I'm sorry that's why I'm looking at some confusion I did more work than I had to my apologies um but I don't think I did that before the 2018 did I no I just did the same thing for 2018 right yeah so then you're pretty much done yep that was just okay so okay that's okay that's um never the last still nice to understand um with that then um some understanding and part of it so let me ask first does anyone on the board have any other questions about any of the other issues that we have hearing none so go ahead Rob um I just have one question about refuse on the back I guess that you have general refuse but on our store everything like motor oil and all that stuff that's like enclosed inside of the building or maybe that service will be provided here we have a um loading an enclosed um trash area Jeff was pointing it out but we don't expect it to be like a service station automotive trash being generated it's taking it back to your home or shop anything else good um let me just suggest that the two conditions that I'm aware of so far are we want to have the applicant develop signage that will either affirmatively direct customers to the left or and or um notify them that travel along the north side of the building is restricted to I think Kate's suggestion is probably the better way to do it because the employees are going to know where to go right the customers need the arrow after they get there go there once they'll know the program and I'm simply suggesting you could we could make a conditions for both so that you would still have the choice if you go to your signage people or traffic people and they say no no no you'll always want to state it this way okay I appreciate the flexibility um because I think either one gets the message across um one may be more effective and I do tend to think the Kate's suggestion is on point um and then the second being to amend the site plan to show the cap waterline for three moonlight terrace are there any other conditions that we're seeking uh just for clarification from the previous decision that we want to keep all those conditions still in place as well what I understood yeah I mean we've landscaped and my your signage other than as modified by the the the amendment and I think it's I think it's important uh I think you're on track important that we want to make sure that we aren't treating this as though the amendment to be existing not the top of loss right and in line with that you still want to keep the condition about this not changing the expiration date to definitely fire permit all right do you let me ask the applicant that this is and this is this is this application is I think timed to expire this summer which would be the like June around June 10th 2019 John's the project manager and he's he's delivering occupancy by May 15 okay as far as having all site conditions done you're saying paving landscaping correct we can okay I mean otherwise I'm not trying to set you up for failure always an if you proposition this time of year okay well obviously if worse comes to worse you can always come back and seek an amendment are they eligible they can't get another one year extension they already got it on this one oh that's right they have the one year extension already so this would be where they would need to get any sort of extension on that but it also it doesn't need to be 100% complete right substantially substantially okay just wanted to make sure that was addressed thank you thank you very much okay so with those three conditions I'll either entertain a motion or discussion about further conditions make affirmative motion I was so moved as you have L like and either one though nope doesn't matter because it's 6,000 square feet sorry the was was in there because it was for 10,000 square feet okay now that makes more yes now like wait I know I didn't do that for no reason whatsoever okay so motion by Tom do I have a second second second by Deb any further discussion could we just for nothing else remind notification could we just restate exactly what's motion as I understand the motion it is to approve the permit amendment as applied for with the following three conditions one is that the applicant shall develop and implement signage either or either affirmatively directing customers to the front of the building for notifying entrance that the north entrances employee only or both to amend the site plan to show the capped waterline at three moonlight terrace and three to retain the existing deadline for substantial completion and all other conditions of the underlying permit and all other conditions of the underlying permit remaining same that's okay any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the amendment as stated in the motion please raise your right hand you have your permit amendment very good thank you all appreciate you I sincerely appreciate Meredith and Tom's finally review of the material was really appreciated to get that just tonight so thank you you're welcome thanks Mars you alright yeah thank you very much I can't wait I can't wait to do that traditionally for absolutely no reason well so the next item of business on our agenda is the for Vermont College of Fine Arts at this point I'm going to recuse myself and step down and will allow the applicant to come forward and Kate will take over good luck thank you Dan alright welcome everybody this is an application for minor site plan and conditional use review for the Vermont College of Fine Arts 36 College Street so what I'm going to do is just for the benefit of everyone here say what site plan review and conditional use review are and then I'll just outline how we'll proceed from there so that everybody knows when they will get to say their piece so with that site plan review is a type of review that looks at a project's configuration and its purpose in order to understand biking, walking or driving landscaping and screening lighting and design this review evaluates the project against site plan standards and for those following along at home site plan review is section 320 of our 2018 zoning regulations so then conditional use review is a type of review for uses that may be suitable in a given location with appropriate conditions it has standards to evaluate the impact of utilities traffic and character of the neighborhood and that is section 330 of our 2018 zoning regulations so what I'm going to do is swear in witnesses and others who may wish to testify on this then we'll get an overview of the project from Meredith we'll hear from the applicant about the application from anyone in support of the project any questions as we go and toward the end we will walk through the staff report focusing especially on any question marks that remain very good so with that I will swear in the witnesses so anyone wishing to testify on this application please raise their right hands anyone just listening if you'd like to come to the microphone later would have you sworn in now would have okay very good so do you solemnly swear that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties and perjury okay very good so anyone else is here I just also remind you to sign it if you haven't already okay so with that I'll turn to Meredith for an overview of the application key issues so the main reason this is coming is that the first parking is a conditionally used in the mixed use residential district but it is also sort of outside of the box application and that we do not have a general provision in our current regulations for a temporary use other than construction purposes but Vermont for agency of transportation who is looking for a interim location for a number of employees as it got bumped out of the National Life Building with the fire and the water damage up there and they're looking for a permanent solution but they're not quite there yet so this is not you know they're not looking to convert the tennis courts at this time because we do have a general definition for temporary use of our regulations which says that everything has to be able to revert back so you couldn't even tell the use was there the Vermont College of Fine Arts is asking to be able to use this for for parking and temporarily which means that they're asking to not have to do new fencing or new landscaping because inherently those things if they're temporary they'll be able to extract them very well and have the use not be viewable you know keep one reason we're saying this is a standalone application is because in the permanent history there is a master plan under the old regulations for an academic institution PUD there's a whole permanent process for that but that has expired so they can't make use of that either do you know what year that was it's in here I want to say it was 2013-2014 okay listen because I like that it was a while ago but it wasn't it wasn't ages ago right it wasn't years ago 2013-2014 they applied to amendment and it wasn't ages ago it wasn't ages ago right it wasn't years ago 2013-2014 they applied to amend their old AI PUD master plan yep it was under that to get among other things a permit to convert the tennis courts to parking now that permit has been used up they made some of the changes they converted the tennis court area they paved it over but they didn't complete anything right so that permit expired and they can't make use of it anymore and they're not 100% sure that they're actually gonna include that in the next master plan so in a way this is a little preview of something we're gonna be discussing in the future but right now what we're looking at is a request for a temporary use which is why they haven't used if it were a permanent use and it's a it's sort of like it's outside of the box but it wasn't something where I felt it made sense for me to deny it and then have it be brought here anyway under appeal and then it made sense to bring it here and let you take a look at it thanks Meredith so we are starting from scratch with this for those who may remember the previous discussions great so I'll just have you introduce yourself and then give us a little bit of time so I'm Katie Gustafson I work at Vermont College of Fine Arts I've actually worked there for about 20 years several different jobs and currently I'm the vice president for campus planning and I've been in this role for about two years give or take and so one of the things I've been doing for about two years I think we're a little below that right now all but one program are low residencies so they're not all on campus at one time so given that we have 12 buildings they often are empty unless we have students on campus so it's really been part of our business plan right from the university was there community College of Vermont was there which were large institutional tenants that took up two of our large buildings and since they've left we've tried very hard to have the state come in and they are there now in their CAPS capacity which is a training program that they run for all state employees we have entertained all kinds of different possibilities over the last few years none of which have come from fruition but right now I've basically said I'd love to do whatever I can to get a tenant there and what they need right now is a temporary location that's not ideally what I would have come to campus I'd love somebody to permanently move in or at least in addition to some other projects that they're hoping to accomplish the state is considering using our location as a swing space as they attempt to eventually find a permanent location for the agency of transportation and then potentially use it for other groups as they do other construction projects so in talking with them one of their biggest concerns is parking again because our programs come and go and they're not there all the time there are sometimes when it's fairly easy to find a parking place up at the college and then there are other times when it's much more challenging and for them to feel like this is a really good location for their AOT folks parking was something that they wanted us the college to in sort of thinking about this I thought maybe we could just talk about it in a temporary because the leases are going to be temporary because this is something that the college has contemplated doing turning the tennis courts into permanent parking I actually thought it was an interesting way to try it out because even though I would like to see it be parking that's not everybody at the college does not agree position on that and this would allow us a period of time to use it that way to determine if it's if it's effective if it works well for the neighborhood if it works well for the college in tenants so I sort of see it as a way to try something out that doesn't mean that it's going to be that way forever so okay great could you briefly speak to the layout of the parking I know that we have some images here but I mean I actually I tried to in our former master plan it was it was slightly more complicated than this and based on the space and the requirements I knew I had to meet this was the most straightforward way to accomplish it this leaves and I would have to do some math which is beyond me at this point but it leaves more than enough space for basically an entry lane and an exit lane so there just would be you know two-way traffic would be no trouble at all so in doing that I was able to carve out 22 spaces on the tennis court surface and then reorganize some of what had existed in front of the tennis courts into two additional handicapped parking spaces and those are the ones labeled 23 and 24 on the diagram here on ridge street correct those are handicap accessible spaces correct okay very good are there any questions from board members about about what's been presented is there going to be any signage indicating who is allowed to park there yes and all that where is that going to be located I think that we would do it in a temporary fashion certainly open to ideas I drove by the I think it's one of five state street the state lot that is temporary right now and I saw sort of the metal poles with the placards on it which indicated reserved parking places I imagine doing something like that and so temporary I missed it in here temporary is a year or two years I think that based on what Meredith and I have talked about the permit at this point it's very hard to pin the state down I wish I could tell you that it was you know going to be one year or it was going to be six months but they have not been able to tell me the length why not develop the parking lot that was proposed five years ago I mean I would love to do that it's a matter of really whether or not that's a priority for the college and just in terms of the capital funds that we have that would be a significant investment I think to do all the things that we would need to do to make it permanent between the fencing the screening you know any of the other potential storm water drainage issues there might have what you're doing without doing that is the reasons why we had conditioned it with those you know screening and so forth it was so that it would be compatible I'm not sure what you're proposing just like just parked there as it is no screening the additional lighting doesn't sound like a good deal for the neighborhood well I mean I guess what I would to speak to that because I understand that and I you know I'm a resident of Montpelier and I care very deeply about our neighborhoods and the people that live here to the success of the college to get a state lease in I would you know and if we had the funding to do all of that right now I would you know happily do that and it is a very challenging time in higher education and so we are really looking at every avenue that we can to keep the college going and so and it is temporary so but temporary one year two years you know can slide considerably two years is not really a short period of time well I I hear you just a couple of questions yep I can imagine during the first snowfall you're going to have to worry about how to plow and all that has any consideration to give to that and the second is when it does snow how will people know where the parking spots are ie that you park in the right spot and don't go over the park go over the tennis court into the grass or something like that we actually already plow it we have for years and so so it is cleared and is it you could like to let in between the tennis court and the other services around the tennis court we plow right to the edge of the tennis court so the snow banks become sort of a natural barrier to any place where people might try to and they wouldn't be able to got you okay so we're talking a little bit about what temporary means and we're talking a little bit about the needs of potential future tenant and also this is a pilot project is that correct okay so I want to highlight something that's in the staff memo have you seen the staff memo great so on page 9 of that memo there's some suggestions I want to make sure I understand this per your cover letter you've said that the 50 spaces required by this potential tenant can actually be accommodated in existing parking spaces about three quarters of the time is that right so when we're talking about using the tennis courts as parking for all intents and purposes that's for the 25% of the time when those spaces are otherwise occupied when the other 50 spaces are taken by other things right can you say it one more time certainly yeah so most of the time if they were to move in tomorrow and you didn't convert the tennis courts you have plenty of parking spaces but that's true for only 75% of the time right and part of that 75% of the time is very predictable because we have our academic calendar and we know exactly when people are going to be on campus other times it's a little less hard it's a little harder because CAPS as a training center might have 10 people coming in and upwards to 100 people coming in so there's just an element of you can't predict exactly what's going to happen on any given day so dedicating a specific area to the state would make it I think well I know that it would make it a place they would really consider our ability to provide them with dedicated spaces will in the end I think play the biggest role in them deciding to come to the college or not so a scenario where the tennis court spaces are only used on an as needed basis sounds like it would not be what you're seeking it certainly would not be my first choice because the state might say that doesn't work for us if that's what I was given I would sell it as best I could but it certainly in terms of just the college's resources would be a more difficult scenario to manage other questions from the board I'm just going to say that I'm having trouble with the scope of this project two years does not work I think that would be a necessarily a ending of this use and the then board five years ago did it and was very careful and the design that was generated at that time was much more appropriate and useful for the temporary law will be followed for a couple of years and they will have received change in use there for that stripped down part in a lot which will probably withstand a different norm that's my concern and I understand your concern coming from the college administration's standpoint you got to make more and I feel that this project as proposed is just that and just in case it wasn't clear if we did want to make it permanent we would most certainly come back through the appropriate process at that time because at this point it is even though I'm only in my first draft at the campus master plan at this so at this point that's good overview and we're getting our bearings with some of these questions what I'd like to do next is invite anyone else to testify who is here to do so just to make sure you're under no obligation I just don't want to forget you there is no pressure just options and you can always later on if there's something that comes up that you decide you want to speak to we'll leave the microphone on great thank you so I would like to propose that we do next if there aren't any other questions is to walk through the staff report Tom do you have a question? I don't know if we'll go up to the staff report yeah staff report contains some items that we need to evaluate more and discuss as a board and we have basis of information where we can start from that so I'm just going to go in order and look at the things in red even though there are some first issue raised is on page 7 of the staff report and it indicates that the driveway between the tennis court and ridge street is 15 feet long and the question raised there is whether that provides adequate space for queuing during the arrival and departure times when most folks will be using this it's up to us to determine whether that's sufficient to prevent queuing on the street for this size parking lot and so we want to know what folks from the board think of that whether it's an issue the basis to judge that is so the comments from did dpw weigh in on this they reviewed the whole thing and they had no issues with that part of the plan whatsoever yeah so do we agree that that 15 foot driveway is sufficient dpw thinks we accept the recommendation and advice of dpw very good then I will move on to the next section which is page 8 of our staff report which talks about parking and loading areas and it talks about the amount of parking with certain number of spaces required per square foot of the use and one thing I want to ask you is we've got a couple different numbers for the amount of square footage that would be here what that is thank you it doesn't change the number of spaces but it does pinpoint the square footage great and so the final number is 50 spaces 50 spaces which means about 30,000 square feet it's 29,000 40 day four I think 29,000 864 did you keep one for yourself I didn't okay so based on our formulas that leads to requirement for 50 spaces and the 22 spaces that are would be provided by the tennis court would be combined with 26 additional parking spaces on other locations on the campus exactly and it relies on other off street locations on the campus so one of the things that the board has the prerogative to do is parking requirements when there's a presence of transit within a quarter of a mile which there is at this location but it seems like they're going to be meeting it so it's probably is there a desire for a waiver no so a waiver is not being requested by the applicant true let's see anyone else want to comment on the waiver very good so the next item that we may wish to contemplate is a shared excuse me let me review this Meredith could you explain this part to us yeah so the issue we have here is that the old tennis court area which has been paved over to be a park to be quiet under the old parking area so it's not like it looks like so anyway that is not technically on the same parcel as the two buildings that will be using it even though it's all owned by the college they are different parcels divided by a what is for most of its all of its length they're a private street there is private but it is it divides two parcels so technically the off street parking is on a different parcel so you're supposed to have a shared parking plan in place right and to meet all the criteria of a shared parking plan includes things like that the agreement has to be between the owners and lessees for a minimum of 20 years and that you have to supply plans showing the locations of the uses or structures for which the parking shall be provided so in a sense you'd be looking at needing to know exactly where all the AOT employees for parking as well as having to be a 20-year lease that doesn't it doesn't really fit with this temporary request but there isn't a clear sort of waiver for this so it's one of those things that it's a little tricky so we are technically fulfilling the parking requirements of this use by sharing parking right that's how you're getting the off-street parking is by doing the shared parking but it's an odd situation because like I said everything's owned by the college and the other thing to keep in mind well it doesn't really come into play here but remember that both the college and the tenant who is a state of Vermont agency do also both fall under 44-13 parking is one of the things we can regulate but you can't what's the term exactly and you have the effect of prohibiting yes, prohibiting the functional use so I don't know if that would fall into place here or not but that all comes in it seems to be that the this discussion of having sort of a longer movement and so I think it's it's appropriate to note it particularly as we you know might want to think about a condition of making it clear that if this people goes you know if there's a proposal for permanent parking then it's not screaming I think that's the only one that this project should be the project that's right the biggest concern that was raised in previous testimony was that this was the beginning of the coercion into the grid which is anybody who goes to college because I had a lot better between them and there was a strong feeling toward the technical and the considerations that went into the design and the review and approval process was substantial with that with that concern so we were talking about a limited time proposal it needs to be a limited time proposal so Kevin is that an argument in favor of some sort of agreement as required by the shared parking provision or do you feel that the limited time could be captured in any permit conditions that are attached here we could discuss that I suppose as we go through okay well in one just going strictly to the shared parking issue one of the requirements for the under the new campus PUD provisions that the new master plan for Montcollegiate Fine Arts will need to have and there is a parking plan so a condition on this temporary permit could be that even if they don't intend to do it right away that the this area be included within that parking plan with that in a way is the shared parking plan if they throw in that this one area might be used for tenants in X, Y, or Z buildings or something like that in a sense the master plan is going to express the shared parking plan because it will have to lay out where all the parking wants are or could be and then if they want to change that they'll need to come back for an amendment to that PUD master plan it's just something to think about to cover the shared parking plan for future perhaps I'm thinking of the shared parking plan as being quite explicit about how this particular tenant is being served under this application and so what I was envisioning the shared parking as well as the just a map identifying the specific other lot or lots where each number of spaces would be accommodated that could then feed into the master parking plan without pre-determining because what I heard earlier is that it's not conclusive that sense courts will be part of the future master plan that's true and we could put a plan before the permits issued or would it be within X before the use commences one of those items I think it would be before the issuance of the permit the same way that would require a final site plan before issuing a permit does that make sense I think so to illustrate how the shared parking will take place it would be a map showing the tennis court spots plus where the other 26 would be located does that make sense item in red which is snow storage we've discussed you've told us that snow is already stored I think that it would be helpful for us to have that on a map as well as far as I'm concerned it can be the same map as the shared parking map if others agree it's hard to imagine a time when there isn't going to be snow but the it is one of the things that is not identified in the current application is barriers around the tennis courts when there's not snow and I wonder what plans have been discussed for delineating the parking I'm going to leave aside the screening in particular and more just talking about delineation right so the space itself like the the paved area pretty much demarcates I think one area that sort of leads into another areas where the tennis courts are connected to the basketball courts and so along that that line I could imagine cement barriers or something like just larger orange cones depending on if there if something was preferred over anything else okay and when you say concrete barriers are you talking about the types that might redirect a pedestrian when the sidewalk is closed so the ones that are about this long that's what they're called Jersey Barriers I thought that's what they're called but if that was if that was not I mean we are open to whatever makes the most sense whether I was thinking of those orange things something like that could demarcate that piece of where this cement doesn't clearly you know that it continues from the tennis courts to the basketball court I guess there isn't the fencing isn't still up there's no fencing there's no basketball the tennis court okay all the fencing got taken down well I think the snow can go off to the side right now the snow is the natural barrier I would imagine just where does the snow go onto the basketball court and then there is a the basketball court is not as long as the tennis court area so it goes on the basketball court and then sort of onto a part of the green okay so tell us again what would be the Jersey Barriers know right so right here you can see that sort of there's brass yeah there's brass on alright so you're saying there's only one place where it's really necessary to delineate because there's any risk someone would nose over into into the wrong area okay and you're also saying those would need to be removed in order to facilitate snow storage right barriers would have to be movable right okay other questions about those things alright okay um so talked about snow storage um we have talked about demarcation we've talked about some possibilities for what those barriers could be but not decided we can do that in a minute um the we're moving into the site plan Tom did you have something okay um so we're on 12 of the staff page 12 of the staff report moving into the site plan standards so there's a threshold um there's would you like to speak briefly to that your recommendation and why so um one of the um criteria that can trigger a major site plan review is construction of more than 10 new parking spaces or 2,000 square feet of a pervious surface and because I mean yes you're using this space asking to use this space for more than 10 parking spaces and it's not you're not constructing anything and so my analysis was that this would be a minor site plan but technically it's more than 10 new parking spaces so it was just it was a question for you that you're basing that upon the fact that this would be a temporary use um not even just that there's nothing there's nothing that's that was the language I was looking at you know this because this line literally is construction of more than 10 new parking spaces or 2,000 square feet of a pervious surface there's nothing being constructed right now so it seems to me that reviewing this under major site plan doesn't seem to make sense because major site plans are the big things that are triggered by that review are um due to you know solar access and shading and energy conservation we're not dealing with anything where we're going to deal with impose on those items architectural standards that's triggered by major site plan it doesn't seem to make sense to apply that here um you know street trees that's not something that we're dealing with here that's something that would be triggered under major site plan review it just didn't seem to make sense to call this major site plan review when you're not constructing anything new and all the things that are triggered by that wouldn't apply here anyway it seems sort of by default so I would agree that a very strict interpretation regarding construction would put this in the minor category um I want to know if others have opinions about whether the fact that we're changing the functional use of this space would be of enough concern to rise to the level used as a parking lot so that's the change we're seeing I mean one could make an argument that there are substantial changes taking place not based upon the fact that there's a construction project but the visual acuity provided by this new project could be of such a nature that it would rise to a more alarming level whether or not that fits into a major versus a minor application that's and that's and since it was since the surface parking is a conditional use here it felt like a lot of those concerns were already dealt with under the conditional use analysis but like I said it's so we could address the private I think so I don't think there's anything under major site plan that matters so much as the things in my opinion I don't get a vote but thank you for your anything else folks want to say about major versus minor if not we'll continue with this as a minor or make a determination I think we can reach the questions that are we feel are most relevant yeah I don't think that the minor versus major designation is particularly thank you just wanted to make sure to I was in red take very seriously red text in a memo if you ever want to get my attention so you do it okay so we're going to go through now the site plan standards and then we'll move on to the conditional use standards access and circulation has to do with how people get around whether they're on bikes or on foot and the staff comment is that pedestrians and traffic across Ridge Street has increased board may wish to condition any future extension of the use past the temporary end date on such being installed is a is a crosswalk something that can be added to Ridge Street is this sort of a ridge in west is that what we're talking about yeah well so this is you know Ridge Street where I'm seeing where I'm seeing the AOT employees crossing from this parking to their building they'd be crossing Ridge Street which right now is a private road owned by the college and at one point fairly recently it was closed to the public there was no three-way there but right now it's a three-way there's through traffic and so this was more of a you know I think that the current application meets the standards of section 3202 as it is right now like I said when we hit beyond this temporary and it's something to discuss we've got more people potentially now crossing Ridge Street and there's no there's no crosswalk there I know that that was something that was the old master plan contemplated something there's just something for you to consider is Ridge Street two-way or one-way traffic two-way yeah and there's no West Street is that correct they've actually added one at that corner okay so the cars will be stopped at West or stopped at Ridge how about the other side of Ridge Street do they have a stop sign as well as there so cars coming down from College Street yeah down College Street yeah over towards Ridge Street there is no stop sign there okay I would propose that we not condition future extensions of the use one way or another I think that when and if that comes before this board it will be a part of a bigger plan and we will know different things than we know now so we shouldn't try and predict that okay so so hey what was your suggesting that we not to tell just say what you said again sure thank you I suggest that let's walk at this time okay okay others and this wasn't something that DPW brought up okay this was something in my analysis no thank you it's good it's good that we're looking at it okay so moving on the the landscaping requirements under site plan review are only triggered for major so we are moving through them some of them are only triggered by it and we have a landscape plan by a professional landscape architect plant materials okay so are we now to item F32 of 3G site landscaping requires one shrub for every five feet of building perimeter and one tree for every 30 feet of exterior principle building exterior so this is our fun landscaping provision that we keep revisiting because there's no waiver for previously approved development where it triggers the entire site plan to be analyzed so you remember this is the one tree perfect X number of feet of building perimeter etc and we've already made decisions recognizing that the bylaws really didn't fully contemplate where there was no change as a board used our discretion rules and hopefully it's supposed to go before city council as a basic good part of our comments correct that's really for people who have been a problem for us and never and similarly there are requirements related requirements for trees to shade parking areas that for the same reason may not attach here however we have that's been raised that screening of use even temporary however temporary it ends up being is a concern in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and just overall visual impact we can discuss this further under conditional use review or we can talk about it now well I think that it has a place in both police reviews both site planning conditions and clearly what we have caught through the criteria are talking about the needs and requirements we will be sure to do that in the next section okay great so we do recognize as a board from previous experience and just discussing this tonight that screening may be appropriate and needed for this alright so what we are doing next is we're looking at page 17 item 26 section 33 of our regulations is traffic and what this does is make sure that a development doesn't have an undue adverse effect upon traffic in the area the testimony submitted is that there would be 20 additional cars in this area of campus arriving in the morning between 7 and 9am and departing between 4 and 6pm and it's noted here that the 20 additional trips is based on the increase of this one project that we are marking in other spaces but this is what is before us the testimony or the submission from the applicant is that there will be no measurable impact we do have the option of requesting a traffic impact study using our discretion as a board even though it won't be more than 50 new trips we do not have any comments from DPW concerns about traffic where this use as a parking lot when it comes to the traffic from DPW the chief of police neither have any issues especially because of the recently added stop side do any board members have questions or concerns about traffic I forgot to note that we have moved into review of conditional of the neighborhood standards which is a standard that proposed development shall not have an undue adverse effect upon the character of the neighborhood so this includes architectural compatibility which is not applicable because this is not a building but then it also includes yards, lot coverage and landscaping minimize the visual impact whereas movable concrete perhaps be an option I'm thinking this is my own idea and I love others to share their thought were you thinking about the post office I was thinking about the post office we were thinking about the post office so this is I'm sure there are other models but that would be one of the two sides that should be contemplated for that that's one idea that comes to mind but I would like to turn to other board members for ideas about landscaping and the needs we also have talked in the past about reduction of glare in these cold winter months where the lights are on when you're coming and going so Kevin go ahead I'm concerned about the about this project I'm concerned about what its long term impact will be I know it's being built as being a temporary use but temporary uses have a way of becoming permanent if not adequately monitored and controlled so I think to me that's the key issue is if it's temporary how are we going to make it truly temporary and as far as the barriers that have been discussed so far I'm not sold on I'm certainly not sold on orange barrels I'm definitely not sold on Jersey barriers the planners in front of the federal building on State Street maybe slightly better but only slightly and I don't think it addresses the concerns that were that were articulated and addressed five years ago when this project was before us at that time or the board as it was constituted at that time I could live with an adverse situation if it is of a finite length and there's enough conditions conditioning within the decision decision itself that would guarantee that maximum of whatever it would be 18 months 24 months and at which time the that use would must cease unless there was a duly there was a landscape plan that was duly took into consideration all of the factors that would keep the neighborhood in the college street area as beautiful as it is and so that's my concern I can accept the temporary use if it's truly temporary I really get nervous when I start hearing about these organized trees is that roughly what around the whole green around the whole just agree with that assessment three Crab Apple trees three Crab Apple definitely are right next to the tennis courts okay there's actually another grouping of trees I I couldn't tell you what they are yeah which is on page 14 you can see what would do well there yeah it's you know I don't want to put something in that's not going to thrive yeah I mean it wouldn't be like you have to put in like this sort of you know shrub or this sort of thing it would be to discretion that as long as it points with design as long as it's you know not a you know base of species or whatever we have under our rules but would that something the college would be amenable too yeah I would need to go back and talk to people about that but I imagine that that would be something we'd be open to okay obviously you can't plant them right now but sometime when it's available correct can you describe where I don't understand what you're suggesting sure so on the proposed site plan so it's right along the yeah along West Street tentative by sea here the fall is right along the plan I was looking at it looked just awfully skinny it says that it's 9 feet 8 inches wide yes which I think would be sufficient amount of space for and it pairs that it goes you know the length of the which is 109 feet presumably longer too because of the basketball yeah and if it reverts to a tennis court it's still appropriate to have some trucks there it's not going to be tennis again but you're absolutely correct it would not get in the way of tennis so just for a bold orientation in case you missed it in the description of materials the actual items from the applicant and once you hit the second VCFA design item everything after that are materials that staff supplied okay and I'm going to do I have that do you have the attachments I think so so this so everything after the current VCFA proposal that starts with the dean of bookmeyer banker item the plans after that are the plans under the old permit so I included them in here for some history and perspective so that when you're looking there you're seeing what the old plan was that was approached so you can actually see where back in 2013 2014 they approved adding some shrubs and fences along the area that Tom's discussing right now and you know this is a lot of times we don't look at those past permits but in this situation it seemed really appropriate to be able to give you that perspective well these are questions you know I guess I was the only person that was on the board at that time but these were the questions that we were asking at the time and there was a I mean that's where this came from we didn't design it VCFA designed it their landscape architect designed it but the design was based upon the concerns of the board not just the board there was a lot of community involvement at that time as well we're coming to the end of the things listed in red and regarding landscaping I want to see Kevin's concerns and all of our concerns I think about a temporary use let me see if I can summarize and please jump in so there is a concern that a temporary project can continue on or be rolled into a more permanent project and the risk of that is that we have things that were intended to be temporary remaining that any that there could be a condition on any permit that conversion of the parking lot to a permanent use at the college would require reapplication and the installation of permanent landscaping to be determined at the time to make to create that finite period that has been raised um yeah I mean can you just put a deadline on this permit that you just have to expire by unless yeah I think do you just require a new permit right yes I think what I'm getting at is that any screening which we'll get to um would be seen as temporary screening and reevaluated to avoid the rollover effect okay thank you I'm just trying to I'm also trying to make sure it's something that I can write at the end okay make sure something I can draft that any screening that is part of a temporary lot not automatically be considered the appropriate screening if the lot becomes permanent and having some sort of condition that not only uh has an end date for the temporary use in the permit but further says and when there's a reapplication the temporary landscaping can't carry over has to be reevaluated right right yeah that brings us to the question of what what would temporary screening what would constitute appropriate temporary screening and we've had ideas for concrete planters a la the federal building we've heard concerns about those um because there has been extensive work in the past on what's appropriate the site and we've also heard from you that you are not not able to commit at this moment to um the other pieces so where I'm going with this is that I might propose requesting return as um mentioned by Tom it could include some sort of movable barrier between the tennis court and the basketball court that is prettier than a concrete planter this three feet tall could you it how does this pass you're right on target from my perspective Kate and um I think that the college needs to do just what the chair has articulated which is to provide a temporary landscaping plan and not just assume that because it has the word temporary as part of the application but that means you get a free ticket on this one because you know you need to make it look like it fits especially if it's two years I may that concerns me the two years if between now and then you discover it's only going to be six months or eight months or whatever or a year then then maybe this board would have a different feeling about it but yes it is in you know something like a split rail fence that's movable with a with a with a with a platform that keeps it upright because it's a heck of a lot nicer than than a Jersey barrier but there you can do a lot of things with wood so perhaps we could modify and say landscaping or screening because we're talking about screening as much or more so than plants is that correct would that capture and it's not just screening to blog view but also as a definition of where the parking area is right the parking area and west street along that to define the boundary define the boundary and also create create the definition physically as well as for visually right yeah just one question I think part of the reason why I hadn't given a whole lot of thought about what those things might be is because in in thinking about this Monday through Friday state office parking so that on the weekends and in the afternoons it's gone there's literally no evidence of it being there so I just just to make sure if we're go down this road and I'm going to come back with a proposal I want to make sure that it would be more agreeable if there was actually something there that demarcated it in a way rather than it just when they're gone it is exactly how it is right now does that make sense what I'm asking are you asking whether it's necessary to remove those screening on Saturday I'm assuming if I'm going to do screening they're going to stay and my goal originally when I was contemplating it Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm when they were gone it would look like it does right now gone there's no evidence so that you know for the neighborhood for all intents and purposes just those and I'm that is honestly just the way I was sort of looking at it but what I'm hearing from this board is that the way you need to approach it is to say how can we make some whether it's screening or landscaping or barrier so it's really clear where the area is in a way that the one thing that we as a board have to be very careful about is not to get into designing projects we can give advice we can give you our opinions our concerns our fears our whatever as far as what you want to propose to this board that is between you and your college colleagues but I think it's what this board is articulating with regards to this project is there's a concern and that concern has to do with the fact that as you know the college of fine arts campus and particularly the green is one of the jewels of Montpelier and what you don't want to do what we don't want you to do is start encroaching on this in a way that just doesn't fit and as far as what type of screening you use we're making suggestions movable screening is probably a good thing but probably jersey barriers are probably not and I want to make sure we're hearing your point which is that originally you didn't come forth with something because you were thinking temporary not just on a say a year basis but also Monday through Friday it's up Saturday Sunday it's down Monday through Friday think of a screening that would accommodate that so I think what you are hearing from us that you are correct that you are hearing that in lieu of that temporary approach would so prefer would so much prefer the screening that it could stay up on Saturdays and Sundays too and we certainly hear Kevin's arguments too about the overall character which I know is a priority for many including you so what I would like to propose is that we ask the applicant please come back with a screening or landscaping plan as we've discussed for the purpose of delineating the parking area as well as minimizing the aesthetic impact the other things that we've asked for to be represented are a so that would be what I just said would be the priority for the next meeting if in addition you could provide for the next meeting as well as showing where the snow storage space would be I believe those are the things that we've discussed as needing as outstanding and needing to be shown the main in the other areas that we've reviewed we've Kevin go ahead I would just also like maybe a little more definition on what the college is thinking about a time frame for this Thank you that would be useful for general evidence we've resolved the other outstanding required regarding minimum parking requirements regarding traffic impacts the 15 foot driveway square footage being leased to AOT and so what I've just the things I've just listed before are what we need to further evaluate this application and I will move for the chairs that's the issue of all those things are we so we have to continue to a specific date yes we're continuing to February 4th do we need to confirm with the applicant that that is an acceptable time frame in which they can get this information and here we continue this to the one after that thank you I will turn the question to you we can talk to you again as soon as February 4th which is our next meeting would that be sufficient for you okay so then a motion from the board to certainly would be in order so moved motion by Tom second by Deb all those in favor please signify by raising your right hands any opposed none abstaining alright thank you we will see February 4th then thank you thank you thank you thank you oh alright another business no just I just need to make sure that we visit this okay good so the other business we now know that our next meeting is Monday February 4th are there any other announcements just a reminder that in addition to the continuation of the 36 college street application the only other item of business on that date will be DRB training DRB training the public is welcome to review and submit one yes thank you Meredith that's what I was going to say as well if you this is the moment you've been waiting for to learn about the zoning why we have it how it works how it relates to itself I think it's going to be a great overview both for those of us who've worked with it and for people who may be observing it from afar but tune in well it's it's a it's a project that's in process as well there's a lot of planning commission done with making revisions after being through the rest of the hit list of items that need to be addressed which is more which is more you know an and needs to be an or or there's something that is clearly a typo or something that will easily fix so the planning according to the planning commission address them they've been bumped on the city council agenda to I think February mid to late because of other pressing matters but yeah they're being addressed perhaps we could get a a brief update on that if it fits in on the February 4th though I realize as is we might need to shorten up our training to believe in that place yep alright so we'll move we adjourn second motion by Deb second by Tom all those in favor please raise your right hands your way okay we are adjourned thank you all