this is part of the library project and as part of that, it sub-devices a lot. As you mentioned, three separate parcels. The first will be the future site of the community center library. The second being the future right-of-way, 60 foot right-of-way. And then the remainder of parcel B on the eastern side of the library. The sub-division talks about the 60 foot right-of-way in support of the market street, which is an 80 foot right-of-way. In general, it's applied to this application. There are a number of exhibits included in the packet for the board, all of which are marked draft. These are for the board to understand whether the project can comply with the relevant subdivision standards. The remainder of the site plan will be reviewed administratively under form-based code site plan standards. So what we're reviewing tonight is the type of street the applicant is requesting a support street and that it's a three-lot subdivision. Correct. And the primary exhibit we're requesting approval is the first exhibit, which shows the three lots and the existing easements on the lot. So the first staff comment is relevant to page five of the packet. If you could pull that up, Zalala. This shows a number of changes to the easements on the property. Andrew, do you want to talk about that? Sure. So these are kind of for illustrative purposes. This is what will be changed upon closing. The Allard Square easement and the stormwater easement will be moved off-site. So those will not appear in the final, as well as the utility easement. There will be an additional easement on the northwestern part of the parcel for the Allard Square access. But as part of this application, you're not proposing to change the easements. Correct. Yes. So the staff recommends that we require you to abandon the annotated plan instead record the plan with the actual intended easements of the property. The applicant can find with that. So I think what Andrew is saying is that the first plan in the packet is the intended subdivision plan. And then the annotations are something that they plan to do in the future. Changing easements does not require a board approval. So again, the approval item is the first unannotated version. And the last sentence, I think, of the staff comments. Page three, staff comments. Board recommends a requirement that the street be constructed prior to the occupancy of the first building with the frontage on the street as the applicant agrees with that comment. Yes. At the bottom of page five, that should have been in red. Staff recommends the board approve the applicant's request for a support street type. I don't know if the board has any questions about that. It's a pretty exhaustive narrative from the applicant. Any questions about the support street? Well, yeah. I mean, I'd love to hear more about why that's, why we think that that's a good idea if you've got kids coming up. We talked about this last time. I still have the same concerns I had last time. Go back to the map, Delilah, so we can see. So I don't think that's the most recent version. It may be a later scroll, Delilah. The last page is the most recent one. That's correct. Yep. So the earlier concept above showed, for example, on street parking to the southern side of the curb cut on the eastern side. We had a discussion with the landowner as well as potential developer on the eastern side. Talking about what might be the safer streetscape. We eliminated parking on the southern side as well as created a bump out on both. And to your question, John, on the overall reasons why, you know, kind of the design is the way it is. Market Street is the primary street. This means that access control is prioritized on Market Street over the new street as Market Street is designed to support a higher level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Market Street was the focus of many years of design and community input. And the vision is that it serves as the primary bicycle and pedestrian street in the city, not as a secondary street, which is why access is controlled. No new curb cuts on Market Street. The new street within the hierarchy is envisioned as a secondary street, which provides access for 180 Market Street, the school district, Allard Square, and developments to the east. It features several strategies to calm traffic on the street to the safety concern. Narrow travel lanes, 10 feet. This reduced space makes car drivers more cautious. On street parking, which creates a physical barrier between pedestrians and bicyclists. It narrows the street and it creates a vertical element. These vertical elements, trees and street lights, it may have a reduced horizon, makes car drivers more cautious, signals slower urban environment. Also, I was cited by our project manager, federal transportation page on traffic calming, lists, transportation.gov, lists, narrowed, reduced travel lanes, and on street parking has traffic calming methods. And also Institute of Transportation Engineers fact sheet on on street parking has a traffic calming measure. And I don't know, Paul, if you have any kind of additional thoughts on design. I think it's generally, you know, this is consistent with the complete streets approach. And again, with the traffic calming and the near, there were. Driver lanes are intended to slow traffic and enhance safety, especially, you know, with the uses involved and the pedestrians involved. So it's just consistent with that approach. And that's what we have here for design. Okay. You're the professionals. I'm concerned about kids and their safety. And I don't see, I get the concepts that you've just said. I don't see it working. That's why it's just, it may be my grade school brain thinking about how I went to school, but I didn't stay on the sidewalks. And a skinnier street doesn't mean I'm safer. It means there's less room. I, you know, I'm, I'm just, this is just going back to when I was a fourth grader or fifth grader. And it just, it doesn't, I, I, I would be all four speed tables, that kind of thing. I'm sure the city doesn't want speed tables. But, but, you know, I think there's other ways to calm traffic to make sure that they understand that they're in school zone. That, and, and this doesn't appeal to me. That's all. I think we do have a foot, a foot path on the, on the East side, which is, I know it's intended.  Now you've got, and now you've got a curb cut on the East side zoning code left us much room in terms of the street types to choose from. That's, that's it for staff comments, right? Yep. Any other comments from the board before I open up for the public? We did receive a public comment from David W. Ruge, from Rogue Esquire. I haven't had time to read that, but we will. We just received it before the meeting. Would anyone like to comment on this project? Come on up. Make room. Thank you. I didn't think it was going to be. Good evening and thank you for hearing. State your name for the record. My name is Lee Freeman. I'm a resident of South Burlington, a member of the South Burlington Public Library Board of Trustees. Hello. I'd like to speak out against any additional curb cut or any road whatsoever, no matter how skinny it is or what kind of bumps you've added to the sides. The current plan or what was the current plan or what is the current plan as far as I know where the entrance is off this small road to the right of the image there will serve the area better. The idea of adding curb cuts to improve traffic seems anathema to me as a South Burlington resident. Has anybody driven on Williston Road? It's all curb cuts.  It has the most accidents of anywhere else in the state. Please don't add a road to this plan. It would also entail additional cost and money to the taxpayers myself. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you, Lee. Are there any other public comments regarding this project? You state your name for the record. Hi, Elizabeth Fitzshell, chair of the South Burlington School Board. I appreciate your indication of receiving the letter from our council, David Rue, and we'll appreciate your consideration of that. I'm really here just to reaffirm what's contained in the letter, but also to say that I think I became aware of some, I'm sorry. Just so I understand. Can you clarify are you representing yourself or are you representing the school in this comment? I'm kind of on the short end of the stick because David Rue and David Young were not available in town. So I'm representing the school, representing the school. Yes. But what I did want to say is I think there was some feedback that was received based on a city council meeting last night. And I want to be clear that the district in the letter that you receive from our council is not advocating for denial or delay in any way. We are asking the DRB to consider the concerns we've expressed in the letter with emphasis primarily on the parking, the additional three spaces on the one side as well as the primary access street. Our primary role is really focused on students, but additionally our staff and parents are guardians who access the property. And we share Mr. Wilkins concerns about student safety with the current design. So again, there's no new information here that the school has not shared before with the city relative to the MOU that was signed in September, or the addendum that was approved by the school board in late May around these types of safety issues. So we do appreciate your consideration and I think the letter will explain the specifics once you have a chance to review that. Elizabeth, could I ask you about the parking issue? Could you articulate that? You're concerned about parking? I think it's the additional three spaces. I believe I'm really bad on these charts, but on the opposite side of the curb cut from a visibility standpoint and traffic. So just to clarify for the board, the board is reviewing the street type, not the street design. So I think that these comments are really valid. I think that the and the applicant should consider these comments and staff will consider these comments in the site plan approval. But the conversation about the street type is really what we're having tonight rather than the specific street design. So I just want to redirect a little bit, though I still encourage public comment because I think it's all relevant to, you know, the overall success of the project. Thank you, ma'am. Anything else, Elizabeth? No, thank you. Andrew, anyone else has a public comment? Come ahead. You state your name for the record. Thank you. I'm John Dinklage. I was a former member of the DRB. First, I'd like to make sure I understand the issue. The question is simply allowing a curb cut off the auxiliary road leading into central school area or putting one on Market Street to serve the commercial property to the east. Is that correct? So a curb cut on Market Street is not allowable under the LDRs. A curb cut on Market Street is not allowable under the LDRs. I was going to support that position. Yes. Thanks, John. I'd like to speak to the concerns that Mr. Ewing Wilkin brought up. I don't know how many school children are going to be walking on that street to central school, but ask yourself, what are the safety issues facing a child getting to the intersection before they walk into that road? I think they're major. Market Street will be a busy street with a lot of parking. And I think anybody who is going to navigate Market Street to get to that point leading into the school will have learned how to survive on city streets. Well, if this curb cut is not allowed, the kids or whatever concerns you have are still going to be transferred to the children getting to that point using Market Street. My bigger concern is the size of the street. Excuse me? My bigger concern is the size of the street. I think the narrowness of the street is my bigger concern. I understand that the curb cut is almost a requirement in order for Allard Square to work. And I think the amount of traffic there is insignificant compared to what there will be on Market Street. So the curb cut itself is not my concern as much. I apologize if that's others' concerns, but that's not my primary concern. My primary concern is that I don't think making this two 10-foot drive lanes is a good idea. I think they should be wider. And I think the problem is the size of the, well, the whole problem is the size of the parcel we're trying to put a library on. I mean, this all comes down to the fact that we're picking the wrong parcel. But that's not, that's a whole different issue. But if we had a reasonably sized parcel, we wouldn't have the parking problems that you all have been shucking and jiving with. We wouldn't have the problem with this entry street being very busy. I mean, you've added a lot of parking back there. You've added bus traffic that's trying to get down a 10-foot drive lane. It's a tight street. Admittedly, that may make it slower. I hope it does. I think there are other ways to traffic calm the street. And I think putting more parking along the street is not a positive idea either. So my concerns are less about the curb cut and more about the actual type of street, which is what we're here to make a judgment of. Perhaps I misunderstood. I was really only speaking to the curb cut. I don't have a problem with that, John. Thank you, John. Any other public comments? Come on up. State your name for the record. New Brazil past member of the rec path committee. That's what it was called at the time with regards to the width of the street. Comments were made initially with regards to complete streets, federal requirements or design criteria and so forth. The fact of the matter is that every place where streets have been narrowed, the safety issues have gotten better. That's been proven nationally with regards to vehicle traffic and with regards to pedestrian traffic. In particular, there was an awful lot of work as was mentioned earlier done on making market street accessible for automobiles, buses, bicycles, pedestrians and wheelchairs. And when you put any kind of a street off of that, it is very advantageous to keep the distance that those vehicles have to go across as short as possible. So I think the approach is the right approach. And it's the one that I already stuck with. It also very clearly signifies the fact that market street is the main place. It's the place that is going to have the right away most of the time, etc. And anybody using the quote side street should recognize it's a side street and treat it as such. I'd like to comment on this. Come on ahead. Wait one second. Let me get this. Sorry, Tim. You're next. Hi, Ken Brayverman. It's not a Brayverman development. How's everyone doing tonight? I guess my main question related to this is if you guys are proceeding to approve this on a preliminary or final subdivision approval, does that address access to adjacent lots? It does not. So the DRB authority under the sections outlined in the staff comments 8.04 B2 and 11.03 limits the DRB authority in the final application determining the street type, not the specific street design. We believe that any restrictions on access to lot B made as part of this final application would be premature as the design for lot B has not been presented. I don't have the language in front of me, but I believe isn't part of a subdivision approval. Are there other requirements that the lots that are created need to meet all the requirements of the land development regulations? The lots need to be developable, yes. Right. So if we're not assured adequate access, how do we know? It has been demonstrated that access is available. The exact design of that access I think would be premature to say exactly what that access should look like right now. Would you agree with that? No. I mean I think what we're struggling, we're in an interesting position because the city and the school board have an MOU or an agreement and two organizations within the city have agreed to limit the access of a third party's right to use a public street. I know what I think would be helpful both to the audience and to the board is if you could do a point and tell. Oh sure. Sure. Either go up there. Yeah. I'd be happy to. Just pull the microphone right out of there. So within the, I wish I had a bigger plan, but within the auspices of the overall city center project, this is, so you have Allard Square here. The city's proposed city hall and library here, which we're 100% supportive of. You have the proposed, what we call school street, which would not only provide new access to the school but also, you know, restore the access to Allard Square and obviously provide it to the city's project. But right here, as you can see, this is T5. It's the highest density core of the city's new downtown, which requires, you know, mixed use, high density, pedestrian oriented buildings. And a key part of that was designing this, you know, beautiful festival type street, which is Market Street currently under construction, which was really designed to have no curb cuts. So the gentleman's, you know, point before that he said, Hey, curb cuts, you know, it's going to cut everything up and make it difficult. Totally agree. And the design of Market Street was particularly laid out and the form based code is designed in a way that precludes any curb cuts along Market Street. Well, that essentially creates the only way to get to this property is through this street and an adjacent street that's running parallel to School Street, which is the extension of Garden Street. So all this development here, which is the core of the whole city center project really uses these two streets to access the center area of this property, which will be parking services, you know, back a house for any retail users. Trash removal, you know, it's kind of the, you know, the machine of the whole downtown needs to be kind of accessed through this curb cut. So we don't really know the background because we weren't included in the MOU discussions, but the city and the school agreed that this should be a secondary access only. And frankly, we just don't know what that means. And, you know, where I think respectfully saying, Hey, time out. Like the most important thing is everyone raised was safety of the students. Well, we're totally on board there. But we also want to create a situation where, you know, no one's really disappointed in how this is going to play out like either we're going to be disappointed because we're not going to be able to get to our buildings. And then you guys will be, you know, let down in terms of the densities we could achieve and the mixed use components of the project. The school obviously has concerns and they don't want to be let down. So why not like actually focus on how do we get kids, you know, to John's point, you know, I was the same way. I didn't stay on the sidewalk. You know, I would have been cutting through here. And we think that that's likely going to happen. And, you know, why, why put the kids on the street if they could be going across? There's going to be a bike path on Garden Street. Like why not get them to that bike path? And focusing on limiting this, you know, we have concerns about that to go on the record of how that's going to work. And, you know, we would rather focus on the issue at hand, which is safety and pedestrian connections and getting the kids from point A to point B in a safe place. Anyone else have any comments? Tim? Sorry. That's all right. You want to, I will say that Ken, Ken just stole almost all of my thunder. But I will make note of the fact that, you know, for 20-something years, South Burlington Realty, the parent of South Burlington City Center has been giving the school access across our property at no cost. They have no easement. We're perfectly fine with that. We like the school. We want to give access to the school. It is a little bit difficult, though, to hear a conversation after that generosity that our access may be limited. And again, as Ken pointed out, I don't know what secondary access means. We were not a part of the discussion. But we would like to know what's being implied or inferred or said. We need to have complete and full access. As Ken pointed out, what we refer to as Block B is limited on two sides, on the school side and on Market Street side. And there's only two ways to get into it. And on the garden street side, the curb cut has to go back into the T4 section. There's no curb cut in T5. So that's a significant concern of ours. The second one, as Ken pointed out, was safety. Currently, the driveway in is 24 feet wide with no curbs and no sidewalks. It's currently not a safe situation. I think you ought to move as quickly as possible to build what's being proposed to make the situation much safer, quite frankly. And as Ken suggested, we've had dialogues. We think the best route to get kids into the school either on bikes or walking is to take the Garden Street cycle track, 10-foot wide cycle track down to the end of Garden Street, turn left and have a path that runs along the school's property line right into where it meets up with the end of the driveway. Which is not precluded by having the street, correct? That is correct. We are comfortable with this street design. You just don't want to be told no curb cut on the street for you. Basically, that's what it comes down to. We need to understand what secondary access is. We need to have our access wholly unrestricted. So from that curb cut off of what we refer to as School Street, our access needs to be unrestricted. How about if it were restricted only with respect to heavy vehicles?  You see, I don't have it in mind. I know we saw the Garden Street when you were here with one of your preliminary plans. We saw the Garden Street, but I really don't have it in mind. I wish this were bigger. What is the problem having your big service vehicles coming in from Garden Street? You will have access to Garden Street. We're about to access Garden Street to access the lot that's undeveloped right now. That's what I'm talking about.  You have a problem getting to your lot from Garden Street for your major service vehicles. Perhaps. I mean, until we do the engineering, but if you have to get snow removal vehicles in there, if you have to get trash haulers in there, if there are restaurants on the ground floor that maybe need service through the back door, we had envisioned an alley and I think the form-based code commission committee had envisioned an alley that runs along the back of, if I can step up and point this out to you guys. We would envision an alley that could run along the back of the buildings straight out to Garden Street. And that's what I kind of recall. Is there a problem, Marla, with doing that? I realize we're getting a little far appeal from a narrow focus on this street, but I think contextually we're crazy not to consider what they're raising as we look at this. And I forget what happened last time. Is there a problem with that alley that he's talking about? Well, there were other issues related to the zoning code and so we continued the meeting. Frank, as you may recall, the buildings have to face a street and one of the things, we're way off topic here, but one of the issues is some of those internal buildings on a lot and it wasn't necessarily this lot, we're going to look out onto sort of sub streets inside, but we're off topic here. What I'm getting at is this, to have a blinders focus, and I understand the staff frustration with broadening it out, but to have a blinders focus on just this street and leaving the issue just hanging that's being raised here, potentially raises havoc with a major piece of Market Street. Now, I don't know, does somebody else want to speak to it? I can just stop. So one suggestion I could make is to perhaps get some council opinion on the DRB's authority in this matter and the board could have a deliberative session and this meeting could be continued. We would support that. And then that would also give the opportunity for the board to delivery on this topic. Is there any possibility that we could, I don't know what the device is, but before we deliberate to invite the developer of the adjoining lot, I mean, you know, the school is very important, safety for the school is very important. Good faith between the school and the city is very important, but, you know, vitally important also is what do you do with, you know, this great big piece of land that's a centerpiece of the commercial development there. So my thought would be, unless you feel you have a total grasp of it, that we find some way to invite the developer to explain his exact concern with the map in front of him, excuse himself and then we have a deliberation. Is that a possibility? Can we, we can only probably do that in a public meeting, I think. I mean, we can have an in-meeting deliberation. Right. We could continue that, have that the next time, pause or deliberate after we close. I mean, it's all. Pardon me, but are you ready to tell us what's going to go on B? Like, we've looked at this as there's a form-based code. The form-based code is designed. Could I get you to, just for the microphones and the speakers? So it's interesting because we've also wrestled with the same dilemma in that it's kind of like, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? And the form-based code is written in a specific way where there's no PUDs, there's no PRDs, there's no master plan approval. And it's a rare opportunity because you guys actually understand this. Whereas most people just don't understand what I'm even talking about when I say this. But the only way to really regulate the form-based code is on a lot-by-lot basis. And we've kind of proceeded with our development plans in that light because there's no mechanism currently to have a master plan approval. So I too see the benefits of being able to roll out a plan. But then there's no mechanism to review or approve it. So where does that really, other than on a lot-by-lot basis? Until we've determined what is happening with your lot, you need unrestricted access to your lot from those two sides. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing. So if it's unrestricted, is the street size acceptable? That's where I come back to. If it's really unrestricted, if you could put it, I'm making up a number of 400 apartments on this parcel. 400 cars coming and going out of two driveways. Yep. Is this safe? The design of the street, not the curb cut. Right, totally.  Right. And is the street acceptable? Well, if you look at what's been done to make the street somewhat safer and the elimination of the parking on the, what is that, south side? Sure. Well, that makes that travel lane eight feet, nine feet wider. So you can make a wide sweeping turn on to here unrestricted on a 10-foot lane, which is totally an acceptable standard by any manual and uniform traffic control. Any AASHTA standard? Yeah, I think so. But then you have these other spaces. With regulations on street at certain hours to permit different users to get various accesses, it's a functioning street. John, would you be more comfortable if the spaces north of the curb cut were eliminated? Honestly, Ken. Yeah? One of our earlier speakers. Yeah. You couldn't speak because I know about his history. Yeah. Gotcha. I'm turning the corner on that. But I am worried about the kids' safety, particularly. 100%. Like that has to be something that we really unpack and look at and know that we all feel like we've done a good job looking at it. 100%. So I have a question back to city's attorney. Yeah. If there's nothing else, I'd like to give Andrew Paul a chance to comment on what they've heard before we discuss whether to continue this or not. Sure. I think Elizabeth, Dave Rue's letter, and I think Ken kind of laid out the need of trying to thread here is we have a school mark-hot school. I was an alumnus of mark-hot school. We want it to be as safe as possible for children. And the city's aligned with that. Developers aligned with that. School districts, of course, aligned with that. While at the same time, we're building a city center right there. So the question is, what do we do to ensure that? And the city and the MOU, it talks about secondary access. As recognizing that the school district preference would be that it's a secondary access. But don't consider that and discussion with the school district's attorney at the time. That's not a material term of agreement. That was an acknowledgement that safety in the development of the overall city center would be a priority. Safety as school children would be a priority. So I think the appropriate time to kind of have the discussion about what kind of regulatory measures we can come up with to ensure that is when the eastern properties develop. We know what's going to go there. Don't have any idea what's going to go there at this point. There's some initial concepts, but we don't know. So to go back to what Marla would say, city's position is the scope of the DRB's authority and this application for subdivision is relatively narrow as to what type of street it should be. And concerns about the eastern property and safety should be raised when those properties come in for subdivision themselves. The last comment there, Ken? Yeah, I guess the one thing I would respectfully... Excuse me for just a moment. This gentleman raised an interesting point behind the scenes. Is this just public comment or should, at this point, should the witness be sworn in? No, no, the witness is not part of this application. This is public comment. The property is owned by Tim's company. Tim is representing policy engineer. Andrew is representing the city of South Burlington. Just to clarify one point, Marla did mention council and the city has recused itself for many further legal interpretations as far as the DRB we have retained outside council to make sure that there's no conflict. I appreciate that. Ken, as a public comment, if you could come up and I'll give you one last public comment before we decide how to proceed here. Thank you. Andrew and Paul. I think the one thing that I would like to maybe respectfully differ with Andrew on is that his comment is we don't know what's going to go in that block. We actually do. In form-based code, it's very prescribed what could happen in that area. In terms of density, in terms of setback, in terms of minimum number of stories, it's going to be a high-density mixed-use center by code required. So it's not a big mystery what's going into that block. It's going to generate a lot of density. It's going to be mixed-use, meaning commercial retail and housing. And there's going to be parking, lots of it in that area. So I think kicking the cans to say, well, we'll go deal with this issue later, we're nervous about that because we think now is the time if the school and stakeholders, including us, have concerns about pedestrian safety, particularly related to students, well, let's go solve it. Let's go design a project that works. Let's not kick the can. Thank you. If there's no more public comments, I would turn to the board and said, shall we continue this to have? That'd be my wish because I concur with the last comment. Are there any specific comments, if the board chooses to, or any specific questions that I can convey to our outside legal counsel? I think the question that I have, not speaking for the rest of the board members, is what under form-based code, what the DRB, and I know you've answered this somewhat, but I want to be crystal clear on what we can and cannot do in order to, with regards to this project in the street design. I know we can't do street design, but John, any? Anything you want to return to? No, I hear Marla and I get it, Marla, but if street design is the one way we can force a design that's safe, if by me saying, I don't like that type of street in order to get a better street, we're doing the same thing. So I'm concerned about the amount of traffic that's going to come off this parcel, and I know we're not part of design, so I assume we're not part of traffic analysis. But to Ken's point, traffic analysis could be built off of the approval use for the form-based code on that parcel already. You could create something now and make a determination on traffic. So I suggest that we certainly table it for another meeting, but I think there's more to this than just whether or not, what our confines are. I think we need to understand how the process is going to work to make sure that this does end up safe. Because we have lots more in the form-based code and I know I learn every time and we've got two new members, so I think it would be a good idea to continue this. Is there a date? We can continue it as soon as the next meeting, which is July 16th or to August 20th. So if you guys have a preference. Preference would be sooner. So I would move that we continue preliminary final application, SD-1918 of the city of South Burlington to July 16th. Second. Call in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Okay, thank you very much. See you on the 16th. To agenda item number seven, sketch plan application, SD-19 of Pizzagalli Properties LLC to construct a single story, 2400 square foot short order restaurant and retail sales building on one acre, 47 tilley drive. So the one acre site is here for the applicant. Bouchard with Pizzagalli Properties. Hi Bob, how are you? Good, thank you. This is just a sketch plan, so we don't need to swear you in. We won't be taking a boat as you know. Just to let everyone know, but tell us a little bit about what you have proposed on tilley drive. So the one acre site at the top of Tilly Drive in Hinesburg Road, it's on the north side of Tilly Drive. We're proposing a single story, 2400 square foot market and deli, principally to serve our development.  We're reaching that density now where we need something there. We've got over 165,000 square feet in the development now. Another building obviously is under construction, 194 Tilly Drive, that's another 55,000 square feet. So it's going to put us well over 200,000 square feet with over 450 employees, and we'd like to add amenity. So a market and what's in the market? And deli. Yeah, what's to buy in the market? Well, the market's going to be dry goods primarily. I could envision a number of coolers along one wall, which will have drinks in it, but then all of your normal dry goods that you'd have in almost any grocery store. We're speaking with several operators right now about the location, and that's what we envision. So we envision roughly about half the space being utilized for a deli operation. So you could come in in the morning and get maybe breakfast sandwich, muffins, bagels, coffee certainly, in addition to the newspaper, and then at noon time, which will have bulk of the sales, a lot of pre-made sandwiches, and then of course, sandwiches while you wait. This is really for the people that go to these buildings and the people that work at these buildings. I think that the establishment, the operator is going to be able to serve a lot more than just the Tilly Drive developments. Obviously there's a lot of residence development at Reinsburg Road with the O'Brien Farms new development farms, a lot of development across the street. But principally, we want an amenity for the development. That's the objective. So going through the sketch plan application, what if we could address setbacks? Absolutely. Well, first of all, I'm not sure. I have copies of the rendering of the closed building. You've got it up there as well, Guwala. Thank you very much. I didn't know if anybody wanted something right in front of them versus looking up there. Is this the old barn that's out there? No. No. We wanted to utilize that, John. We couldn't. The foundation's not deep enough, and it doesn't meet code. But that was our first intent. So we said, well, if we can't utilize that barn... Coming close. Yeah, that's what we thought. So why don't we reproduce the barn kind of, well obviously, updated. Right. And that barn also was positioned right in the middle of the site. And with the city's regulations with regards to parking being behind the building, it didn't serve that criteria very well. So this does. Will the barn be demolished? Yes, it will be. So the setback waiver, you want a setback waiver? We do. We do. We've met with staff about that, and we've pretty much asked for them what the desired setback they would like to see in 25 feet was the agreed upon setback from the property line. That is from the Heinsberg Road property line and Tilly Drive property line, 25 feet back from both. So we're requesting a 25 foot waiver. So from the staff comments, just to read out loud. Staff supports the applicant's request for waiver for several reasons, including to better frame the corner and to give motorists on Heinsberg Road a visual cue that they are entering a more densely populated area. Staff considers the board to take into consideration the layout of buildings along the joining segments of Heinsberg Road and Tilly Drive when considering whether to grant such a waiver. I'm trying to zoom in so you can see the setbacks here. What are the setbacks of the adjoining segments? So some of the homes as you go north get closer and closer in. This is sort of like the first cue as you come from the higher speed section. I was actually just driving on this today and thinking about this application in it. But as Bob said, the existing barn is setback pretty far. It has a really rural feel to it and this would definitely bring it into a more visual cue entering an urban area. Kind of layout. Any questions or concerns about the request for a setback waiver from the board? I don't. I think it's the right thing to do. Thank you. That corner, I think you're right. I think as a visual cue, I think it would work very well. Okay. Should we talk about accessory use standards? Bob. So again, the full size of the building is 2,400 square feet and we're asking to have a deli also included within the store operation. And Marla and I had a couple of different conversations in that regard and we think something in the range of about 50% of the 2,400 square feet would be a reasonable request. Right. So this section that's quoted in the staff comments about accessory uses in the IC and IO districts, it says in the mixed, in the IO district those uses designated as accessory and table C2 are subject to the following standards. There is another section of the LDRs that allows within any retail business an accessory short order restaurant as long as it meets certain standards. So those standards are that it's located entirely within the principal structure. As no dedicated exterior entrance, it's limited to 3,000 square feet, 16 or fewer indoor seats and additional outdoor seating may be permitted. So staff's position after having a conversation with Bob about this, is that the definition of retail allowing a short order restaurant as an accessory use does allow up to 50% of, or I guess less than 50%, but nearly 50% as an accessory use and it's not just limited by those things that are in the staff comments. I have to take issue. I'm sorry with the staff interpretation. I've now dug a little deeper and I see with the precise references in the use table, the definition of retail space is general replies to anything that could possibly happen with the city and it gives you an absolute limit. It doesn't relate at all, for example, to the relative size of the accessory used to the building. It just puts an absolute max. If you have a 10 million square foot building, the most you can have is a 3,000 or 5,000 square foot short order restaurant. Now this is either, in answer to your question from a different context, this is either a short order restaurant or a restaurant under the use table in the IO district, a restaurant is not permitted. I'm willing to say it's a short order restaurant, but a short order restaurant is marked P-A-C-C. Now with respect to items in the IO district marked P-A-C-C, we have a very explicit limitation on the area that can be occupied by that kind of accessory use and that limit is 10% of the gross area of the building. I'm looking at page 69. If you follow through the chain of references, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. The key, the starting references on page 69, the cross reference winds up being on page 325. You follow the line near the bottom restaurant short order over to the IO district. It says P-A-C-C, which relates back to what is said on page 69 in paragraph F, and it's a 10% limit, 10% of the total area. So if you had a 30,000 square foot building, then you could have a 3,000 square foot short order restaurant that would be consistent with the definition of retail sales, but that's not what, in my judgment, I understand Frank. That's not what's applicable here. So Marla and I discussed that initially, what I had presented to Marla was that we considered the principal structures to be the principal structures within development. I'm sorry? Within the development. Not just this building. The larger development. The entire development is the PUD, and we said the principal structures are in excess of 160,000 square feet. 10%, 16,000 square feet. We say I can only put 3,000 square feet. Wait a minute. What's the principal structure? All the buildings within the subdivision. Well, what the language of the regulation is, the percentage of the principal structure, singular. If you consider the principal structure, the buildings in the subdivision. I don't think that's tenable, but we'll see if the board does. You can proceed with that argument. Strikes me as not a reasonable one, but I'll stop. Okay, all right. So anyways, we discussed that as an option, and Marla thought that this was a better route potentially. I just think that 240 square feet within this very small building is limited for a deli operation. 10 by 24, really, really tight, and the building's quite small as it is. So I wouldn't dispute that, but maybe you can't have a deli operation is what I'm saying, at least under the LDRs. But, you know, you've got seven people on this board, so you might be in good shape. Any other questions about the accessory use? Is retail allowed in I.O.? It is. So if this was principally retail building, then you would be... If it was purely retail, there's no question you would be approved. Right? And if it's... I don't mean there's no question you'd be... You gotta still go through the process, but... And then sub to retail is what you were talking about earlier. If it's retail, you can have an accessory use. I got it. Okay. I see the two sides of this argument. Okay. Move on to traffic, Bob. I'm talking about the traffic in staff notes, traffic overlay, district regulation. The documents the board discussed, whether they concur with staff's assessment, should the board disagree, the property may generate no greater than 45 vehicle trips per hour. The applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with as maximum as part of the next application for this project. What... So staff has looked at the traffic overlay, district zone three, which is zone three regulations apply to parcels of private driveways or cul-de-sacs. Zone three is basically a strip along Hinesburg Road. The property gets caught in zone three because it touches Hinesburg Road, though it does not have a private driveway or cul-de-sac off of Hinesburg Road. So staff's interpretation of traffic overlay, district zone three, is that it does not apply to this property because it's not accessed with a private driveway or cul-de-sac, but that is an interpretation. So we just wanted staff's, the board's input on that interpretation on whether the traffic overlay district applies. Yes. So if it did apply... Then they would have to... So I understand this. The traffic overlay zone three did apply. Then they cannot generate more than 45 vehicle tickets per hour. Is that correct? Right. So you can show the zone three. I assume Bob, you agree with staff's assessment regarding this? Yes. Okay. Why do we have that? Anyone else? You're just gonna... Access and... Do you still want to show them? No. Not if everybody's cool with it. Access and circulation. Staff recommends the board request the applicant narrow the driveway to a maximum of 24 feet. Does the applicant agree with that assessment? That's fine. Thank you. Obviously we will review the plans with the fire department, but that's fine. So your swing might not be wider than that. That's the last staff comment before we discuss further. Is there any comments from the public regarding this application? Yes. Dave, could you identify yourself? Say it again. Identify yourself for the record. Please, Dave. Excuse me? Identify yourself for the record. Dave Crawford, chair of the Natural Resource. Thank you, Dave. This is early on, but I think we're just as stressed as we look forward to seeing the landscape plan and that kind of thing. We also are very interested in when we're seeing the landscape plan, we see a management plan to maintain it. Thank you. Any other comments? So this is sketch plan. So there's going to be no vote. We can offer further comments for the applicant, but if there are no other comments, then we'll see him at preliminary plat, given the considerations that he has heard from about the most troublesome, I guess, or the most poignant is about the accessory use and how we address that at preliminary plat. If you're looking at me, I am set already and I'm sure Bob understands. I do, Frank. I do, but if possible, I would like, we're going to spend a significant amount of money for the preparation of design for submission and prelim as well as landscaping and everything we need to do is a possible to get a straw vote with regards to the accessory use. There won't be a straw vote, but I can tell you, I mean, this looks like a great project. We certainly would want, we understand the need, I understand the need for it. We just have to figure out how to make it work for the CBRs and I think, I think, I don't know if we can decide that right now and we certainly can't vote on it because it's just a sketch plan. Just as out of info, I mean, is in fact the short-order restaurant really the heart of what you're developing there? I mean, what would it be? Would this project have any meaning to you without a short-order restaurant? I think the deli is probably, you know, it's almost difficult to call it an accessory use. Because when people come in, they're going to go to the deli counter. And they're going to, you know, if there's not a pre-made sandwich that they can take out of the cooler, they're going to go to the deli counter and they're going to ask for a specific type of sandwich. So, yeah. But is 50% or more of it going to be straight-up retail? Oh, yes. Yeah, so if you, I mean, that would be my argument. That's what I'm saying. It's probably, you know, more like three-quarters. Yeah, so if you're looking at, out of 2,400 square feet, you're looking at 1,800 square feet playing a retail role, while the deli may be very important to the nature of the business, it is not, it is accessory. Accessory. Yeah. In my opinion. Right. You know, I'm not. But if you're asking for my stronghold. I'm just wondering if there's some way to turn it into a principle use. Is it allowable as a principle use? What does PACC mean? It's only allowed as accessory. Oh, the ACC is accessory. All right. Thank you very much. Item number eight, continued site plan application, SP 1913 of City of South Burlington to amend a previously approved plan for a recreational complex. It consists of constructing an 8,900 square foot building addition to an indoor recreation facility between the two wings of an existing building and the associated stormwater and site improvements at 600 Swift Street, for the Africa. That's Debbie Meath, Tyler Barnard, Engineering Ventures. Tyler, who else? Bob Marquis, Board of Directors. And I'm Rolf Kielman, with Truex Collins for the architects. And this one's fine. And probably if we have our rink managers back there too. Bob. Now, I know Rolf has been sworn in. Were you gentlemen here last time? I was not. Let's raise our right hand so I can tell the whole truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you. Okay, Tyler. You're getting Tim too. Tim and Tim too. For 600 Swift Street? Oh, I thought that was Adam. Sorry. He's more than Marrior. Come on. He's on our side. Tell the truth. Tyler, Bob, Rolf, you want to walk us through? Yeah. What do you got now? I was not here for the first meeting, but I have the comments and answers to the comments. If it would be helpful, I'd just run right through them and circle back and address any questions. I guess the first one is the staff recommends a board review. The architectural drawings to evaluate compliance with this criteria, which was the... Tyler, are you looking at this week's staff comments? The staff comments from this week is a two-page memo. Okay. This. Do you have this? I do not have that. So the two outstanding issues, three outstanding issues from the previous hearing were landscaping, which I think is the meat of it, and then there was minor modifications to the erosion control plan, and then the final was about bicycle parking. Okay. So if you want to go over your updates with respect to those three issues. Perfect. Okay. So then we'll just dive right into the landscaping. So based on a meeting with Craig Lamber on site and a redesign of the landscape plan and then sending it out to him to look at and his approval, we have included a new landscape plan. It should be the last page of the civil... That's it there. And one of the major concerns, I think it was sugar maples and the types of plants along the edge of the drive, not standing up to salt and winter weather. So these have been changed, I believe the top are red oaks. The northern part there, their honey locusts in the bottom half are the northern red oak. And they've... So they've been changed to the bigger trees rather than the bushes had previously been proposed. And I guess that's all I have about that. And then the landscape cost has been updated to be the trees and not including the mulch and gravel wetland plantings. According to the comments staff considers this criteria has been met. Is that correct Marla? Okay. So can we talk about erosion control? Yes. So in doing the... designing the site for the stormwater permit erosion control netting as the final EPSC measure has been added on the post construction EPSC plan. And that's included on slopes that are greater than three to one. And then there is another plan that is the soil... post construction soil depth and quality standards plan that is needed for the stormwater permit and addresses the topsoil issues and soil restoration. And then bicycle parking and storage. Bicycle parking immediately in front of the addition there is a new concrete area right next to the fire hydrant. You probably have to zoom in pretty far on the right side of that bigger half of the building. This is the new entrance where they're... Yeah, the entrance there right in the middle of the drop off. There's a concrete pad there circling the hydrant and there are four inverted U-bike racks. Which could... The little C4 aims at it, right? Yeah, the C4 calls them out. There are four there for eight bikes which is half of the 16 that was per the LDRs. The applicant from the board. Any comments from the public regarding the new entrance to the arena? Okay, then I would entertain a motion to close SP 1913, 600 Swift Street. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstaining. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, that sounds great. All right, we're going to do agenda item nine and ten. Continued final plot application SD 1912 of SB RC properties LLC to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel with the two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres at 284 Metal End Drive and continued site plan application SB 1907 of SB RC properties LLC to construct a 25,560 square foot 30-foot-high warehouse building, paved parking area and associated side improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot at 284 Metal End Drive. Who is here for the applicant? David Schenck. Hi, David. Adam Buska and Tim McKenzie. Adam, Tim. You're all sworn in still. Tim. Tim, many times. He's been swearing a lot tonight. Welcome back. Thank you. I guess. David, Adam, tell us a little bit about what you've got. Sure, so David Marshall's DEA has historically been doing the presentations. I can't make it tonight, so I was just going to do it. I was just going to go through the numbered items unless we'd like another review. We've been here several times now. Any objections to that? We've got a couple of board members here. Just describe briefly what the project is. That would be helpful. So we're proposing a new facility on Metal End Drive, approximately 25,000 square feet, located to the east of what we would call the O'Brien Building. It's a condominium building across the street from Logic Supply. Bio retention stormwater features prominent in the front. The proposed building somewhat centered on the site, fairly substantial buffer in the rear of the parcel, including a fairly large, well, fitting to the parcel berm that we enhanced to really shield this parcel from the residential neighbors. Adam, we've talked about this before, but Adam has reached out to all adjacent owners, communicated the project. We've had a very good dialogue with, we'll call it the O'Brien Building again, with their management company. We shared correspondence with staff on that at previous meetings. And also, kind of part of this whole deal is there's a little bit of site disturbance. This parcel is owned by South Burlington Realty. It's a fairly large parcel. We're chunking off 6.2 acres. There is some soil disturbance and grating modifications on the remaining parcel.  The bulk of this review really is for the proposed facility. So maybe that's enough for our quick... That's great. Thank you, Dave. I was going to go over SP 19-20 first. Okay. So we haven't opened that hearing yet. That's for the adjoining parcel. Okay. So let me go to... So your point is taken. If you wanted to open that hearing, I think that that would be okay. For the record, we also opened site plan application SP 19-20 of SBRC properties LLC to construct site improvements on a 21.2 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a building on the adjacent parcel at 362 Middle End Drive. So we're taking it for those watching at home. Agenda items 9, 10, and 11 all at once. Okay. Okay, go ahead. So I was really just going to skip to the two things that were really identified, if you don't mind. Page 6. Item number 1. Stormwater. Basically, the assistant stormwater superintendent reviewed the plans. The design is adequate, but recommends the following. The DRB should include a conditional requiring that applicant regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Staff recommends that you do that and we are amicable to that. Number 2. We had a discussion at last meeting about light operation. We did provide a lighting plan. It was a pretty good lighting plan, but we had the ability to control when the lights were on and off. All applicant and board kind of felt that having the lights come on at dawn, 100% till 9pm, and then programming the lighting to reduce to 50% at 9pm till dawn. I might have said the first one. Dusk to 9pm, 100%. 9pm till dawn, 50%. We are amicable to that as a conditional approval. Okay. We support that. Thank you very much. I just really all I had to say about that application. All right. Now let's get back to 910. Okay. Everyone caught up? That was a lot. So I have 1912? Yes, it's 1912. Yes, SD 1912 and SB 1907. Items 9 and 10 on the agenda. Okay, fair enough. Okay, thank you. There's a large audience watching at home. Yeah, so I'm sure. I want to make sure they're ready now. So I'm just going to go again to the first comment. It was basically about we had a discussion, fairly lengthy discussion last time about aesthetics of the building. I'll just kind of, there's five topics here that staff identified the things we talked about. Modification to the windows that were potentially in the mezzanine.  I'm also going to just share for you guys. We had troubles converting these to PDFs that you see on the paper. Nor the following two pages there for later items. Yeah, it came out very light on the PDFs. Yeah, for the baby clues, spotting things. So basically, so we talked about adding windows. We also talked to you about, I think Frank's comment was, you know, sometimes function trumps other things. So there is no need for Adam to have windows in the mezzanine. So bear with this presentation, but we decided to stick to the window plan. Landscaping in the front. Adam has already worked with the NRC. Landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City Arborist. All of it positive. We've also worked with the O'Brien parcel, who is the most effective by this project. And we actually did make some landscaping concessions including a decorative fence. So we've already put our foot forward on that prior to that. There's a discussion about a mural. I think everybody kind of had their own opinion of what would look good. We kind of decided not to do a mural in this presentation at this point. Not that Adam might not do that later on. Can it be at the front entrance? We did talk about that. Just one thing that I pointed out, it's hard to tell in this two-dimensional drawing is the front entrance actually isn't at the face of the building. It's recessed in the architectural plan here. The first floor is actually in. So adding a canopy wouldn't really architecturally achieve anything on a functional basis. So there is a very slight definition of the building there. So we didn't add a canopy or structure, any additional structures to the building. David, how big is that recessed area? I say five by 12. So relative to the size of the building, I have no dimensions on these. No dimensions on there. I mean, also they all understand there's very little, you know, booskin movers doesn't really have a lot of retail customers. I mean, a couple a day. We really have walk-in traffic, maybe three a week. So we really primarily be employees coming in and out. There would be no, again, function, you know. Excuse me for just a moment. Fair enough. Since you're leaping on what I said. I was. It was about 40% tongue-in-cheek, what I'm saying is. I understand that's an argument in justification of what you're doing. I don't find it palatable nevertheless. So don't quote me, all right.  Thank you. It's not because I agree with you. Fair enough. And then we did have a lengthy conversation too about the building being two-tone. And one of Mark's ideas that we actually liked was, because we're talking about two colors and where to inject them, one of the things was defining the office area.  That defines where the offices are. And then I believe it was Mark on the phone suggesting that color extend over the entrance way. So you'll see on the north and the east, I'm sorry, the north and the west, the blue extends all the way to the eve. And then we had an opportunity on the east side, which underneath the canopy to just include that color there. And not that anybody would ever see it. We did include some color on the south side. Let's go back to Windows for just a second and function. I think people are going to work inside this building. There's not eight people that work in the offices. And then sporadically we have our movers loading and unloading trucks, but not inside the building on a regular basis. So in other words, no one's sitting in that sealed-off window this area for any length of time. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, they would primarily be back in the back of the building where the windows are, the loading dock areas. Anybody whose job it is to be back there in the warehouse all day long? The movers if they're loading and unloading trucks. There's a forklift operator? And there's a forklift operator in the building? We did provide some natural light with those high windows on the south elevation. That would be the only wall in this facility that would have access to daylight because these cubes here represent storage box, which are basically floor to ceiling. So if you had a window there or a door there, it would be blocked off by the... All right. And those cubes are stacked, right? You have to move somebody's cube in order to get to the cube in the back, right? Parking in New York City, yeah, all right. So the window, which is the north side and the plan that David's holding up right now? So the north would be here.  So everybody gets an office except kind of in the middle there's a toilet. They don't get an office or get a window. But the guy in the forklift is running around in here all day with no windows? No, he has windows. But he has... Excuse me, almost no windows. Well, that's their lies having a warehouse job. One might argue function includes making habitables the wrong word. Let me put it this way, more humanized environment for the people who have to work in it. So it's not just boxes, it's people in there. Boxes are Adam's business. Which he can't run without people who are there. This is a vast improvement over their existing facility in terms of ability in the facility. In terms of climate, I think your current facility isn't even heated? No, the current facility is not heated. This is fully conditioned. Hanging was a vast improvement over the rack in the 17th century. Moving on. I think there are some windows in all of the overhead doors. That helps. He's a comment from the staff. Their concern about this is not meeting the aesthetic improvement that we requested. So I mean let's focus rather than on moving on from the people that are working inside. What does the board feel about the aesthetic improvements to the building that we requested last time? Well, it's dramatically better. I mean it's the same old building with color on it, but it's dramatically better than that building plain. Well, look at the other things we've approved that are similar. And you were unhappy about those things. I was, but this is better than that. Okay, I'm the only one. I think it's better.  There is a certain element of human nature that is to see something that is better as adequate. Whereas if they had started with this, what the board have said, do better. And then they add four windows. They make the windows vertically oriented instead of horizontally oriented. Then the board said, oh, it is better. Great, we should approve it.  Point taken. The obviously, not obviously, in my opinion, we want you to come to South Burlington, Adam. We do. We want this business park to attract a wide range of high paying tenants that are going to want to come to a very attractive business park. So we're trying to strike a balance here. And I think that's the frustration that I read in staff notes if I'm interpreting that. And the request that you heard from us two weeks ago or wherever long ago it was, which is to make the very good looking business park, but not make it prohibitively so you don't come to South Burlington. Does that, does that make sense? Yeah, no, that makes perfect sense. And I think that what we're talking about, our, our Boosca's preference on this building and this project would have been to just have a solid color building. I mean, that's really, that would have really been our preference. We took your, we took your comments into consideration and I went back to my partners and we added some color to the building, you know, we would prefer to go back to solid. If we had our, if it were, if we're entirely up to us. So we're trying to, we're trying to come up with a balance here.  And it's, you know, it's not about spending the extra money. It's, it's really about, you know, what, what is this, how is this building going to look and what is it we're looking for. And, you know, we really want to have a solid, a one color solid building. That was, that was our preference and decorated with some landscape. I think that we, what we're proposing here is, you know, we added color to the project. And unfortunately, you know, if we could include the landscaping into this project, it makes for a much prettier picture than what we're looking at on this PDF.  And, you know, we're, we're sort of, you know, that's sort of been sort of the, you know, the color scheme that we came up with. And without, without putting a mural or a wagon wheel in front of the building, you know, I'm not really sure where else to go with it. We, we don't want to make the entire, you know, we don't want, we don't want 50% of the building to be blue. We think that would be a big eyesore. So, you know, and nobody's sort of coming forth with any other suggestions than, other than what we took out of the meeting. Well, fortunately, sorry to interrupt you, Adam, but fortunately our architect, not, not unfortunately, fortunately architect is celebrating his wedding anniversary tonight. So he couldn't, could not be with us tonight. But however the staff does make some suggestions in relation to the other buildings in that business park, buildings that have multiple building breaks, changes in materials, evenly spaced windows and high quality materials. So just on windows that we've mentioned, windows a couple of times, we looked at that. So the window layouts are centered, we'll call it more or less on where they need to be, right? So we've got offices on the inside layout. We've got offices, we've got a front entrance, offices, put the bathroom and the break room in the middle. So it's centered to everything and then more offices. So yeah, there's a break in the windows kind of in the center area where the bathrooms are. Also in terms of vertical windows versus horizontal, how they're laid that way, you know, we do have ceiling height limitations because there isn't mezzanine in this area. So, you know, the floor to ceiling height is in consideration. So we're trying to max it. Building breaks, I mean, I know you have to maximize space inside but in terms of out exterior being able to provide some sort of contour or change. I'm not an architect. I wish an architect was here. But I understand, I can read staff comments and I understand why they put those in there. I mean, building breaks, I mean, now we're talking about structural changes to the building. So we've already kind of discussed a lot of other things, parking and curbing and landscaping and setbacks and whatnot. I mean, that would all pretty much just throw that a big wrinkle and all that. Right now we're pretty tight on both sides of it. Changes in materials? So we do have brick on the building. I know it's not a lot but it's very similar and maybe percentage as some of the other buildings in the area. Rick, as I see it, is the red on the west elevation? Yes, and as somebody on the board member said last time, the CAD drawing doesn't do great justice on that, but we don't have a 3D rendering of it. But the red area does define brick, which is a requirement of Middle End Business Park Association. Is there any other comment about the aesthetics before I move on to the next? I want to go back to the windows for a minute. Your comment a moment ago was you're saying it's not the cost about the windows. If it's not the cost, what is it? Well, let me file it down a little bit more. Looking at that interior plan for a minute, can we look at the interior layout? We don't have that. There it is, okay. I mean, you're not concerned about the cost of the windows, so I'm trying to figure out whether they're interfering with what you want to do with the space if you put more windows up high. Do they interfere? There's going to be a mezzanine above the offices, and in the mezzanine there would be pallet racking, pallet racking, shelving, pallet racking. So in other words, it's cutting down to put in windows, cuts down storage space from your... We're going to be putting pallet racking in front of a window and stacking couches on it. Unless you left the space open, that's what I'm saying. Unless we left that area open. So it would reduce some of your storage space, in other words. And that would be your function concerns. Or you wouldn't put that way in front of the window. Put it the other way around. So I know on other projects the board has requested windows that can be spandrel glass. That can be what? Spandrel glass. Spandrel glass, which is... Blackout windows. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Where would you see putting that? Just putting it out there. I'm worse architect than anyone else on this board. No, I was thinking about that myself, but I don't see a spot where I think... Unless it's an upper story, and then that's almost sillier. Can we use the spandrel glass that I don't know much about? Can we eject a couple, maybe two of them on the north elevation to create more even space windows? You talked about canopies not being functional, but they can also be decorative. Yes. I think the only point I was making was... So yeah, I mean... As an aesthetic feature. Well, okay. So I'll go with this a little bit. I mean... So right now, in this project on the south elevation on the east elevation, we do have canopies. Okay? I apologize. I apologize. No, we have it on the east. Yes. East and south. That's a canopy? So that is a canopy, which is actually portrayed in the... It's actually... If you look on the north elevation, you'll see on the left. That's an overhang. Yeah. Or an overhang canopy. I don't know how you want to... It's not fabric, right? It's metal. It is a hard part of the building, steel, same roof material. Yeah. Giving you a drip edge over the... So far as I project that... What if we... And I'm speaking on Adam's behalf here, with no authority, I guess, on that level. What if we were to add something similar that we already have in the south side and the east side and put it over the front door to... Well, it might make sense to just sort of bump it out over, you know... Maybe define by the limits that the masonry is in. How's that? And it would be similar in make material type, so it would assimilate with the building, as opposed to some fabric canopy that would be of... Maybe just look like a glue on. I would just extend the rain line, essentially. Exactly. Alma, what's the... This is two-dimensional. What's the horizontal projection out from the side of the building? Well, I don't know if we've offered one on this one, but the... I do know the one that's kind of on the east elevation that almost three-quarters length of the building, it's six feet out. That project six feet out. Six feet? Six feet. You sure that's... Oh, yeah, you're right. I get it. And then David was saying before that this entrance area is five feet, five-twelve feet. Yeah, and it looks like that actually scales kind of relatively about that. So what you're proposing is a five-twelve canopy on a... It would actually probably be more than that because we'd wrap it around. Right? Okay, talking about this? Yeah. What is up here? Well, this wouldn't actually functionally do anything. Why not if we're going to do something nice? Lindsey, what's the question? Window, window, window. Oh. Seems easier. How would the staff board feel if we put some windows in the mezzanine? I don't know if six, eight, nine windows would be appropriate. I'm switching gears a little bit here. Looking at the west elevation, is that what you're talking about? North elevation. Elevation. The most prominent. To mirror the first story, the first story windows would be a second row windows just above it. Maybe one for one. I don't think that's what I'm talking about, but I was thinking about adding some windows. Correct. I think it's going to look a little... I think that's a little goofy. Yeah. Look a little bit. Goofy, funny. What? To have windows above the existing windows? Just to be matching it. I apologize to digress a little bit. Sticking with the canopy at the front door at the front, Adam, seems okay with that. I think that actually is to Delilah's point that would be something positive. The two-sided. If you had back to the mezzanine windows, if you had vertical windows, not matching windows, I mean I get those little metal sliding windows, which is what that looks like they are. Frank, if you really want to get light in here, you put in a skype, because he's got racking on the mezzanine that's going to block light. He's got boxes all the way around the warehouse. Wait a minute. I was just taking up an offer here. I know. But what you really want is light in the workspace. And air. So speaking of air, this built to the latest energy code has ERVs. There's a threshold of fresh air in this building. So it will be fresh air. It will be conditioned air, meaning temperature that they set at. But there is energy standards that require us to have fresh air. So you can't open a window. So sealed windows. You're storing. Well, so we're getting into a mechanical discussion here, so that the problem is if you have operable windows in a conditioned building, then somebody in the window is going to distort air. Then, hey, I'm called. I'm hot. Were you ever in one Burlington Square in its former existence, a sealed window building? It didn't have ERVs. Otherwise known as Sven Galley's torture box. You are not going to have a torture box. Is that what you're saying? It's not going to be a torture box. So in this discussion, I think we're fine with adding a canopy at the front, which would push out. It would be visible. It would create some definition. It would further define the entrance. Yeah. And as the purpose statement of the district calls for high quality, just consider, take that term to heart that that is one of the purposes of the district when you're designing it. You said not attack on. Right. I was not envisioning a canvas canopy. I was envisioning a hard element. The skin of the building is what? It's not wrinkled tin. Wrinkled tin doesn't exist in Vermont anymore because it can't meet code. It is an insulated metal panel similar to almost all of the buildings on the street except for the one that Mark designed and maybe Keller Williams. Yeah. The drawing evokes wrinkled tin. That's what my first thought was. Yeah. And it's not. That's the same. This is the same exact construction as the adjacent where I am building as logic supply, as CBA, as Naglian Chase. Now logic supply has different, has panel construction. This is panels. My guess is I don't have it in my head. I think they might have done some horizontal panels maybe. But they're like rectangle, big rectangles as opposed to individual vertical panels. Horizontal is another way to get a break. Their new section has them laid out horizontally. The old building, the original building was like, was more, was square, vertical, single, single color. Their new addition totally changed the game for them, for sure, architecturally. I mean, the board has the ability to go independently, take a drive down metal and drive. With all respect to high quality, and reluctantly looking at it from the developer's perspective here, I don't think that's much of a standard. And I think unless we know exactly what we're talking about when we say high quality, it's not a useful guideline to us. Talk about, taste is in the eye to be holder. That's the ultimate. Except there is a quality standard to warehouses. I own a wrinkled tin warehouse in Concord, New Hampshire that is not special. And I'm completely open to understanding what the standards are for a warehouse. That's a perfectly valid discussion for us to have. With respect to the staff comments, I think our kind of hold up on this comment is we're an industrial park. We are using the same kind of construction as the predominant material selected in the park. So, and we've been talking about this a while, Adam has been mickable to changing the colors. We're mickable today to doing a canopy on the front. But I think the core of it is industrial. And considering some windows in the mentioning, I believe. We are. Three windows, I think, was a number. Three? Oh, sure. But the core of it is it's an industrial building, industrial park, and we've put in the get go, albeit colors not aside, the same material construction as the predominant material used in the park. So then we're entertaining this conversation about high quality when we're the same as the majority of the construction. So I'll stop there. I'd like to move on to some of the other staff comments. Material landscaping. You saw that comment on page three of SD1912. Please flip to the second page of the PDF I gave you. I emailed this to you, Marla. Oh, was it a second page in that same page? No. It's fine. I have it in the hard copy I gave to you. I'm sorry, David. I didn't see that in your message. You didn't respond, but I didn't know if that was a yes or no. This has Dave Marshall written all over it. He was not here, but I consulted with his staff at CEA. There was two things that staff critiqued on the, calculating the internal green space area. One of them was you'll see the shaded area closest to metal ends drive. There's two areas that have X's in it. Those were counted in the previous calculation, but staff does not feel they should be counted. So we've removed that from the calculation. And another thing that was emitted from the parking lot area calculation was the tractor trailer parking area, which is that kind of the big rectangular space. So we are now, what you see in front of you is calculating the area as staff has recommended, which is including the tractor trailer parking as parking and not including kind of a driveway area, which includes a small one. And one material change that we're proposing to this site is there are three parking spots to the back of the building on the right. You'll see an area says 1,540 square feet. That was previously three parking spaces. So in order to achieve the internal landscape area, we needed to create more landscape areas. So we're proposing to delete those three parking spots, create a green space. And if you look under the top left hand side of the sheet, the revised green space calculation, basically if you do all that math, we now meet the regulations. So we would ask as a conditional approval that we revise all the site plan to basically delete the three parking spots. The curb is, there's a curb line gets extended straight through. And now we technically meet it. And you're above the 10%. And we're above the 10% and Adam loses three parking spots. Wasn't, didn't we have a discussion last time about putting up a berm for noise protection for the Southern? That's an exception. So staff obviously has to review that. But, but. Yeah, I'm looking at it now. It's simple enough that I can say it's good. Curving. Can we talk curving? David? Above standard does not require curbing in these locations because of its utility stormwater conveyance. Staff considers post trees to be located along these boundaries should be at least 10 feet from the edge of the pavement or protected with landscape boulders to protect them from damage from vehicle bumpers, particularly trucks, which the applicant has indicated will be backing into the parking spaces adjacent to the trees and from snow plows. Yep. So basically get the trees 10 feet away from the parking or protected by boulders. So flip to the third page of that handout that I gave to you, please. There are a variety of shade trees located on the rear of the parcel along the buffer side of things. Simply we slid them no less than 10 feet from the parking lot. So that meets that requirement. And there are some shade trees. I believe they're honey locusts on the east side, the knot of Ryan's side. We just simply don't have room to shift them 10 feet because it'll be in the stormwater features. So you'll see the notes there of added boulders, which I'm assuming is okay because staff recommended that was an approved alternative method of protecting the trees. So. I found your email and I apologize. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to put it in the folder. So Delilah can put it on the screen. Look at this technology. It's in the pocket folder right where you were. Basically we've either shifted all the trees 10 feet or greater or we added a boulder, which I think Marlon can speak meets the intent. Let's look at the plan. And then you've moved those. Yeah. And then everything else is protected by curving. So are there any concerns with the trees being in that? Oh, they're not really in the ditch. They're off of the ditch. Those are the trees that we couldn't move. And you see a little note there. Landscape boulder typical. So those are the trees that we couldn't move. So therefore we protected them. And then the ones on the bottom, you've actually flipped to the far side of the ditch. Exactly. Which I don't see why that would not be fine. So how far away are they now? 20 feet? No, more like 30. No. Well, if a parking space is 20 feet deep, the ones on the bottom. So one thing that we are contending with there is there is a swale there. Right. So we had to get it out of the swale. So before we were, we made the decision to get it closer to the parking lot because it's a shade tree. Right. Yeah. So I guess if I put on my Craig Lambert City Arborist hat, he's going to say, well, this is preferred. The standard is for shade trees. It's up to the board, which they prefer to see closer, potentially damaged by plows, or farther away and not providing as much shade. Yeah. I think they're right. It's 6-1. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. It would help preserve the trees with less salt damage too. Lastly, noise for Jim and Don. We had a discussion last time about, there's part of the, you reviewed the part of the area was a very small area that might be exposed to noise that is, exceeds what LDR has called for. We suggested a berm could be improved in order to block that noise for that tiny little section. And we have a report in the packet from RSG saying that that would in fact accomplish that goal. Is that my understanding, David? Yep. So post last meeting, we actually added just a very little bit of grading to extend the berm a little bit more toward the O'Brien side. That was just enough to kick the, the noise level off the five feet that we were on at the back corner of the residential parcel. If you look on the report, it's, it's off the parcel. And then we sent the grading plan to RSG. They ran the model again. And there you go. Is it, is the berm shown on anything that we have here? It would be in preview. Well, it's kind of showing itself. I added some of the grading plan. And it's included in the packet. Okay. Do you think it's the best one, this one? Oh goodness. One of them has actual contours on it. The landscape plan has it very slightly, but it's hard to tell. Are the residences that are around could bump up to the property? Are they okay with the berm? And do they think that will provide adequate shielding from the noise? Adam spoke to every, reached out to everyone. Yeah. So I shared the, the noise report. Okay. There was a few of the residents and they, they, in terms of the aesthetic of the berm and nobody had an issue with it, there's an existing berm there. We're just, we're just adding to the existing berm. And a few of the residents asked that they, if I would share the noise report results and there, there was no negative feedback at that point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. But I did see it on. Yeah. Okay. When the block was developed, there was a 200 foot, there's a 200 foot buffer between the residential zoning and the park along with berm. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there not any more questions from the board? I have three. Okay. They're, they're not terribly important questions. And one of them is purely for my curiosity. I'll start with that one. Adam, how do, how do you put sprinklers? I'm used to putting sprinklers into structures. How do you do it with the box? How do you, how do you use safety in the box? Well, I mean, in our existing building, we just follow fire code in the boxes. Have to stay a certain distance away from the sprinkler heads. And then. So you don't have to do it down. No. So your, when your wrinkleton building was built, ESFR systems were not invented. ESFR systems are about like a 10 year old thing technology. So as long as they're short is that this building will be fully protected by sprinkler with an ESFR system in the warehouse. The old technology was meant to supress, like dwarf the fire until the fireman got there. ESFR systems are meant to put the fire out before the fireman get that there. So basically, it'll be a lot larger system. It might not look that much different, but so. And that, and so what that allows you by code is to get away from in-rack sprinkling. And then, and so it allows you to do what he does. And then saves you a ton of money. In-rack sprinkling is very expensive. That was my first question. My second question is Tim, are you happy? This, I mean, you're, of all the characters that could be out there that could be worried about what Adam builds. You have the greatest financial aspect on this. You've got a whole lot more property to sell and fill and everything else. I agree. I consider that. And as David said, I don't think that the construction is really much different than the other part of Meadowlands Business Park. We strategically located them down the hill by where O'Brien is. We think the building is somewhat similar. Up the hill, up, you know, where Keller Williams is, we envision more office buildings. Yeah, and that's certainly what seems to be coming. Yeah. Okay, good. My last question is, I drove into one of my properties at Forty Kimball last week, and there was one of your semis parked and had been parked for several days. Is this because you don't have enough room at the moment and you're planning to have space when we approve this, or? I had to shuffle them along. Maybe it was an employee. Maybe an employee lives around there? I don't know. Is it a straight truck or a tractor? It was the tractor portion of a semi. Is that close to Treetop condos? Yes, it is. One of our drivers lives in Treetop. She's not parking there anymore. Good. Okay, just wondered. Did I understand that for the sake of the sprinklers, the boxes can only go so high? Yes, they're in separation. What's the required separation between the ceiling on the top of the boxes? I don't know that technical level. I do know that the eave height in this building is accounting for the bar joist and location of that. And how tall are the boxes? Seven and a half feet tall. So 22 and a half feet. The fire code is 18 inches away from any obstruction. Any sprinkler head has to be 18 inches away from any obstruction. So you've got 18 inch space. But I think we have quite a bit more. We add a little bit extra. We have more than that. It's easy to calculate his because it's a box. So it's not like we have any variable. Oh, 18 inches is probably not enough for my picture windows. Are there any comments from the public regarding this project? Dave Crawford. Dave, could you identify yourself at our group? Thank you. We just want to commend and suggest to the applicant it's been very cooperative as far as landscaping. One of the things was that he volunteered to be a pilot project or management plan. I don't know that that's been mentioned recently enough so that it would be incorporated into the, we suggest it would just be unknowable. That's commendable. He's done that. And that is something that we're going to look forward to working with him on. Came up last night at our meeting. And it's a positive thing. And I was speaking on the positive side of things here. Thank you. There just being something that would be nice to mention that it's out there and he did it. And it's not good. You say you can go to the panel. Thank you. Should have been more in line with the approval. We can add it to, we can add that comment. The applicant has agreed to be part of a landscape management pilot program with a natural resources committee as part of the discussion under the landscape standards. Is that accurate? Yeah, that's accurate. Staff has that already. Any other public comments? So it seems like we need a continuance here. Continuance is forwarded to see this. Yes. Or whatever. The conditional approval. Well, I think that the board may want to have a discussion about the application, right? Yeah. And while I'm not going to call Mark on this anniversary tonight, I think I could ask him for some input. Right. We can catch Mark up. Our president board member who is an architect, that might be able to provide some guidance to us on board. So I would suggest that anyone's giving a look to it. Yeah. We can do July 16th. That means we need to get sorted. We need to get materials from you by Friday. So do we have to? Or we can do August 28th. August 6th is a recess. Right. The only materials they'd be getting is on the bottom. If that's the only change that they're proposing. We're close enough so we should be holding them up very long at this point. Did they fit on the 16th? Yeah. I mean, you would prefer sooner rather than later. We would, obviously. Do I have, are we walking away here now with understanding of what we're doing? Are we just proposing, we're putting a canopy on the front of the front main employee entrance? Is that, or am I, I'm going to get, we're being asked to provide material by Friday, which is fine. What is it that I'm providing? Well, I think that we heard the discussion, general agreement that a canopy would be important. In my opinion, we're not voting here, we're just discussing your discussion of what the materials is going to be, certainly eased in my mind. Looking at this drawing, I thought it was a resemble wrinkleton and the way you describe the materials gives me a little bit more confidence. I don't know how I feel truly about the different colors. And the windows, Frank's comments. I think that merits consideration. I don't know how anyone else feels, but we're going to need to see some more, something new that's been done to improve the aesthetics of this building when we next meet in two weeks. And at that point, I would assume, but I can't predict that we'd be ready to close this hearing and issue a decision. I like the purple. I like the what? I like the color. If available, bring a sample. Or a picture of a sample. A photograph of the material. This is a pre-insulated metal panel. It's like every other... You're a contractor and we're not. I'm just trying to make sure we get to you what it is. Or a photograph of an actual building that is the same material. Like previous Muse had pictures of a Brian building that are building adjacent to it. That's the same exact material. Or a call out that points to the sheet and says this is what it looks like. Okay, so another thing that we can do is we can have the board take a drive down Middleland Drive. They all live in South Brinlington and they all have two weeks to do it. It won't work. Sorry, guys. Maybe a bike ride down Middleland Drive. I will bring a sample of a pre-insulated metal panel. An end elevation would be nice. I'd like to see proportionally what the projections look like. Do you understand what I'm saying? No. Like standing at the street or something like that. No.  I mean, this building... I mean, yeah. This building sits pretty far back from the road, too. Relative. 230. Somewhere in excess of 200 feet, much farther than the other buildings on that street. I think what you're hearing is that we'd like a canopy. Yep. Okay, got that. Because that exit the front of the entrance, I think I am comforted by your discussion about the building materials. I'm comforted by your comments that you made and directing towards John's question. I am going to take more of his advice and take a look. But when we come back on the 16th, we'd like to see that that has been put into the plan. Well, I had a canopy. What about the windows? Are we asking them to do windows or not? Well, I know Frank feels strong about windows. I don't feel as strong as Frank. I'll put it that way. My take is this is a utilitarian building. And yes, you want the people inside it to be comfortable. They're going to be air conditioned. They're going to be heated. I've been in a lot of bad warehouse buildings over the years, and this is not one of them. It has light. It'll have small windows in the roll-up doors. But actually, on the east elevation, you've got big windows on them, right? So I think you're going to find that for somebody who works in a warehouse, this is going to be a really good warehouse. This is nice. So I don't have a problem with the windows. I don't have a problem with the color palette. I don't have an issue at this point. So I just want you guys to understand, you can stop when you want to. We're telling you what would help us get across the line. But if what you said was, gee, we want to do a blank building, we'll just tell you what our vote is afterwards. You can stop when you want to.  Well, you didn't take them. Remember? My recollection of the meeting was color. That was the focus of it. And we and Adam... Windows. But the same things that you were wrestling with us about, what about here? What about there? What about there? Those are the same things we did on our own. Right, but then you came up with the practically brilliant suggestion of putting them above the offices, you know? But it was really... It was dedicated to the board of throw windows in, albeit in front of a hutch. And that's why we didn't do it, because it didn't make sense on... My suggestion is you come back with a canopy on August 16th and we can... And that was my question. And we'll be filled with confidence if we go and visit the site and feel comfortable with the assertion that the building materials are similar to what we're seeing in the neighboring buildings. And that might resolve a lot of this. We can include a call on the elevations of what material type it is. And thank you for doing the landscaping management plan. I think that's very nice. So I move that we continue SD1912, SB1907, more middle and drive to July 16th. Second. Move and second it. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Post. Sustain. See you on 16th. And can we talk about SP1920, which we have not yet closed? We did open. Yes. I move that we close site plan application SB1920 of SBRC Properties LLC. Second. Second it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? SB1920 is closed. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you. Now moving on to agenda item number 12, continued sketch plan application, SD1916 of Snyder Braverman Development Properties LLC, subdivided existing 21.74 acre lot into five lots of 0.42 acres, lot M2, 1.89 acres, lot M1, 1.35 acres, Garden Street, 5.86 acres, lot M, and 12.22 acres, lot L, for the purpose of constructing a project south of Garden Street and lots M1 and M2, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application. Zero Market Street. Who is here for the applicant? Ken Braverman. Senator Braverman. Andy Rowland. And Tim McKenzie for the property owner. Aye, Tim. And this is just continued sketch plan, so no swearing in here. Tell us a little bit about the project. The project, as you mentioned, is a subdivision to accommodate what we hope is the next phase of city center build out off of Garden Street. The location of the property is directly behind Healthy Living, and the concept would be to develop a 106-unit residential project with approximately 145 parking spaces. This is all residential? Correct. It's all right with you? I'll step through staff comments. That'd be great. Curb cut standards. We're back. Deja vu. The staff was recommended that we discuss curb cut standards with you. Ken. The way that we've laid out the actual curb cut for this project, we feel as though it will accommodate not only this lot, but future lots that'll be located on the south side of Garden Street. So we feel very comfortable with the curb cut location that we've chosen. I think, although Delilah, please correct me tomorrow, I think the staff's comment was that they and us just feel a little bit not knowing how the project will be, whether there needs to be a curb cut. Do I have my characterizing that right? Yes. And I don't know if that's a problem of form-based code or a problem with the sketch plan, but I imagine it's... Understood. I'm just not sure. It's my understanding that the form-based code allows for a curb cut every 400 feet. I know that the subcommittee of the Planning Commission that is looking at form-based code issues and challenges has that on their list of items to discuss. We don't find the current regulations problematic as it relates to this portion of the project. And we feel that the location as designed, planned, and presented tonight should be adequate to allow for future subdivision and build-out of the remaining lots. Your comments. I mean, in the absence of any kind of master plan, PUD, PRD regulation, I mean, I'm not sure what else to say. Any other comments about curb cuts? Okay, staff comment number two. I conclude a condition in the final subdivision approval that requires a subdivision identification of street type at the time of subdivision of lot N north of Garden Street back to street type. Do you have an issue with us requiring that as a condition of approval? Final subdivision approval. It's our understanding that the Planning Commission is currently looking at the issues related to the official map. Obviously the official map, I don't know if you guys have a copy of that that you can pull up, but the official map has certain streets that are planned for this area of the city, which we are all well aware of. Some of those proposed streets conflict with environmental constraints, including wetlands and an impaired waterway. And it's our current understanding that the Planning Commission, the city council are evaluating decisions as to whether the city is going to exercise their rights under the official map and acquire those rights of way. We're waiting. We're patiently waiting. To be clear, the applicant does object to that proposed condition. Yes. Staff comment number three, acknowledging the site plan review of the buildings themselves will be conducted administratively. Staff recommends that in order to evaluate compliance with subdivision criterion three, in order to discuss with the applicant what the anticipated use of the lots will be, lots M1 and M2. Again, as designed currently, it's 106 units of residential housing and 145 parking spaces. Over both lots. Over both lots. Is there a reason why there's an M1 and M2? Yeah, it's going to be phased. The way that the building is currently configured, we're designing it to accommodate a phased construction. You're going to have 106 units. That's a big building. It's phasing it, so it may be multiple buildings. Right. It'll be two wings with a little connector building we're calling it, which is at the corner. What's the, you know, with the bedroom breakdown in the size of the apartments? Not yet. We're still working on that. We're going to have an affordable housing component. We've, you know, we're at a point where we've done 99 affordable housing units, and we're eager to advance other elements of the project. Sorry, I didn't understand the answer. This is planned as a market rate housing project. These recreations, paths and sidewalks, describe the proposed alignment at the transition point, discuss the configuration of on-street parking, was the note from staff. It's interesting in that the designers like to call it a wiggle, but the slight change of alignment in Garden Street, we're proposing for a couple of different reasons. It kind of accommodates site constraints including wetlands and permitted stormwater retention and management areas, while also adding what the urban designers kind of, you know, kind of look at as framing the street. So when you're looking down the street, you're not going to be seeing parked cars. You're going to be seeing a building framing the street, which gives it additional visual interest. And it also adds to all the traffic calming ideas that were discussed in a previous meeting. And can you explain, just because I genuinely don't know, how far from the property line on the left-hand side, go to the last page of the packet please, how far from the property line on the left-hand side of the page is the stub of the existing road? Is it right there or is it a ways off? Yeah, Andy could talk about the alignment. It's right there. The box culvert comes within feet of the property line. So just over the property line is the driveway that kind of goes north to Trader Joe's and south to Healthy Living. Across the box culvert and then a very short distance, yes. 20 feet or something, yeah. Yeah, it might be, I was going to say 50 feet, the length of the box culvert. And then there's the islands that come out, because on the east side of both Pier 1 and Healthy Living, you've got the parking spaces. So the drive aisle is set back a little bit further due to those parking spaces. Have you, is that something that you've included in your survey? Is that something you can maybe just show is like an off-site thing as part of your plans of working and visualize it when you submit for your next application? I don't want to make more work, but if you've already surveyed it. Going back to the existing one, does it just not show on the existing plan, I'm guessing? Oh, the curb, yeah, the curb radius is just shown there. Okay, so with that context in mind, that first 100 feet or so, and you can see that annotation length 124, so you can get a feel for how long 100 feet is, that first 100 feet or so has no parking, and then the parking starts just to help the board sort of visualize what's going on there. The on-street parking? If you want to go back to the, sorry to have you jumping back and forth here, to the other plan that shows the layout of the proposed segment of Garden Street. So just to explain what's going on there is the box culvert, which doesn't show here, has an 8-foot wide sidewalk on the north side, and then much wider travel lanes than is part of the approved cross-section for Garden Street. So when we met with Justin Rabadou, we said, you know, we've got a street cross-section that the city council has approved that involves a sidewalk, a bike path, two 10-foot lanes with 8-foot wide parallel parking spaces on street parking on either side, and then a sidewalk on the opposite side. And we're mating into a box culvert, which is off-project, which is the city's portion of Garden Street that they'll be responsible for modifying however they choose. How do you want us to mate into that? And his suggestion was bring the sidewalk down, transition the sidewalk and the bike path on the other side, and transition the travel lanes to match into the box culvert. It's there. It'll obviously be something that the city is looking at on this side of the project property line. So in making that transition, that's why there's not one more bay of on-street parking here. Did everybody follow that? As much as possible without having it be on the plan. What it really boils down to is what's there on this side of the property line is much different than what the city council has approved for the Garden Street cross-section. Right, in that short section, when no parking is intended to help facilitate that transition. Exactly. So on that drawing, one of those I just don't quite understand the drawing of the street. Cars would park in here. With the bull belts. Oh, so those are bump belts. One of them is correct. The car would pull in here to park. Tree walls almost. They wouldn't park here. They'd park here, and they wouldn't park here. So those are like two cars at night? Yeah, it's on-street parking. One of them is two cars. All right, but when you do that, you're reducing potential parking spaces. But this is the city council approved Garden Street cross-section with the bull boats. And the discussion? Get to traffic calm profile. That's the way we looked at it. What are you intending to do with the flag lot on, lot L? I'm just curious. You know, you're coming in. Is that an access to some buildings in the back or something? Oh, yeah. Yeah. There you go. There you have it. That is it for... I guess I could have figured that out. Sorry. That is it for staff comments. Are there any comments from the public regarding this project? Okay. Any further comments from the board? Other paper. Mariana? Any other comments from the applicant? Yeah, I have a couple of questions or clarifications or requests for guidance. Staff comment number two. I'd like to kind of better understand the background behind that so I make sure that we understand it fully as to what staff would be requesting. In terms of a condition in the final subdivision approval that requires subdivision and identification of street type at the time of subdivision of lot N north of Garden Street. If subdivision of lot N were to happen before the changes you described that your anticipating City Council were to make, then this condition, the suggested condition would require the street to be part of the next subdivision for that parcel. The San Remo connection? The San Remo extension? Without having the official map in front of me and given that we wrote this a month ago, I can't say. I just know that there were streets that are currently on the official map bisecting lot N. And so should those remain on the official map at the time of next subdivision of lot N, staff's recommendation is that the board require those streets to be part of that next subdivision of lot N. If City Council changes the official map, such a condition would no longer apply. Without knowing these precise streets that we're talking about from the official map, it may, I'm not sure. And I guess we don't see it necessarily relating to this subdivision. So, I mean, we're anxiously awaiting resolution on the official map conflicts. And I guess what I'm wondering is once those issues are resolved will that condition be waived or satisfied? I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry, Ken. I was rereading the staff comment, so I was only half listening. Well, maybe if you pull, can you pull up a copy of the official map? It would be dependent upon the resolution, the status of the resolution. If it was a condition that was added, as Marla said at the time of this approval, if it were so to change and streets were to be removed, then it would not be applicable. Is that correct? Yes. So, I guess what I'm not sure is that the whole official map is like a state enabling legislative process. And I'm not sure they're actually going to remove, if the city decides to not exercise their rights on the official map, I'm not sure they legally remove that road from the map. I guess I'm not exactly sure of the process. I think that's a good question to look into. It seems like we can focus this subdivision on this property, and what happens on Lot N will get addressed when we propose a project on Lot N. So, right now Lot N is being subdivided as part of this application. So, Lot N is part of this application. Okay, I hadn't thought of it like that. Understood, now. So, what the board has done in the past when the proposed subdivision doesn't affect something that's in the future is they just say, next time you touch it, then take care of it. It's sensually instead of having to do it now, we're recommending to defer it to the next time. I suppose... We're at sketch. Right, I suppose if you were to come in in the future and subdivide a portion of Lot N, it was unrelated to the street and further assuming that the street were still there, then the board could say this condition... could amend that approval to say this condition no longer applies because this subdivision is unrelated to the reason for that condition. But we're really just talking about the official map as it's currently designed and drafted right now. Because otherwise I wouldn't know what we were agreeing to. Right. Which is what you need us to do anyway. Do you have any other questions? That's okay. Okay. One other question. In one of our other subdivision applications, there's a question about frontage build out and whether frontage build out is looked at on a lot by lot basis like we've done in the past or whether the board is going to kind of pivot and now look at frontage build out for an entire district or street and not on a building by building basis. And that's a critical issue for us because for a variety of reasons, even the school street design, if frontage build out isn't looked at on a lot by lot basis, then the curb cut that's proposed is creating lots that don't meet zoning because there's an 85% frontage build out requirement in T5 and that won't be able to be met. Whereas in the past we've done it on a lot by lot basis and that's what we think the zoning contemplates and we just need to know how you guys are going to be looking at it so we could plan accordingly. And on this example, if there's storm ponds that are approved as part of our Army Corps and agency and natural resource permits, if the frontage build out is looking at the entire street rather than on a lot by lot basis, we think we're creating a scenario on Garden Street that is creating undevelopable lots per the code. I think that's an interesting question, Ken. I know there are exceptions for storm water lots that are right about if it's looked at on a zoning district basis, does that exception still apply? I think that's a good question. I think the code contemplates wetlands and other, I don't think it mentions specifically storm ponds, storm water management features. We've been looking at them lot by lot. And I think unless we were, I would recommend that we continue to look at them lot by lot. What do you mean by frontage build out? You mean curb cuts? No, frontage build out means that you might be able to explain it more clearly than I can. So the foreign base code, one of the many requirements of the foreign base code is that there's a frontage build out requirement along any particular lot and in some cases you might be looking at simply the frontage of this lot or Ken's question really focuses on is staff or the DRB going to suggest that at some point we should be looking at the original lot here, the original frontage all along one side of Garden Street needs to meet that frontage build out requirement. And in the T4 district, it's 70% and in the T5 district, it's 85%. So if you've got 100 foot wide lot in the T5, 85 feet of that has to be building in the T4, 70 feet of that. Along the frontage. Along the frontage. And what Ken I think is really getting at is if this is stormwater. But if we allow the subdivision, if you qualify for the subdivision, if you get subdivided, I mean logically it would only apply to a lot. Logically but right. That logic hasn't always applied in the performance code. Right. I think this comment was raised under another sketch plane application, but we raised the question here because if Garden Street, for example, is going to be considered in its pre subdivision entirety and this section is taken out because it deals with stormwater. But it's absurd on its face. Don't you think? I mean, we're just asking the question because it was posed as a question in another application. Staff notes as to whether it was a question as to whether the DRB should be looking at it on a lot by lot or district wide basis. And if I can just bring up the reason that was brought up at that time without getting too deep into the weeds on that application, it was suggested as an opportunity to make that project approvable. It was a positive thing in that case. But you're right. We should be consistent between projects. So, you know, the board should consider, I guess the board should give some thought to that question as part of this application. If you look at this application, and if they had to build, pick a number, 70% of it out based not on the lots, but on the entire area, you would have to start off with a huge project. Huge. Or demonstrate that they could get to that point. We have to approve a huge project. Wait. Once a subdivision is allowed, then if you say that that requirement applies to the pre-existing lot, you're in essence impairing the ability of the subdivider to sell the lot. I mean, it becomes impossibly cross-restricted. It doesn't make any sense. Okay, good. We just don't subdivide a lot. I think you all agree. Okay, great. Anything else? Great. No, thank you. Gentlemen, very much. Yeah, thank you. Item 13, minutes of January, no, minutes of May 21st and June 4th. Did you find those, Marlon, once again, I could not find the minutes in the mail. They were, there were, on agenda 13 there was four, five different minutes, but two were attached. Yeah, two were linked. May 21st, do I like that? May 21st and June 4th. I tried to print it out. It didn't get changed. All right, thanks. Crap, do we need Brian to approve minutes? For Mark. So we do not have to actually... We've got a problem. We don't actually have to have Corm to approve minutes. That's a good question. Why don't we, why don't we vote and then if it's invalid, we'll do it again. So I don't have to take up your time on two nights. That sounds... No, if you guys abstain because you weren't here. Right. I move we approve the minutes of May 21st and June 4th. Second, Frank? All second. Okay, all in favor of that present, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, abstain. Okay, aye. Thank you. Last item on agenda, any other business? Not this time. Oh, I have a other business. I should have put it under announcements. However, we... I haven't checked in on the status of city council. Perhaps Sue can speak to this. Did city council approve the consent item to appoint an alternate member to the DRB? City council approved a consent item to appoint an alternate member to the DRB. If we have more than two recusals, meaning we are down to just a bear forum due to recusals not due to sickness or vacation schedules, Jennifer Smith is volunteered to be a alternate. So that means we will... Yes. I've double tripled confirmed. She sent me earlier today. So this is to prevent us from having to have a unanimous vote when we're down to just a bear forum. Right. Well, a bear forum is four. Yes. So we have to have three. If three people, more than two are recused. More than two. Yeah. If three or more, I suppose, are recused, then we call up Jennifer and she comes for just that item. She doesn't come for the whole hearing. She doesn't come if people are out for vacations or illness, and then she would come for every other instance of that item. Both paid benefits. Great. Thank you for that announcement. That's the end of the development review board hearing for Tuesday, July 2nd. Thank you very much.