the South Burlington Development Review Board, pardon me, for Tuesday, already losing my voice, Tuesday, April 5th, 2022. My name is Dawn Fillebert and I'm Chair of the Board and it's great to be back in person on this beautiful spring day. With me are fellow board members Dan Albrecht, Quinn Mann, Mark Baer, and Stephanie Wyman. From the city to to my right is Marla Keane, who's our development review planner and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator for the city. There are a number of ways to participate in tonight's meeting. One way is for people to come and sit in this lovely auditorium or people can participate virtually or people can call in. But in whatever way you choose to participate, if you wish to be considered a participant you need to sign in on the guest book at the back of the room or indicate online through the chat your contact information and if you're calling in you can send an email to mkeane at sberl.com. So thank you all for participating. If you are participating virtually we would appreciate it if you would mute your camera and mute your audio and turn off your camera until you want to participate and at which case turn on the video raise your hand and we will call upon you and then you can unmute yourself and keep your camera on. This meeting is being recorded so it can also be watched down the line. We ask that you not use the chat function for conversations because it's not part of the public record. Please use it just to provide your contact information. Okay, let's start with emergency evacuation procedures. There are two doors on each corner of the back of the auditorium. If there was an emergency exit through one of those two exits and you can either go right or left to exit the building. I'm wondering if there are any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? So Jim is recused from item number eight. I don't know if you want to bump up item number nine, the minutes to get that done quickly before we move on to item number eight. Does that make sense, board? So let's move on to the minutes of all the minutes, Marla. Yeah, you can do that after item number four, maybe. And can we do them as a group? Sure, if there's no edits. Okay, good. All right. Are there any announcements to be made? Okay. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to one of the applications we're reviewing tonight? Hearing none, okay. It's time for us to vote on the minutes of January 18th, February 2nd, February 15th, March 2nd, and March 15th. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? Thank you, Dan, second. Thanks, Mark. Is there any discussion about the minutes? It doesn't change substantively, so... Okay. Maybe a couple, too. But yeah. All right. Okay. All in favor of approving those minutes? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. The motion is carried and the minutes are approved. Okay. So item number five, we... We don't have to vote to withdraw, do we? No. Okay. The applicant for SP 22007 has decided to withdraw their application, so we will not be reviewing it tonight, which brings us to agenda item number six. Let me read that for you. Continued site plan application, SP 22006 of Reparial Properties to Demolish an Existing Light Manufacturing and Retail Complex and construct a 4,480 square foot extension to an existing licensed care facility on the adjacent lot. The subject parcel is an existing 0.71 acre lot at 1459 Shelburne Road. Are there any recusals or disclosures? Okay. Who is here for the applicant, please?  There we go. Great. Please. Okay. Raise your right hand. I'm going to swear you in. Please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Would you please give us, obviously we've read the staff report, but please introduce us to your project and give us a little overview, please? Yes. So we were in front of the board earlier this year. As we mentioned that time, we are proposing a infant care facility, which will be part of the Homestead School. It will operate kind of as a campus feel, the two parcels together. They will share a lot of civil infrastructure and a lot of many different things. They will operate sort of as one business. That's kind of broad strokes overview. I'm sure we could hop right into staff comments or any other questions the board would have. Maybe this is for later, but I need to be walked through with a diagram what you're proposing because it wasn't totally clear to me where the exit is. And when I drove by today, it seemed like a very small property. So could you do that now for us, please? Yep. Just kind of do a show and tell. I think it would help if we went to the site plan, just the next page. Great. I think it's just the next page. That was the existing conditions plan. So the plan is to obviously take out all the infrastructure. That was once the monument building and there was also a dwelling unit on that property. A what unit? A dwelling unit. Okay. I believe it was a residential apartment. And so all of that will be removed. We are keeping some of the vegetation where we can. And the roadway will become a one way access. So the roadway to the north of the building will only be one way into the property. And then once you get kind of around the corner by the storm water pond in the back of the property, it will then be two way from that point. And at that point, all cars will exit out of the original area for 1475. So no car can come in through that exit, correct? 1475 will still be two way. So that will still, we widened that I think in the summer of 2021 to allow for a little bit easier access coming in there. Will it be used as much as an entrance? I don't know. I think once people who use the facilities realize that it might be easier to just go one way, I imagine likely the majority of them will. It will be, but the coveted parking space for one building might not be the coveted parking space for another. So I think it would help to add that the building to the south is more of three through ages, three through five. And the new building to the north is more of the infant toddler age. So you might not have somebody like coming in that entrance because they might be just using the southern building. Okay. And since our last discussion, I know last time we had a sort of written agreement with VTrans, we have gone ahead and submitted that permit. We have not received it yet, but it has been submitted with no real comments from them at this point. So I am expecting that they'll be fine with it. Thank you. So any other general questions before we dive into the staff report? I don't think we really are signifying either employee or persons. So in the, in the new building right now, I believe it's 10 employees for the amount of children that will be there. And then I don't know how many employees you have in your existing building. I need to swear you in. What's your name? Okay, Jeff, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. The other piece of it is, as you all also know, is parent drop off is when it gets pretty efficient, two to three minute process, kid gets out, goes to the door, goes in, and then the parent is out. So the flow works really well where we don't need many parking spots. I remember it well. Okay, so let's, so the way Marla has, I'm sorry, Mark, I missed you. Something you said just triggered a question I have for you. When you say like the two buildings are going to have two distinct different sort of like drop off procedures and all that. Is there a connection between the two buildings for pedestrian for parents that have both children? Like, where is that on the site plan? Because I see the sort of like the curved stone brick patio, you know, how to, if you're dropping off both kids, where, how does that work? So yeah, we do have the sidewalk for the new portion, which you can kind of see. I think you're just mentioning that curve. But then there's also that striping kind of at the end of the parking lot is about a three foot sort of space that one could walk sort of around the playground. There will also be sort of gates on either side of the playground where they may or may not be utilized for parents who have multiple children. It's not, this, this plan makes it look a little bigger than it is. It's not a huge sort of a giant space, but that that three foot sort of space between the parking spaces and the edge of the fence was always intended for people to sort of walk around a little bit. So you do have to walk around the playground to go between the two buildings. There's no like direct connection. There is a direct connection for staff, whether or not that, I think that's up to Jeff and how they run their business on if they'll allow parents to kind of pop through. Okay. Here are two parcels so that the parents would obviously be able to use that. Okay. The back is actually the primary entrance for the existing building and will be the primary entrance so it'll just be, you know, walking the 75 yards or so between the two doors. Okay. Any other questions before we go through the comments? So Marla has written this report in a way that there are above the line comments and below the line comments. The above the line comments are, as I understand it, more major issues for us to learn more about tonight. And by the way, this is a site plan application. And then the below the line comments are more for us to just check in with you around, is this okay with you? Do I characterize that correctly? Exactly. Okay. Good. All right. So let's, I'm trying to get my screen to work right, okay. Comment number one is about the brick walkway and whether or not it counts toward your landscaping budget. Can I comment? Yes, please. So we were a little bit confused by this question just because I think it mostly just talks about the front walkway of the building, which is really how everybody in the main public who don't use the building will see the building. So we actually felt that it should be considered as part of landscaping because it is kind of the face of the building. We also plan to add some gardens on either side of it as well as quite a lot of landscaping. So we do think it will be sort of a gateway to the building, even if that front door is not used a whole lot. So we did feel that it was, it could be used for landscaping purposes and it is a pretty small amount of the landscaping which is on page, the landscaping plan. Okay. So there's a sentence that says that the playground or other site features are used, full details and cost information are required. And then in number two, I think that we're interested in, and check me if I'm wrong on this. So I did do a calculation. I was able to give this to Marla, but I know it was pretty recently. I think it was on the 31st. I don't think she had a chance to give it to everybody on the board. I calculate that concrete, excluding all of the sub base material, so just pouring a concrete slab reinforced and finished will run you somewhere between $6 to $7 a square foot. It used to be $5, but everything is more expensive now. So that is sort of how I did the calculation. And I assumed the higher value, so I assumed the $7 a square foot. So I had $7 a square foot for both the back patio and the front walkway. That would run us about $4,970 for both of those to just do concrete. We got a quote from DeStefano landscaping to do back patio, again, excluding the sub base. So this is just the stone. And that was for four by eight Holland stone charcoal pavers. And for both areas, it was $12,211. The difference is approximately $7,200. I think on my plan set, I originally said it was about an increase, about $10 a square foot, and assumed that it was $7,100. So I sort of double checked that that was pretty in the ballpark for what we are thinking. Madam Chair, can I zoom in? Please. The issues here. Just a couple of questions for staff. As the board at prior occasions allowed the sort of concept of upgraded pavers versus concrete. Yes. OK, that's good. To be kind toward landscaping. Yes. I do have a, and this is more just for writing the decision. I do have challenges with the concept of limited visibility or limited anticipated use only because we're looking at a landscaping plan. We don't go through and say, well, how many people can see this tree, or this bush, or let a lot of paper or something like that? And then, so I just want to be clear when we get there for the record on something like that. And then the playground seems like would be like a weird thing for me to add, because it's like an intrinsic part of the use of this building itself. It's not a, I don't think of it as a landscaping feature. So I'm just going to say that. And we are not proposing that. It's not part of the calculation. OK, all right. Other questions about number one or number two? OK, let's move on to number three. I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to increase the minimum tree size and recalculate the proposed landscaping cost, adding on site plantings as necessary to achieve the required minimum landscaping budget. So, Greg, I know you sent me some stuff that I do have available. I just didn't look through it myself. So if there's stuff from that packet that you want us to pull up, we can absolutely do that. Yeah, I'm basically just sort of reading my sentence, which I'm happy to continue to do. We agreed with that on staff. I upped all the tree sizes to a minimum of three inches and then reviewed some of the local nurseries for the cost difference. And it did increase everything up to, I think, what's on there right now is $24,220, which exceeds what is necessary. In general, this project has no problem with the amount of landscaping. We want to meet that. I know there's been a lot of questions about it. We are happy to meet it. We will meet it. We're trying to put as many trees and pavers and keeping the existing maple tree. We are happy to do that, to continue to do that, to agree to meet that level of landscaping. So I guess the question, and I'm sorry if I missed it because I was asking a lot of a question, but in order to close the meeting, you need to demonstrate it. So it is on the updated plan I sent to you. Yeah, the one that I sent on 531 or 331. Okay, so she's going to put that up. I think it's C-103. If you zoom into the bottom where it shows kind of the landscaping breakdown, I guess it's cool. So we added about, I think it's almost about $2,000 to that, the tree stuff. And we upped everything. So not only the, all the trees went to three inches. We also, I looked at larger, all the other plants as well. You can buy five gallon plants instead of two or three gallon plants. So just more mature plants cost more money. Questions? Comments? Do you have what you need? Yep, thank you. So speaking of the maple, number four is about the 18 inch maple and the need to have a sediment control plan and an erosion plan. Yep, so I did upgrade that plan as well on the 31st. I know I'm making you jump all the way around. One thing I'd like to point out is our ability to save this tree. We are very tight to it with grading. That is to make the walkways accessible and have them to be ADA accessible. So you can see that there is some tight grading sort of in that area. It'll create a little hill kind of around the tree, which does limit what we can do as far as the drip edge, which I think was the comment of the town landscaper. In a perfect world, obviously we would like to do that. In general, an 18 inch tree will likely have about an 18 foot drip edge. We cannot do that. That 18 foot gets to about the edge of the sidewalks on all those sides. But we are willing to add as much protection as we can. I added a note to my erosion prevention and sediment control plan, which I think is C.02 about that. And also added some more notes just in general about that. So as you can see, we kind of added some silt sock around where I could. It's not exactly to the drip edge, but I think it will be as best as we can do. Board, comments, questions? Okay, I'm going to read number five. The board has historically applied this standard across parking lots, regardless of property boundaries. This criterion is not met for the parking lot shared by this and the adjacent parcel to the self. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate how they will meet the criterion for the shared parking lot prior to closing the hearing. Staff anticipates the actual interior landscaping will be provided on the adjacent parcel to the self. So I have a question. The adjacent parcel to the self is where, is that another business? No, that's 1475. That's the homestead school that will be the older children. Okay. So that's, so I know this kind of looks like one massive project, but there is a property line that bisects these two part properties. Okay. And so by self, I think she's meaning the existing property. Okay, all right. And so we are also in the process with Delilah and Marla permitting administratively that the changes obviously on 1475 because because they are two properties, they require two permits because we aren't changing quite as much on that. We are doing that administratively. Recently, as of like probably four o'clock last Friday, I provided a very quick calculation and like a napkin plan outlining what I felt the calculations were and that we kind of just barely met it for that Southern property. And so I believe that's where we're at right now. So I think your approach is, I think you're slightly misunderstanding the standard. Going back to the staff comment, I can just read it, you don't have full pages. In all parking lots containing 28 or more contiguous parking spaces, at least 10% of the interior shall be landscaped islands planted with trees. The board has historically applied the standard across parking lots regardless of property boundaries. So the idea is it should be met for that parking lot taken as a whole, not on a lot by lot basis. And I did have the opportunity to take a look at the plan you sent over. And it looks like you just did it for the Southern lot. That calculation needs to be expanded to include the parking lot as a whole, not just the portion on the Southern lot. And because you have that island sort of in the corner, you may or may not meet it. It's difficult for me to eyeball it and say whether you do. So you may find that you need to take out a couple more parking spaces on the Southern lot in order to meet that. And you can do that as part of your joining site plan and that's fine. I just wanted you to go into that with eyes open. Okay, but I just didn't understand why that would hold up this. It doesn't, no. And that's why I'm saying and not having the board discuss it because it doesn't. But I just wanted to make sure that you don't walk out of here thinking like everything's on the entire. And I do think sort of with that pretty large island at the corner that we just discussed and kind of a lot of the other green space around the building, we're probably pretty close, but I haven't done that calculation. Yeah, I don't think you can count the playground area. But not the playground area that like right in front of the building next to the handicapped spots. We can count that, right? Because that's kind of like a green space. We don't, we don't need to do that. I'm happy to do more calculations to meet that. And the project will meet that. I'm not trying to get around it sort of thing. Okay, questions, comments? Okay. All right. Number six, the applicant has, this is about snow storage. I'm not going to read it, but what are your plans for addressing snow storage? Yep. So it's always difficult to know where somebody is going to plow snow without seeing how they're going to do it. My thought process for snow storage is that the plow would enter into the one way and probably push everything down to pretty much the southern property line of the southern property. Per Dave Wheeler, we are not allowed to store snow within the pond itself, but he was amenable to letting us store snow in the swales. And so we do plan on storing snow on both the swale on the northern property line and along the western property line as well as sort of along the southern property line. Okay. Which I do think was on the site plan. The other thing is, as Jeff mentioned, we might have some extra parking and also the kids might like a giant snow pile. So there is also an option if snow becomes a really big problem. We have a lot of it maybe taking away a parking space or two, creating a snow pile and having that also be part of a play thing for the children. Yeah. Okay. Questions, comments on the board? I can see them loving it. Okay. Now we're moving on to the below the line comments. So let's just move through these. Number seven is we need confirmation that the trees will be two and a half inches I think with this updated plan, we're open to doing that and it says it on the plan as well. Okay. Number eight, whoops, I just lost it. Is the board, so the question is for number eight, is the board satisfied that the applicant is going to meet the provisions in blue? No, not quite. I got it. Okay. Go ahead, Marla. So this is about the aesthetics being compatible with the joining sites and with each other and just being sure the board's satisfied that it is. Would you like us to comment? Sure. We had just written what was in blue that the intent is that this building complements the existing daycare building, which has a more residential feel. There are multiple other types of buildings along Shelburne Road that also kind of have similar materials and horizontal cloud boards and shakes that also kind of resemble more of a residential feel. Thank you. Personally, I'm fine with it. What do other board members think? I'm fine with it.  I think I was the one that commented that I'd like to see some improvements to it. And I think that your comment is spot on that this stretch of Shelburne Road is all over the place. And I think it does blend in. Yeah. Good. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Pressure. Let's see. Nine. Yeah. Staff recommends the board. Nine. Okay. Any other comments related to that? All right. Number 10 relates to the one-way sign. What do you have to say about that? We had no problem. We'll actually add another one. So there'll just be three on site. We do need the one in the front of the building. It's required by V-Trans. And so I just placed another one on the updated set of plans where Marla requested. Great. Thank you. That's required. That's really interesting. All right. He mentioned it. I don't know if it's required. They're not very expensive. No, it's just a matter of interest. No criticism. It's fine. Okay. Number 11 calls for more details about your fence. So this, I might need your help, Delilah. On the sort of the report I sent to Marla, our plan with the fence is to mimic the exact fence that's already currently out there. It's kind of a PVC style fence, but it's four to six feet tall depending on, I think the higher is out by the road. But then as you're in the parking lot, it's a little bit lower. So parents can see their kids playing when they come. There's some pictures that Jeff took of the existing fence. It'll look exactly like that. The main fence that kind of runs in between the two properties now will be taken down and the playground will be separated into kind of two separate playgrounds that will also could open up to each other, but kind of a big kid playground and a little kid playground. But between the two buildings, you'll be able to kind of walk freely. Okay. Any questions or comments about that? Is that sufficient, Marla? Yeah. And won't those little kids be thrilled when they can move up to the big kids playground? That's our hope. Okay. So do we have enough information to close this hearing? Do we all think? I would say we do. I defer to staff to make sure they have all the information they need. I'm satisfied. All right. Thanks. Everyone else? Okay. I'd like a motion to make sure there's no public comment. Oh, right. Thank you. Before we do that, are there any members of the public that would like to comment? Okay. Come on up. Tell us your name, please, and what comments you have. Excuse me. We're not hearing you like we should. I can be noisy. There we go. Okay. Can you hear me now? Now we can. So my name is. We just have people remote. Right. My name is Kathleen Easton. I live at 101 Holmes Road, which is in that neighborhood. Our small neighborhood consists of 10 houses on a dead end street located across the railroad tracks and a butt's Lake Champlain. And so the people in our neighborhood quite understandably being property owners and wanting to protect the health of the lake and the local area. Try to keep an eye on other development in the area, particularly as it applies to stormwater management and traffic. And although I had a very nice conversation with Greg Dixon, is it? And he kindly answered some questions. I just wanted to get a few comments on the record for the future. First of all, that our neighbors, myself, we very much respect private property in the right of people to develop their property responsibly. But we also like to protect our own properties and the local area. And so our concerns as far as stormwater management goes, we are downslope from anything that happens going toward Shelburne Road. All that water comes running down Holmes Road, where it goes into Big Culvert, then transitions underground and goes to a stream. And you had a hearing about that stream also not too long ago. That stream feeds into Lake Champlain. And there are also on the west side of the railroad tracks, there's a large field that has several identified wetlands. And if you go through there or see it at different times of the year, you can see the collection of water. And all of that water has to go somewhere down toward Bartlett Bay Road or Holmes Road. And so when a property comes in north of us, or I shall say that's better, east of us, we want to know what they're going to do with their stormwater. Now, Densmore Monuments has basically been a dirt and stone operation for years. So it's a small lot, but the dirt and the plants were absorbing a lot of the water. When this development goes in, there's going to be a lot more impervious surface. And I just have some interest in seeing what will happen when you pile the snow up as they described along the 1475, I believe, property, the current preschool. If they pile that snow in that identified swale, then where's that snow going to melt? There is a culvert at the end of the goss access road at the edge of the goss property through which a lot of water flows. But that water's got to go somewhere. And I suspect it heads down to Lake Champlain. So as long as they are meeting the stormwater requirements and making all good faith effort to protect the watershed and the wetlands and the lake, I have no concerns about what they're doing. But I just wanted to get that on the record. The other issue, which Mr. Dixon has mentioned is no longer an issue, has to do with that 30-foot easement, which is required by the City of South Burlington LDRs. And it states, I think in the regulation, that part of the concern about that is to anticipate future needs, but also to relieve some of the congestion on the other arterials. Well, if you've ever gone down Holmes Road, Holmes Road is not engineered to handle more traffic. I would say Route 7 is the appropriate egress point for any cars. And so when I drove up the road today, I counted the points of access that lead on to our approximately one-eighth mile strip of Holmes Road. And there are about 10 access points. And out of those 10 access points come residential cars, huge trucks from Ferrell, huge trucks from UPS, test drive cars from the Audi dealership, cars from the fast signs from Orchard, veterinary from the car rental from Seaway. And I think that if any more traffic ever came out of the general area of Goss Road onto Holmes Road, which is directly across from Fire Department Number 2, and also about 200 yards maybe from the major intersection, that it's going to create a more hazardous traffic situation there, especially as you have parents who they want to get their kids in, they want to get out, they're going to be in and out. So as long as there is no future plan to create some kind of an access from the new daycare onto Holmes Road, then I don't have any problems with this. But I think if there's going to be more traffic, then the city and its due diligence should conduct traffic studies and see what the impact of something like that is. But otherwise I will say that the daycare center I walk by there has been a good neighbor to us. The children are delightful to see outside.  And so we would welcome any responsible new business to our neighborhood. And we thank you for the oversight that you're conducting. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? People here, people online? If anyone wants to make a comment, please turn your camera on and raise your hand. Seeing none, I guess we can assume there are no more. Okay. So what is- Thank you, Dan. I'll second that. Is there any discussion board? Okay. All in favor of approving the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys. We will deliberate and you'll be hearing from us. Thank you. All right. Our next agenda item number seven is continued preliminary plat application SD 2119 of 600 spear FJT. JT LLC for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7,000 square feet storage building and single family home. The plan unit development consists of one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four family buildings. A 1.24 acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex and a third lot containing proposed city streets at 600 spear street. Any recusals or disclosures? Okay. Any other? Yeah, guys. Work for Frank, oh gosh, 20 years ago, but nothing current and was fine. Okay. I don't think it'll affect my ability to be impartial. Any, okay. So who's here for the applicant? My name is Frank Monturkovich. I'm here for the applicant. And we also have presenting tonight our consultants from Trudel Consulting Engineers, Lucy Thayer and Abby. Abby. Sorry, Abby. So they're on remote, testifying remotely. All right. Would you all please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on your penalty of perjury? I do. Yes. Thank you. Okay, give us, and we've seen this application before. This is a continued preliminary plat. Please give us a little overview of what you're bringing us now, and then we'll work through the staff report. We will. I'll be prepared to discuss some of the items on the staff report. I think we're here tonight to explain some changes that we've made in response to comments that we received from the board the last time we were here. And probably Abby or Lucy could take the lead on that, because I think they relate mostly to changes that we made to the storm water management system and some other civil site features. So if you'd like, we can start with that. Okay. Yeah, so I think the last time we saw this was in sketch plan, more of a sketch version, where we showed a layout change based on feedback we had received at our initial preliminary plat. Delilah, do you mind going to the site plan? Just so I can see what I'm, thank you. Yeah, so we have, the project is the same as what we had proposed in our initial preliminary plat, except it's reconfigured a little bit. So we have all of this in components. We have a new city street that comes off of Spear Street, goes north south in approximately the middle of the development. We have the eight fourplexes for 32 new units. We still are retaining a common space that's now in the center of our development that's been rearranged. We've revised our storm water features and revised our planting. But in essence, this is the same project just put together slightly differently. I think one other addition, one piece of the site plan that might be newer than our initial preliminary plat is we're now showing the solar development that is going to happen on the east portion of the project. Toward the highway. Yes, okay. Yes, so this is a revised preliminary plat. Correct. Thank you. Okay, number one. So the first comment relates to the large steel building. And tell us about how you plan to screen that steel building and what the details are related to that. Sure. So the steel building, let me first start off and say that the steel building is an existing structure that's part of the property today. And we saw it originally as a challenge for how we would incorporate something like that into a development like this. But as time has gone on, we're really convinced that it's an asset to the project. And I'd like to explain why we feel that way to the board and see if the way we envision it to be used effectively addresses the questions that the board has asked. It is not a historic barn, but it is essentially in size and bulk and shape, very similar to the agricultural buildings that exist on the UVM farm just located to the north of this site. So it's context in that set of buildings that are on Spear Street shouldn't surprise anyone. And in other words, once you've seen it and you see it again, it sort of fills into the landscape. From the Spear Street viewpoint, the steel building is fairly well shielded or blocked by the white two and a half-story building that it presently exists. There will be landscaping placed on the west side of the steel building to soften the view that somebody might catch as they drive or walk up and down Spear Street. But on the other side of the building on the east side, which is where it will have the greatest visual impact, with the change that we made to the project to take buildings and put them on the west side of the interior road. I don't know if you're looking at the plan now, but we repositioned those buildings and they effectively screened the view of the rest of the project to the steel building. So our intention here was to work with what we have and not try to hide the steel building completely, although I think it will now have a lot more screening, but acknowledge that it's there and it's there for a reason. And I think it might be, in our view, helpful for the board to focus on how we intend to reuse the building and how it will relate to the project. And hopefully that will get everybody to where we think we need to be in terms of getting comfortable with the steel building. So how do you intend to use it? Well, historic use was as a contractor's yard for the Culliard family who built the building back in the, we believe, the 1980s. It has been used continuously for that type of purpose. When we bought the property, we moved into it with our operations and continued to use it today for similar purposes, although we've cleaned up almost everything that had been stored outside the building. There were vehicles and debris and there are still some dirt piles out there, but all of the residual debris from the contractor's operation has been removed. And we have done extensive environmental studies to make sure that there's nothing related to that that was any kind of a threat. So, but going forward, our plan would be to continue to use it for our business purposes, but we don't need that much space. So the other uses that would happen in the building would relate to the development of the project. And the first use would be to build storage space inside the building for the tenants who occupy apartments in the complex. As most of you know, no one has enough storage and people rent storage spaces. So we'll provide that as an amenity to people who live there. The other use would be for the onsite maintenance and management of the site. We also need some room to maintain and manage the solar field. So those onsite uses would use most of the building. Oh, the other amenity that we intend to offer is a small area for a workshop and sort of a bicycle repair space for the tenants. And then an idea that we're still interested in as we all live through this evolution of COVID and hopefully it'll be over, but if it isn't and it requires people to be more to stay in that work from home mode for a lot of us, we could build a business space in there that would be dedicated to people who live in the residential community. We're not asking the board to take that idea up, but we have mentioned it before and we'd probably like to see if that's economically feasible if that, if those conditions continue. So thank you. Thank you. Is this criteria, is this all about the visual? I think so. Okay. Okay. So I appreciate the detail on the use because we were sort of like trying to not be sure that we did. So I guess to my mind, the architectural limits again, to me, I would like, I'd be curious that in other words, to me, is the problem, is the is the is the legalistic problem, the fact that the new apartments won't look like the steel building essentially? Yes. Why is this criteria not being met? Though it doesn't require them to look the same, they just have to be harmoniously related. And at previous hearings for this application, the board had said, well, I think Frank had said, we're going to reskin that building. And the board said, great, how? And Frank said, mm, TBD. So a lot of this is coming from the fact that the board seemed uncomfortable with where it was left. And I didn't want this to be one of those things that like Frank thought was in the bag and the board was still deeply uncomfortable with. Yeah, because to me, it's the standard is the same thing. And just like, well, can you put a gable on here? Or you put a little side window in here? You put some of this. Well, right. And that's the question. Is the board asking for that? And if so, I think it needs to be clear to the applicant that the board is asking for some architectural sprucing up of this building before they walk out of this room and think that they have an approval for it to stay as it is. Exactly with that. Yeah, I'd like. Appreciate your defense of the overall context of the building and where painted grand and similar colors. Yeah, but it is sort of one of those things that like we're building. Yeah, you're going to have these great apartments. And so to what extent can you incorporate those elements when somebody looks by? It's like, and it reinforces the fact that the building is not a standalone thing. It's part of the community. Right. I mean, as if you were building it from scratch. That's all. Maybe I can help. The reason I went into this long explanation of how we're going to use it is that I think how it's going to be used connects with how it should look. We're not trying to turn it into a fake old style agricultural barn. I don't think that can be done. We don't propose to paint it red like the UVM barns are painted red, even though it might sort of get closer to what you see up the street. I think the color itself is actually a good color because it sort of disappears when the grass turns yellow and when the grass is green. It's it's this murky yellowish color, which we all may not choose as our first color choice. But as I've gotten used to it, I think it's not bad. I don't I don't I'm not presenting to the night tonight to the board that we intend to reside the building or put new windows in or fake windows or anything else. I think the building actually has integrity the way it's the way it is. It's a steel building. And if if someone had an idea or the board has an idea for something we can do that's practical and and if it's worth it, I'd be happy to hear that. But I haven't been able to come. I guess and I'll just speak for myself. Yeah. I've seen the designs for the new apartments. And to me what I think is like no, we're trying to be pretty clear like we the building does need some elements to tie it visually and architecturally into the 32 units. I think that's what we're saying. Well, I can't I hear that. And I'll just say one more thing and then I'd like to hear what the board has to say to me. We actually designed the apartments to relate as closely as possible to what's going on on the site, which was two story buildings to kind of relate Balkan size to the existing White House that's there. The other idea was at the apart the apartment buildings are designed to have sort of a an agriculturalish look to them. You know, we didn't do we're not doing colonial style clapboard and trim. It's it's fairly we thought closely connected to what you might expect to see if you went onto the site. So we don't think there's a lot we can do to change the steel building. That's maybe we can look at some of them. Sure. Because we want to give you the feedback. Thank you. Yeah. You want to do that now? OK. I don't see elevations for the steel building in the the path. No, there are some photos. So yeah, I saw some photos. I mean, Frank, I'll tell you the thing that I like the idea that you're describing of the use of the steel building. I think it is a nice ancillary use to the overall site. You know, and I think it can be a nice amenity that's both functional and sort of forward thinking. The problem I have with the steel building is that it's too much of an industrial contractor steel building for 32 residential units where it's pretty much their backyard now. You know, you've got the two-story sort of colonial on the front of the site and the steel building. And then you've got your 32 nicely designed laid out sort of grid pattern development. I think what you've heard from the board and from almost a one about what we're looking for for this building is some sort of redevelopment of the building that what you just described. And you have like, I think there's something, looks like there's like six large roll-up doors, you know, and a couple other things. You know, I think you need to look at it and come up with a plan that, yeah, it's fine. It's a steel building. Maybe it would be nice to be reskinned. But I think if you look at some way of like, because you know, I think three of the large oversized roll-up doors which were used for the contractor work faces those four units or eight units, you know, they're backyards. I think this building could be very successful if it had more of a residential suburban feel to it. It could still be functional and the size and mass. But I think just in terms of the materials, it has to be a little more cohesive and a little more harmonious, which is exactly what the code says. I appreciate that. And Mark, we've, we, it wasn't a close call for us to say let's keep the building. We could have proposed, said this is just a problem that, you know, there's no obvious solution to it. So let's demolish the building and break out the foundation and add that to the cost of the project and see where this takes us. We're really trying to avoid that because we really think that it should be repurposed. The building is by no means obsolete, ready for demolition. I mean, it has a lot of life left in it. What doesn't make sense to us is to spend a lot of money to turn it into something that's beautiful because we think it's going to be well-screened. We think it will relate in the ways I've tried to describe to the way people will live and work and exist in the project. Taking out the overhead doors, some of them actually are needed and we like to keep them in place. Yeah, I'm saying I don't know. Yeah, I don't want the board to think that we haven't really thought hard about this. It's just there's no, other than just spending money to do something to it that doesn't have any seeming corresponding benefit to the people that are going to live there or how the building is going to be used. Nothing as, it's not obvious to us. And we, I don't know if the board appreciates that or has some reaction to that, but what could we do with this other than not have it be there? What color will the units be? They, well, the final colors haven't been selected, but it would be a palette of soft colors in some ways relating to the yellows and light greens and other colors that are on the other building. Yeah. Because if they were gray or taupe, Yeah. The yellow, to me, the yellow steel building would stand out like a sore thumb. Yeah. So if there is some attempt to blend the colors, maybe that'll make it, I don't know. What do you guys think? How many existing windows does the steel building have and on what sides are they? There is one, or actually, there are two windows. They're in the office corner of the steel building on the southwest corner of it that face to the yard. And then they, well, the other window faces to the west. Other than that, there are no, you know, height, first floor windows. Yeah. Being a pub. Right, because I get the siting issue, but I'd like, if we were to take that existing building and put more windows in it, it would look at least, the roofline's different, but at least visually. If you were walking by, you'd glance at it or whatever, and you saw some windows on the west side and some windows on the east side, it would provide natural light space in there, less than east, maybe not the north side, obviously, at least it would sort of blind in a little bit better now than just what you'd see now. Can you do that with the steel building? You can cut windows in. Again, I would just point out to the board, and to Dan, I appreciate your comment, is that these would be changes that don't add any benefit to the functionality of it. They may, I think the thing that's going to help the most on our, this was the original plan, by the way, which you can see the building was very prominent in this plan, and I remember having these discussions with the board, but there was no, well, we hadn't come up with a formula then either, but the new plan will completely shield the building from the project, except for the backyards, which will be landscaped and fenced. I think the landscaping changes will make a huge difference. We could add more windows. To your comment, Don, that's not a hard thing to do with the steel building. They can be riveted on, but we will just be adding more windows to the steel building. I'm not sure that's the solution. I mean, for what it is, the standard is what it is. We just went through the prior application talking about how that was designed, was looking at the other buildings around it to make it fit. And so this is a great retrofit, and it's an awesome project and it's housing, and we support the Regional Planning Commission, et cetera, but now we've got the standard here and it is what it is. Well, the standard, we didn't create this, though, Don. This is an existing, not a project created problem if it is a problem, and personally, I don't feel it. But if this was a stand, if that building was a separate lot with a separate owner, that separate owner could be coming in here and saying, oh my gosh, this is out of character, and it's not harmonious to my beautiful Georgians or whatever. We're just relating the standard to you, Frank. I appreciate that. I'm trying to understand how the standard was intended to apply. I think if we brought this project to you and said, hey, we want to build 32 units of housing in these eight buildings, and we want to put up the steel building, then I think the Board could rightfully say that doesn't relate, but having it being an existing feature of the landscape. Right, but the issue, the difference here is that you're putting 32 new buildings as your subdivision beauty review, and this steel building has now become part of the project. And to me, it just doesn't feel like it fits with these 32 other plan unit grid residential units. That image where that's the old layout, the old rendering, that to me even had a better opportunity for blending harmoniously with the project because it was its own standalone area. But now that it's literally like the backyard of eight of the units, I feel like you do have to spruce it up. You do have to make it blend a little more so that it doesn't feel like this giant steel building in someone's backyard. Could you put, do we have an ability to put up our current? I'm looking for it, I don't know the message. I don't think there is a rendering. See, there's not a rendering of the new plan. Abby sent me a little message and there's the as well, and it's not in this package. We presented it at the sketch plan hearing is when that would have. You remember that. This is from the sketch. You mean the mid preliminary sketch that we did? Yes. What was the date of that meeting? No, we can pull it up now that I understand what the question is. So, okay, I'll find it Delilah and I'll even pick it up. That December 7th, Marla? Yeah, yeah, I can, okay. Frank, the point I'm trying to get at in terms of harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood is, especially since you're talking about this building being sort of like a storage for the 32 units, possibly a workshop, bike storage, bike workshop, possibly future homework areas, is I just think the building itself does need to be reskinned, which might cost some money to have it feel like it's more of an accessory building to these 32 proposed structures that are going on the site. Well, that's helpful. It's a butler building. It had the roof, trim, everything's integrated into the way this is built. It is literally a steel skin on the outside. I appreciate your point, Mark. I really do. I know. Is it a financial or is it a functional? Well, from the functional point of view, this building requires very little maintenance, which is one of its beautiful features, because you don't have to paint it and you know, fix rotten siding and do things like that to put a non-durable material on it, like vinyl, which I think would be worse, honestly, and you probably do too. I mean, I'd have to think about what sort of modern day materials could be applied that would make a difference. Paint would certainly be a possibility, eliminating one or more of the overhead doors, if that would help, if that would improve the symmetry or not, is always a possibility, but how do we fill those spaces? The cost to install like a glass wall inside one of those openings is really substantial. Really substantial, and plus it allows you to see inside a building that's going to have. No, but you could fill it in with the same skin, the same metal panel, and you might end up with a little reveal where the old door was. The other thing, not supposed to design for it, but you could do like a 36 inch high, the cultured thin stone veneer water table around the bottom to reduce or change the scale on the side facing the road and the side facing the houses and keep the back and the one facing the dumpster more uniform, but that would at least change to give it a little better scale feel to it for it being in a residential setting now. It's one thing when it was in a contractor backyard of a contractor building, where that was a functional active work site. The we found the sketch now or the aerial view, which so yeah. I think the landscaping and the parking and the reconfiguration of that space does make a big difference. It'll certainly have a much more approachable feel to it because I think someone would be comfortable going into this building to work or store their things and use it for what its obvious purposes, but we could certainly look at ideas like paint and making a decision whether we need to have all four of the doors. Adding windows, if there are places where more windows would make it more, it'll have that modern look, I suppose. We could do things like that. You've got all these overhead doors and I see one, I think on that rendering, the trucks backed up to it with the striping, which means that it's meant for actual loading and use. You have other ones where it's just in a sidewalk. It's one thing I'm sure that it was meant for trucks to drive in, go into the building and actually use it for vehicle storage and vehicle use. It doesn't seem like that's going to be the current use of the building. I would agree. I think you don't need all those overhead doors. It seems like there's what? Five of them. Two on the side that we can see. Two on the side facing the houses and one on the far side facing the dumpster area. Maybe you end up only keeping two. One on either of the long sides for where the dumpster is and on the far side and then on the front where you look like you can access it and then you close in three of them. Maybe some of that gets some glazing to allow some natural daylight into it. Some of it just gets filled in with the same metal panel system that's currently on the bumper building. I think what we're trying to get at is making it, and I don't want this to sound offensive or critical, making it less of an eyesore and blend in more with the new buildings. There's not as much of a dichotomy. There's the still building here and then these lovely new units. I'm happy to look at those ideas. I know it's not your job to solve our design problems for us, but I just can't keep coming back with nothing because you're asking the same question and we don't have a good answer for you. At some point I think the board has to tell us whether we can build this project with that steel building or whether we can't build this project because of the steel building. I have not heard anyone express you can't build this project with a steel building. I know. It's more about what kind of modifications can you make to this building to make it more compatible with the architecture of the homes or the units? I'd like to see it more feel like it's an accessory building for this project rather than an afterthought that you designed around. Okay. Are we ready to move on or do you feel like you need more direction from us? You've probably had quite enough. No, I appreciate what the board has said and we're happy to continue to work on this. We'll see where we where we end up. Okay, thanks. Let's move on to number two and this relates to the I don't really have a grasp of this but Marla could you summarize this please? It's about the impediments to. Sorry. So there's a planned right of way, a planned public roadway and so the planned public roadway can't have private features within it and so there's a few things that are within the public the planned public right of way that can't be there. The reason this is an important comment for the board is that at a glance it looks like moving some of those features particularly the two storm basins at the bottom of the page may impact the design of the project so you know I don't think relocating a transformer is really going to change the way the project's designed but if they have to reconfigure the site to get those storm features out of the public right of way the board may want to I guess we want to hear from the applicant on what what redesign is going to be necessary to accomplish this so that the board can decide whether to close or whether to keep it open and get that taken care of before closing preliminary. Lucy Abbey, I'll go ahead and try to respond to that but definitely chime in if I if I get it wrong the the we don't have a problem moving transformers if they were located in the right of way that was an inadvertent mistake and we can take care of that. The the two ponds that you see at the entrance way the entrance driveway to the steel building those do encroach at least the slope of those the grading of those ponds encroaches by a couple of feet I think into the intended public right-of-way it's amazing that that's that actually does create a design problem for us because to to still maintain that size of pond it's just difficult to lengthen it or change it so one thought is we are in conversations and we've had discussions with the university that owns the property to the south of moving the right-of-way keeping the road and all the sidewalk in the right-of-way but shifting it to the shifting the right-of-way itself 10 feet to the south which would take those features out of the public right-of-way and we expect to be able to make that arrangement with our neighbors and if that's okay with them I think we've found a technical solution to a to an encroachment problem how likely is that to have how likely is that to happen it's very likely we have had these discussions with the university there are a few things that they've they're benefiting from with the project including the access through the project on the north south interior roadway they were also amenable to the idea of us installing street trees originally on their land so that they could help with their tree plantings along the roadway so I'm I'd say the chances are very good that UVM will agree okay board members questions lucy abby anything else to add to that uh did I cover that um no frank good job that that is our solution is just simply moving the right-of-way to around our bioretention basins the only mistake you didn't make is that they're not ponds they won't be wet they'll be planted depressions called bioretention basins um and the other place that there was some encroachment is um on the north side of the north south street but that is a there is room to shift those two basins either to the east or to the west pretty easily right yep board questions comments okay number three oh we'll try to read my own writing here um um how will we oh how will um the trash collectors access the toters uh the um each building will have a an enclosed area at the back in the middle of the passageway between the two halves of the building um where the toters will be stored so what we're trying to do is uh decentralize the rubbish collection system where don't like the idea of doing large dumpsters and things like that so uh each building will have a pickup uh by the rubbish hauler and they will pull the totes out empty and put them back in like many of stew on our own homes exactly the rubbish hauler will go to the units to get the totes not to the units to the first floor uh the rear to the to the the rubbish hauler will actually go into that vestibule area yes oh oh yeah not like our homes no no not like our homes at all oh oh i thought you said that that residents would roll it out no no no the rubbish hauler will roll it out oh send them to my place yeah yeah music thank you yeah all right number four um building cost staff does however recommend the board ask the applicant to confirm the above building cost remains in the correct ballpark uh i hope we're in the ballpark uh we haven't uh done a formal reprice since we've been involved with uh the events of the past couple of years but if there's been a shift uh we would come back to the staff and and tell them just we'll have to do the same thing with act 250 where we're using our best estimate right now but if it changes we will have to present that information to the city and it may if it changes our landscape requirement we'll deal with that proportionally board are we good with that okay number five curbs should be required staff recommends the board require curbing in the locations identified in the report uh there is a parking the parking area on the north side of the project uh which runs east and west uh we agree with the recommendation that we install a curb between the um parking area and the sidewalk and that that's something we can do okay moving on i believe that was the only place right abby that that we um anywhere anywhere that would be in front of a parked vehicle we agree that we can curb okay so between the buildings and the parking spaces or the parking in front of the parking spaces that are facing north okay thank you number six this is about the north south street extending to the property line it looks like that's that's something we can we will do number seven uh the green skit green space between the street and the sidewalk on both sides needs to be on both sides uh we talked our group talked about that the other day the um the reason we haven't done that is that in in the future could you put up the site plan again or the most recent version there's parking planned for one side of the street um the east side of the street the north south street in the event that we ever realized we need more parking uh setting it up this way would allow on street parking parallel parking to be constructed on the west side of that street that's the main driver for that design choice but otherwise i get where you're coming from frank but um if the city plows the street because it's a public street then the snow gets pushed onto the sidewalk and then they come along and plow the sidewalk the snow gets pushed onto private land which we can't do so that's why we need that green strip okay well i totally get where you're coming from and i wish it i weren't that way but that is the situation i'm looking at my engineer uh are we yeah we can go for it yeah we'll make that change we can do exactly what you're asking us to do then we can or you can convince our department of public works to plow in a different way but you know that's on you i'm not gonna i'd rather make a design change we can make that change okay thank you uh i think i think that's it sure so i had a quick question um on cheat c2-02 i just saw a hydrant that looks like it's within your future access to the solar area the driveway there that kind of connects around from the road and so i just kind of wanted to point that out and either recommend that you adjust the access to the solar area to not have your hydrant right in that driveline or side your hydrant either i mean i don't know how much space you really have there between the property line to keep it on your property but yeah is that it right there yeah yeah yeah i can i see right where it is we can move that uh to the other side of the sidewalk i would think any yeah we have a few um a few things to work out um with public works some comments so we need to respond to any other questions or comments before we ask for public comment thank you frank thanks are there any members of the public who would like to comment you see any unlined lila saying none i guess we will so the board should decide if they're um sort of going to let the applicant uh or close the hearing and have the applicant come back with a proposal for the steel building um if the board does that i would suggest some language and i don't think this is outside of what the board has done on other projects but i would suggest the board include in the decision some of the language that we talked about tonight about you know what improvements need to be made um to make the steel building have a harmonious relationship as required under the regulations or alternatively um you keep it open and they can go work on it a little bit i think we should put it to the applicant if they're can if are you prepared to come back to us with addressing of the the comments we've made tonight i i think we are we we uh everything that was brought up tonight is are things that we think are doable without sort of blowing up the scope of the project and what we intended what we think is possible for us for this for the steel building um i think we can and if we can't then we would ask them putting it as a language of the condition okay other people okay all right i'll entertain a motion to close the hearing i will make a motion that we close preliminary plaid application sd 2 1 1 9 i'll second that any discussion all in favor of closing the hearing signified by saying aye aye opposed okay thank you very much for your time appreciate it good luck thank you thank you okay the next item on the agenda is the following project sketch plan application sd 2204 of uvm medical center to construct a one and a half story 84 000 square feet medical office with associated parking equipment and storm water treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot at 119 telly drive who is here for the applicant do you want to move up to the table closer and is there anyone who wants to recuse himself or has a conflict of interest do you feel you can be impartial okay thanks any other disclosures or so jim did you were you going to recuse from this one jim jim here jim langan i was i was muted yeah i was muted i'm i'm back here yes i'm recusing okay thank you jim um okay who is here for the applicant please introduce yourself my name is david kelte i'm a director of the uh facilities planning and development for the uvm health network okay thank you gail henderson king is anyone else going to be testifying it's it's it's possible if they're called upon so you probably want their names yeah we don't need to swear people in but getting their names would be helpful oh it's sketch that's right yeah okay all right thank you um could you tell us your names please thank you thank you david white president of whitenberg real estate advisors thank you okay thank you okay so this is a sketch plan which is kind of the first step in the process and it it's an opportunity for you to give us an overview of your project and for us to focus on more kind of big picture issues right so that you can go the next step having some feedback and guidance from the board yeah uh so uh we thank you very much for the opportunity to to present this project to the board i'd like to uh also thank uh marla and paul for input they've given us as we've been doing going through the planning process but i guess we'll start with you know why the need for the project uh we have been contemplating an outpatient surgery center for some time it's in our master plan uh we didn't anticipate that we'd be doing it this soon but with the issues that we've had at fanny allen campus that you probably have read about with the closure of the ors a couple times in the over the past couple of years that coupled with the surgical demands that we're seeing now maybe some of it was the post covid pent up demand but we are market projections if you take a look at the demographics and such suggests that we're going to require more operating rooms uh currently we have five outpatient operating rooms on the fanny allen campus and they're really quite small that really limited to what i would say relatively minor procedures uh ophthalmology hand wrist that type of thing um the type of surgeries that we're contemplating for the new ambulatory care center or osc outpatient surgery center are more complex they involve more sophisticated procedures uh throughout a number of clinical surgical subspecialties ophthalmology orthopedics objyn uh and a number of other disciplines general surgery and uh that require a much larger operating room space bigger operating rooms and more equipment so taking the fact that you know we've got the issues at the fanny and our demographics on the need for creating better operating room capacity and facilities uh that drove most that drove our planning the tilly drive site has been we've been in that location now for i think almost 20 years uh our first building was uh cardiology and we have several facilities in that location but when we were looking at a potential site for this we looked at several sites uh including at tech park and some other areas uh this site that we ended up selecting was chosen partly because of the permitting work that uh pizzeria properties had done previously with respect to building on that location uh had did quite a bit of due diligence in terms of what the permit requirements and i believe and bob is here to confirm it i think they received uh essentially all the permits in the act 250 permitting uh and then the permitting was withdrawn uh we kind of picked it up because the site looked as though it had the right size i would tell you the geography of the site the topography is extremely challenging and that gave us some some concern so we've entered into a purchase in sale agreement with pizzicali properties that would uh we would purchase the property if we're able to complete our due diligence and obtain permits for the property uh and receive certificate of need approval which uh where the current status of the project is we're just finishing up schematic design and we're in the schematic pricing and we're anticipating submitting a co1 application within the next few weeks that will describe the project uh at a schematic design level and all of you know the needs for the project in terms of the cost estimate and equipment and such we have to submit that project we expect nominally uh hopefully less than a year but up to a year for review and approval uh so obviously that presents challenges in this current environment in terms of holding your estimates and such uh and so one of the reasons that we were here because we wanted to introduce the project to you uh given the amount of resources that we're going to commit to this is to try to try to get an understanding that we're on the right track here uh we in order for us to feel comfortable to go forward to the next continuing design and completing our for our co1 application so we want to make sure that we're kind of we're in the ballpark here and that we've anticipated everything that we need to anticipate if we're going to be permitting and building this project um I would say that uh a goal uh for me in talking to the board this evening and you have to decide this but to get some clarity on the direction we're going so we have some confidence uh moving forward with the next step so uh thank you for your consideration I'm going to turn this over to Gail for uh more detailed discussion uh in response to the staff's questions uh that were provided to us thank you thank you thank you welcome so as Dave had said we've been working on this project for the past several months and we've been working with city planning staff as well as we've been meeting with the neighbors and getting input on this and the whole reason that we submitted the sketch plan application is there are some pretty important issues that we need to get some clarity on in order to move forward with the project and we had outlined those in the project narrative that we submitted to you as well as some of the other backup information that we provided so that's really our goal tonight is to get your input and clarity on these issues so we have some understanding of how this project would be reviewed as we move forward great do you have anything else dad before we start going through the staff comments I have a presentation is that possible to sure okay okay um so I'm going to walk you through kind of the existing conditions on the site and some of the site constraints that we've had to deal with walk you through the project give you an understanding of the the building and site requirement program that we've come up with or that the medical center has for this how we have applied those and come up with this project and then open it up for your comments obviously so if you could put up the existing conditions plan that we submitted no no there's just there's just a topographic plan that was submitted as part of our package thank you yes perfect so this is the the entire lot it's lot six within the mountain view business park obviously north and south they're not up and down on the sheet they're left and right so left is south right is north on the site tilly drive is on the the south side of the lot on your left wait a minute could could could you highlight where tilly drive is i'm not quite oriented sure tilly drive is running along the left side of the sheet here i might yeah that's what i did i know yeah okay i do have a little pointer if you look at the screen of course it might we can do that too okay this this is tilly drive right here this is the red barn deli this is matri health care this is poor poor farm road old farm road sorry old farm where is old farm road it's it's right here on the west side oh i'm nuts oh that's funny it doesn't show it's kind of right here okay it's not on the right side yeah and the obrion east view development borders the site on the north right here this is lot two oops a lot two of the mountain view business park and this is the matri health care for orientation does that help everybody understand yes super so first the there's a 100-foot green mountain power right of way that runs through the basically the middle of the site here which has poles and overhead lines on it and within that there's also a 20-foot green uh the Champlain water district water main easement that runs through the site as well so between those two this there's very little that we can do with disturbing and changing the grades within that area so that really kind of divides the site in some ways into two areas as a result of that you'll also notice there's these little outcroppings here in various points there's ledge on the site some of it is exposed but it's pretty consistent throughout the site so that has been an issue that we've had to deal with and work around topography uh between the west and the east side of the site it's sloping to the east there's anywhere from a 26 to a 30-foot grade change on the site west to east and then north to south there's roughly a 20-foot grade change so there's a lot of topography the lowest part of the site is on the east and right down in this area so there's been you know a lot of things we've had to deal with there's also two class three wetlands on the site there's one here on this little portion of the site and then another one here this wetlands is under 5 000 square feet so it's not regulated by under the south berlington zoning this wetlands here this class three wetlands is a little over 10 000 square feet so it is regulated under your regulations both of these wetlands we have had a wetland specialist gillman and briggs review them delineate them they're isolated wetlands they're not connected to each other and they're not connected to a water source and their functional values are minimal if anything so they're they're pretty they're not they're not actively doing a lot for any storm water again the site is sloping all down to the east so they're not performing real major storm water collection issues right now so those have all been constraints that have been been involved with looking at this site in addition to the zoning requirements for this site obviously there's the setbacks the building needs to be facing the front of the lot on on proposed or existing roads in this case we've got an existing railroad and a future city road over here so we end up having two front yards on the site so really the building has to go here it really can't go on the northern part of the site because then we'd have all the parking in the front of it there's currently an access a shared access that crosses over this lot on lot 6 for access to this lot here with a red barn deli and it was anticipated and it was proposed as the access to the site in the previous approvals for the project so with all those um constraints really the building program here the the program for the site is looking you know trying to be a patient fendrick patient sorry patient-centric criteria is important for the medical center for this project they need to have good access for the patients to the site helping the patients in and out of the site making it an easily accessible and having you know clear access and views from for the project from Tilly Drive um they want to have the building oriented for natural um daylight needs to be 80 accessible for the main entrance but also 80 80 accessible from the parking areas to the building as well for the patients as well as for staff the loading area needed to be separate from the entry area so the building is proposed as a two-story building the first story of the building and the access the front door of the building is right here your the entrance comes in off of Tilly Drive this is the drop-off area this is the front entry to the building this whole this is the main floor of the building this is where the operating rooms and all the clinical staff and everything are that's the whole entire first floor at that grade there's a lower level of the building which is this part here it's not the full building and this would be the loading dock and staff entrance into the building that the design has been the the design for the loading area has been designed has been set so that the vehicles accessing that's can come in access this loading dock and go back out and not go in at all to the parking area that will be used by patients and staff and that was a pretty critical thing we also wanted that that loading area to be away from the residential neighborhoods on the west side of the site as well as they'll eventually be on the north side of the site there is a requirement in the zoning for an increased buffer setback for abutting the residential neighborhoods so that will apply to the west and the north side of the site as well may i say just one oh sure let me point out how do you put the button here make sure to push the right button so as gill was talking about the at grade level the first floor is the front end of it is the drop off area patient reception waiting and so on as you go back into the space you go into pre-operative area and in this general location people go into surgery and they come out to a post-operative area and they'll be recovering from anywhere is from a couple hours up to 23 hours and they'll be leaving the site through a separate exit discharge in this location so the incoming and outgoing traffic aren't co-mingling the loading dock looks pretty good size and it is and it's really designed to handle clean supplies coming in and dirty supplies going out there is not a lot of truck traffic there is incidental traffic to drop off clean linen clean supplies and then the dirty side which is principally dirty linen and waste and recycling but they're not this is not a trip generator in terms of constant coming and going they're there to make sure that we can drop off the right amount of material at the right time and we can pick up the dirty and take it out so it's big it's largely big because we have to have areas for separating clean from dirty and they you cannot co-mingle so we need twice as much dock as a normal other type of similar office building. Miguel mentioned the loading dock is here and that staff entrance that's true but the biggest use on this on this area is our central sterile reprocessing which is oriented directly below the ORs and that way that works is sterile items are brought up into the OR core from below there you have the surgical procedure and then the dirty utensils and other items are brought down so there's a vertical relationship between the ORs and the central sterile supply below that seemed to work out in this location for a couple reasons that we'll get into but i just want to make sure that folks have an understanding of how the building was going to be used thank you. So again as i was saying that this is the the entrance the drop-off area we have handicapped parking and some other parking spaces up here to be able to accommodate that drop off and pick up for patients coming in and out of the the facility there's also parking up in this area for patients to park and then this will be most of this will be for staff parking there's a series of interconnected walkways from the parking area to the building from the building to Tilly Drive and there's a proposed future connection and a little overlook here to connect into a future bike path when that or rec path when that's built out here on the future city road the whole east side of the site here in this area is the stormwater treatment gravel wetlands to have again as i was mentioning earlier the whole site is sloping this way so the water is collected and treated here on site before draining into offsite areas another another piece is that for this building there needs to be a series of mechanical equipment structures but they're not structures they're equipment that are related to the building that are out here in the site they need to be in close proximity to the site we included in the packet for you examples of what those different MEP structures look like we have chillers that are needed oxygen farm generator transformer and those are all out here in this general area again to yes if you want to show those images that would be perfect these are examples of these structures either at the uvm medical center campus in burlington or at the family fanny allen campus this is an oxygen farm example yeah this is up at the the medical center example of what that looks like if you go to the next page is there any chance that this would be more appropriate to talk about when we get to the staff comment about the equipment well we wanted to be able to show and talk about you know the need for these and why these are here if you would like to jump back to the site plan that's fine so shall we start with the staff comments going through the staff comments well there's a couple of the things i'd like to point out on the site plan if we can go back to the site plan is that sure super thank you so again we've provided landscaping of some some issues that that we found out from the neighbors where that they really wanted to have screening and privacy from from the project so there's proposed berms and landscaping from evergreens to mixture of other landscape plantings in those areas for the neighbors there is an existing windmill on the site that there's some sentimental value attached to that so we've ended up relocating it into one of the islands here for a couple of the neighbors that would like to be able to see it and then one of the boulders that's out in this area here it's kind of been dubbed the nef rock there's some fond memories of the nefs playing on that rock growing up on the property so we're we've worked around and kept that boulder there for them then in terms of the so we talked about the rec path connections at one point we had talked about trying to provide a rec path on the site and connecting it somehow through the site when we present discuss this with the neighbors there was a lot of opposition for that being on the west side of the site and there really wasn't a whole lot of options that we could come up with at the moment for this so we will commit to working with the neighbors in the city on trying to come up with a reasonable solution for that but we would ask that it not hold up this project to move forward we think it's going to be a challenge to make that to come to some resolution of that but as we've the the future path will connect somewhere out onto tilly drive there already is the tilly drive bike path that exists a rec path that will connect over eventually to community drive and does connect out onto um hindsburg road for the future road connections there's a the o'brien eastview project has a proposed road dead ending on the north end of the this site and one thing i forgot to mention is this this portion of the site um on the north end here we are proposing that to be permanent open space there are no plans to do any future buildings or any expansion on the site this is pretty uh this is all that we're going to be able to do on the site so this would be proposed as open space and however what how we will commit to working with the the city and the uh o'brien brothers to make that connection somehow through to this future city road regarding the future city road it's proposed on lot two there's already a 100 foot wide um easement shown on the matri property when they got approvals and the intent was that it would connect here to wherever the o'brien road is coming we have very briefly looked at that to see if that could work um to go around the wetlands there's class two wetlands on this site there you know it appears that that would work there may be some impacts to the class two buffers we could potentially work on the north northern side um side of the site here to make any adjustments but this road is not on this project it's not needed for this project we're not making we we just we don't have any relationship to that and uh so again we we'll work with the city and with psigalli properties on that but it's not part of this project at one point we had looked at potentially having an access out onto that uh future road and it was really early on when we were looking at the site and thinking about how logistically it would work in terms of deliveries and um the the vehicles accessing the loading dock but realized that it really wasn't needed we could accommodate everything on the site so that's why there's nothing shown we don't for this project we don't need it we're working with a traffic engineer now to to verify that you know we can accommodate everything on the site and be able to handle the traffic in and out of the project gale in the interest of time a lot of the things you're talking about now are things that we will be covering with the staff report so which you've seen so i'm wondering are there any other are there any things you'd like to tell us before we dive into the staff report and and deal with these specific issues just the elevations yes yes and say that's the last thing can you pull up the elevations that we sent in today please so this is the site plan showing the 100-foot green mountain power right right of way through the site and we thought just for being able to show the site a little bit better we've created two cross sections one from west to east this a and from north to south b so you can get an idea of how we've designed this building to fit into the site given the constraints that there are in the program that we're working with so if you can go to the next slide so the section a here this is west to east on the site so the red barn deli is over here this is the property line that you can see here we've marked where the class three wetlands are and the wetlands buffer this is the drive driveway in this is the driveway for the drop-off area to the building and then here's the building again showing the two stories with a second story kind of down at the lower grade and then this is the area that we need for those gravel wetland stormwater treatment areas and then the property line here in the um the east side and the dashed line here shows the existing grade and we're dropping from the west to the east over 26 feet and so the really the project has been designed to fit into the site given the as much as we can you know working with the constraints that we have with the site for section b this is from north to south so this property line i mean yes this property line here this is tilly drive out here and again the site is sloping up and we've got a 19 foot grade change between just above the parking lot this is the upper parking lot this is where the green mountain power right of way is this is the access down to the loading dock areas and again this shows the two stories of the building and the reason we felt that it was important to show this is so that you get an idea of the grades and how we've met we've worked to get this building to fit into the site the best you can you know with having to disturb as the least amount of ledge is possible on the site there is a lot of ledge on the site and there is ledge underneath the building so we just are trying to be conscious of that and get this building to fit you know make it all work here on the site which we believe has really come out pretty well but one of the comments in the staff report was to say could we have this entrance that's on the west side of the building excuse me could we wait for that till we come to the comment okay i think it would be much easier for us to absorb this if we do that okay thank you leave that up here though okay all right um so this so i was a little confused myself this is a sketch plan but in the permit history is it really a site plan marla i wasn't clear about that so this is an optional sketch plan okay any any applicant is welcome to come in with a sketch plan okay all right the first comment and this is about the open space does the applicant want to preserve the open space sounds like you do yes we have agreed that yes that that northern portion we're willing to make questions thoughts no okay um in the case of a master plan the applicant may combine the application for site plan review with the application for master plan review i don't understand what that means so so the only question i have on that is the second right of way access from a brian is sort of going through that meadow conservation area how does that affect this so they would have to reserve that space from they meaning the applicant from being conserved it would have to be yeah i'm good with that we'll have to show it where the proposed right of way for accessing right will be right again that's where we need the town's input because that was their idea the great idea by the way right but we need help on trying to optimize it for what the vision of the of the town is okay we'd be glad to show it on the plan and you know dedicated or whatever is required to preserve it thank you any other comments or questions so there's a whole lot in the plan about restricted infrastructure encroachment so let me read number two staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant locating the site access to the east in order to eliminate natural resource impacts yeah so the sorry i have a for your benefit i have a cold which is why i keep blowing my nose too um it's like you haven't had a cold in two years because everyone's been socially distanced and then i you know i went out with some friends on friday and bam um so the environmental protection standards these are sort of new to the board right this is under the regulations that were adopted in february um have a much higher bar for impacts to wetlands um and so that's what a lot of this preamble before the red comment is um and so if they have the access as designed um they would have to demonstrate that they meet this higher bar um to allow the wetlands impacts including demonstration that there is no feasible alternative to safe access to the developed portion of the property um and that the impact is the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development so um the question here is um you know unless they can make that justification they should be providing access without impacting the wetland at all can i comment on that uh yeah thank you when we were contemplating this we were looking at the the state regulations had no requirements for impact on the wetlands when we met with uh with marla and very helpful we talked about what the criteria for that was and we have to demonstrate you know that the impact is minimal and and required and needed and what i like to do is just mention that the access to the site is one of the most important design characteristics that we looked at on the site because when we want patients when they turn on the tilly drive and we want them to come into the site we want them to make you know general um a wayfinding uh visual wayfinding to the front entrance of the building so when they come in the driveway they know exactly where they're going and we had room to provide drop off and circulation here so that was the major driver for uh bringing the entrance there and having that approach the building of square footage being what it is didn't give us an opportunity to slide that to the east so what we're showing on the plan here is the actual needed and required access to the building for patients and it does encroach on that wetlands but we believe they're a class three wetlands and there is opportunity within your regulations to have a discussion about the minimal impacts of that and provide some overriding information about the need to do that and that's driven primarily to ensure that we've got good patient access into the building and we weren't really able to move the building to be able to go around those wetlands so questions comments board marlon i think so yeah i think um consume that one page 10 the one you're on yeah um it's very yeah the regular plan is just the existing conditions so in this one it's kind of shown sort of it's the oblong shape where it says wetland seed mix in the big island at the patient drop off yeah the the wetlands is is yeah roughly in here yeah you can see it yeah and then the the i think the 50 foot buffer is is here right they're both shown so the driveway goes through the wetlands yeah this would be the wetlands a wetland seed mix here for this area and this canopy overhang of the building and this the drop-off area would be impacted class three right and so there's different regulations for class three um now that there didn't used to be and some of those just flipping back to the packet page um so in the case of class three the board can grant a modification of the wetland standards if the modification meets all the standards a through d which are about minimum required um no addu addu undo adverse impact to the character or the ability to restore water and then the specific wetlands and functions but the first one i think is really important that it's the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development because that points back to um the previous ones for wetlands in general which is alternative access um does not exist is it feasible that the building could be rotated 90 degrees to the east which would make it more you know more north south as opposed to east west and then the driveway gets shifted you know i don't know 20 30 feet to the east so the whole building the whole building rotates 90 degrees it's still staying the same way out so you sort of go in and then you take up yeah i think the constraint is the bisecting of uh green mountain power easement right the building is right on the right up to it we are building line yes the building and that was one of our challenges to balance all these things and how close or can the can the building get to the street it's up to the front setback right now i believe right so that the board has the ability to wave down to minimum of 10 feet you can down to minimum of 10 feet 50 50 what would that bias well a theory if you can rotate the building more of a north south orientation then it means the driveway could be shifted to the east some so people would come in and then make a right hand turn into the drop off area they'd go north and then they'd go east and move the whole building closer to the street by some presence on the street i'm just trying to play around to keep their layout right that sounds like an optimal idea the the circulation that we show here is when we drop patients off we want them to pull into the side and be able to drop them off on the passenger side so you need the requisite circulation to be able to do that and uh so that requires a geometry similar to what you we have shown here that's you may i um excuse me if i may add uh david white one of the challenges here again want to go back to what gail talked about which is the topography and if you look at the grades on this site by the time you get to tilly drive it has dropped considerably and um so that it's if you try to do the drop off facing tilly drive you're actually on the lower level which means that all your patient care is going to be underground with your deliveries above ground and the parking is then behind the building and they can't they've got to go down uh 20 feet to get to the the front entrance was on the opposite side of the building so when you look at designing a site like this you've got to look at the relationship among all of those factors so because the zoning appropriately says look let's put the parking behind we've got to deal with the fact that we've got a fixed elevation with this 100 foot wide uh green mountain power right away we can't change that and we've got the elevation increasing above that and how do we get the parking there to be handicapped accessible and and friendly for the the patients and their family members who are bringing them to the site how do you make that handicapped accessible and how do you make it convenient so that they can get to the front door and around on the tilly drive side doesn't do that nor does the east side because the east side is now even further downhill uh and so you the the design here puts all of the patient access close to the parking as close as we can get frankly we'd like it closer than it is but we've got that 100 foot right of way that that bifurcates the site um but it works because it's it's it's a grade that works relative to handicapped accessibility and you've got visual access from tilly drive and from the parking right to where the entrance is and you get the uh all the uh back of the house activities at the lower level at the lowest part of the site so believe us that this has been very carefully vetted and thought about in terms of how all those relationships and you're asking great questions but we thought about them the design team has worked on them uh and we believe this is the uh optimal design on this site but it but but we're really getting at the core question if this doesn't work for you folks we need to know that because we can't go forward and continue uh what will be incredibly expensive detailed design work and the c o n process if if this is not going to be acceptable if it's not we need to know that and we'll need to figure out what we do from there right because there's so that's this is a core discussion right here you're really threading a needle through a bunch of different issues and impediments exactly threading the needle through a lot of different yep so here's here's one question you know the the i think the crux of the regulations is minimally required you know and i guess one thing i wonder is if you hear from us that we're amenable to a front yard setback reduction you know getting closer to tilly drive if you could reprogram some of your floor your floor area so that you move more you know on the right side of the site you know under the area where it says u b m m c oh i see more towards the the front of the site and you can pull the entrance further to the right or you know away from the wetlands would you be able to have a larger two-way drop-off and exit that goes around the the wetlands so that you're not impacting the wetlands on the with the main access to the parking lot it's not as direct straight shot in but if you would be more impacting the buffer rather than the actual wetland you know we could it's more of a is that more of the minimal invasiveness so let me uh i'd like to just mention that the very first thing that we did when we were presented with this site after we selected it's okay how can we work with this is this site going to work and most of the discussion around our planning for this is just exactly what we were talking about now how do we get patients into the site make it visible proximate and convenient and secondly how do we accommodate the program in such a way as we're able to create a great entrance for the entrance of the building and then tuck the second lower levels downhill so we could take advantage of the site constraints so we looked at this whole thing and we came to conclusion that this was the most minimal impacts that we could have in that area we worked very hard to move that building farther to the right and we weren't able to achieve that i'm not suggesting moving it farther to the right because i see that you have all of your stormwater you know retention bonds yeah i'm saying you move some of the mass of the programming closer to the street that allows you to pull some of the mass of the programming away from the wetlands and that access road can get to be enlarged and it sort of just circumnavigates the wetlands and you don't get the one that cuts right through the the wetland uh i don't know thomas morris or you can do we have a floor plan i i don't have the building because that's the surgical suite yeah and the surgical suite as as a functional requirement has a clean core in the middle that clean core is already too small for them because of the fact that we're so pinched east to west there would be no way to change that the the geometry of that rectangle to make it pull more towards the street because the only space to give up is that clean core and it's already very narrow so i don't have a plan but but you have a perimeter of surgical suites with a clean core in the middle there's no way to change that shape but if we if we were able to find a way and pull the building and skinny it the road the road back to the parking lot would still be where it's at no you you would my my thought was whether you made rather than a one-way patient drop-off that would have to become wider and become two-way so you might you know you would have your drop-off still you know passengers i drop off but then you would also have your egress right and then you could it right then you still might impact some of the wetlands but you'd looks like you would almost be protecting the wetlands you would be definitely impacting the buffer but you know it's a way to compromise and still you know meet the regulations which right and maybe the site's not going to work i mean that's something we'll just have to take a look at what i wanted to the point to is the way the circulation is we like the one way because you're dropping off cars parking unloading and so on giving enough room for wheelchairs and so on so forth the idea is that people who are coming to the site employees don't go into this drop-off they're going straight to the parking area loading and deliveries are going directly to this area and going back out they're not coming into this drop-off so all sudden combining all of that into one area is really i didn't say it was ideal i just said i was trying to find a way to know we appreciate that we appreciate the the thought and again you know we've had a lot of discussions about how this could possibly work and that you know that that is part of the challenge here was trying to keep those two separate because again when patients are coming in and being dropped off and picked up they may be vehicles may be standing there for a little while parking there for a little while for the ease of patients getting in and out another way to to look at this that the geometry of the footprint is pretty much dictated by code and what the requirements are the thing that's really hurting us here and the penalty on the site is that green mountain power a Champlain water district right away because we're having to crowd everything on the front side of that we had our druthers we want to move that actually back a little farther have more room to maneuver in front of the building it just we're not able to do that in this case well the other the other thing Dave is that even if we were to skin the building and eliminate that far western portion that goes straight to the back parking lot we still have to come into the drop off and come back out to the west because we can't cross the right away straight across the graves don't work it's too low so gail if you point to the the drop off canopy you draw a line straight up we cannot go through there we have to go back out to the west and then cross there right but what i'm saying is that the wetlands is pretty much where that grass big grass berm is yes so you would you drop off go back out and come you pretty like i said it's not ideal i was just trying to sort of offer a compromise it's basically just getting rid of a straight shot that cuts across so assuming we weren't able to mess with the geometry of the building per se and we're kind of constrained here and here in the loading dock and such is this this is the does the wetland intrude in this area here gail oops okay so taking up what you were talking about if we're able to come in and then run this up more in this area and liberate this for wetland that's what you're talking about that's what i'm talking about okay i understand yeah so we would have to have a wide enough we'd have to have the drop off area but then you need to have one lane going up and then a lane that's coming down so what would happen is this would kind of disappear and this road boundary would come over in this somewhere in this area yes yes we can look at that and you know that's a i mean i'm talking this still impacts the buffer i mean is that any issues from a regulatory standpoint um i don't believe that there are any different regulations for wetlands as there are for buffers though um yeah i'm not seeing any differences in the regulations um though that being said i think that you know that one of the standards is the encouragement represents the least possible impact of the specific resource um it's less impact to have an impact to a buffer than it is to wetland sort of by definition so we're trying to find a compromise that reduces the impacts the other benefit of that and i'm not trying to talk against myself here is it creates more of a open corridor in that in that area on that side of the property what do you mean between i think one of the one of the downsides to just having one wider access into the side it forces people that are just dropping people off to go all the way up through the parking lot to turn around yeah you're right oh right that's true yep because there you just do a big loop and leave gala my mistake in here uh but doesn't didn't you excuse me isn't the drop off pavement right there that that western edge of it pretty tight to the wetland and uh now is there really additional buffer space where those trees are shown or whatever the landscaping is that's why i was trying to i was eyeballing it and we don't have the benefit of the actual that's believe this is the the buffer where the trees are but my what i'm getting at is if hypothetically one were to move that two lane road over there are we really reducing wetland impacts it's a question i don't know the answer if i could ask that the um applicant team is there someone on your team who's on a computer who can use the annotation tools because nobody watching this remotely can see your pointer and so if there's someone like jeff or someone who the the applicants online you can grab the annotation tools and sort of draw on or highlight um because nobody watching outside of this room sees that pointer based on the existing conditions plan i think all the trees in that island are in the buffer not in the wetland that's why i was yes right jeff can you access the um let me try i think so we don't forget it the big issue that you just mentioned is that we need to have people be able to uh circulate around there and uh i have a quick question and is this a setback because you couldn't the whole building as a whole be moved to the east or does the topography of the storm water is that a set why is that line that eastern boundary of the building that's set by setback that's set by the the storm water gravel wetland wetland that's what is required for the wetland that's what's required this whole slope on either side of the gravel wetland exactly we wouldn't want that right there if we just have to but you know they have a certain correct square footage that they need and you know they've created an island building that's right at the edge as was depicted in the section and you have to grade both sides of it you can't just have one side graded because i'm you can't shift the gravel wetland more to the east you're i think derrick knows better but i think you're limited to two to one slopes and it has to have a certain volume the schematic of the gravel wetland is sort of a canned schematic and i'm just wondering if it's adaptable to get the building another 10 feet to the right and to the east it might seem schematic but size it and it's just barely pretty impervious here it just barely the right size and it's yeah it's the low point of the property too right so yeah exactly all right i'm just trying to think of where we canned it with the building out of the wetland and we appreciate all these comments because this is exactly what we've been doing for several months trying to figure this out so the question on the table is what is the wetland and buffer overlay on this drawing so is there a way that we could determine that fairly quickly jeff well i had drawn that on earlier and then i erased it because i didn't want to as i say can you yeah if you zoom in you can see the wetland and the buffer take a good we would have to make that really wide because we don't want every delivery truck we don't want every vehicle to go underneath the drop off canopy right yeah so we have traffic coming out of the site we have a bypass lane for deliveries and then we have a lane that you could pull in underneath the drop off canopy to drop off patients on the passenger side and what you mentioned is you cannot proceed uh to the north from that drop off to take that circulation space farther to the north is that what i heard thomas i'm sorry say that again that if you were to again nobody can see this but if you were to come in to drop off let's assume you could make this you know through here and make it safe is there a way that you could get a circulation loop up in here or is that not feasible given the grades fairly certain that when we were working this out with creps and lands that everything was getting pushed to the west because of the grades because of the yes yeah we're we're only allowed to lower or raise the grade and that buffer by about a foot that's within the 100 foot green mountain power yeah we're talking about yeah we're not able to really disturb that area so so in the interest of time um do you feel like you have enough feedback from us or input from us you don't i see you shaking your head okay okay we really need very clarity is this basic concept because this is going to cost a ton of money a ton of time we understand and respect that is this acceptable if not we need to know it because this is we've spent a lot of time thinking this through yeah and you're asking great questions but believe us we've spent a lot of time right and if this isn't we don't want to take it the next step in terms of the detailed design and certificate of need process with green mountain care board and so forth if this isn't going to be acceptable generic they're going to be details and things we haven't reviewed on this you know but the basic layout we need to know that very clearly tonight so question for staff because i'm looking at these standards c and d will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability to properly actually treat street storm water from the site and because the way the grade is these these these wetlands are not treating any storm water so that's not the issue the issue is is it having an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland function and values identified in the field delineation so the question is i'm being facetious here but what is our city wetland delineation special women delineation function values analysts of the city of south brunton say about the words they've had they've had looked at the right one right so they haven't provided us with their report and agreed or not agreed they have not yet provided us that report i don't think or did you either way um but there's also standard a right because you're you're missing standard a which is the modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development and i think what our conversations to to this point have focused on is what is the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development and that's kind of where this design i know we've had a lot of great conversation here and stuff but it keeps coming back to the the layout we believe is the least intrusive on the wetlands and the the layout that that meets our needs so uh as far as the value of the wetlands you touched upon under class three there are ephemeral wetlands i mean you can go out there in august and i mean they're basically catching all the surface it's glacial till clay and so all the precipitation comes down through the the hayfield and just precipitates in that area uh it's not associated with the stream or flood plain or anything like so to evaluate wetlands functions and values they they have done a well in delineation which they'll be submitting as part of their report and that says you know the this wetland is a class three because it has no functions and values for x y and z and it has limited functions and values for you know p q and r so at that point they can describe how they're trying to meet standard a and how they've tried to minimize the impact based upon the feedback we're giving them right so it sounds like maybe we've already talked about staff comment number two because it's very you know if the board considers this then you should discuss how the impact should minimize and then i maybe move on to staff comment four okay which talks about wetland delineation and asking you to do one yeah so this is about um the future of roadway so the future of roadway we haven't really talked about but um so i'll if you could go back to a map i can kind of point that out um the city might be just page one of the packet so that i can draw on the big zoomed out one cool um then i'll go back to the zoom um so the city official map has oh dear view okay has an official map roadway plan to the east here oh that's not very big and then um to the north that does this um and so the mentioned in the beginning of the staff report this parcel two and this parcel six let me draw six that looks like yeah you got it okay you got it um our own on the same ownership so the question here is this development should ensure that the north south future roadway can be accommodated um and the concern is because a lot of wetlands exists over on lot two and so if what if there is no um ability to build the north south roadway on lot two it'll have to go on lot six so this staff comment is um asking this applicant because of common ownership issue to demonstrate that the feasibility of constructing the north south roadway as shown on the official map so that certainly would uh make the project basically not really feasible because there's no room so did you look at lot two i think gail started to mention that a little bit well as i mentioned that when the matri health care was approved a number of years ago they did show a hundred foot right of way on their property yeah it's not a right of way it's not a right of way at all actually it's a post easement i guess yeah which is weird because that doesn't mean anything you know we really struggled with that ourselves would you like to comment on this ball bob bouchard with physicality property probably will provide the best clarity and we'll need oh no it's it's uh thank you bob thanks bob what is your name please bob bouchard with physicality properties so we're the property owner um so we made accommodations to the city back 20 years ago they made the request for 100 foot right of way through uh our property and we granted that right of way and they've shown it on the official city map forever and now the request is that an adjoining lot owner make accommodations for this road if they can't put it on lot two how is that our responsibility is there a right of way because the it's it's not even it's shown it's a right of way in it's a recorded plat but the recording you just did i'm sorry this is a sidebar conversation the recording you just did calls it a proposed easement not an actual easement and that's where our confusion is coming from is there a recorded easement we're saying an easement right but the plan the plan that you just recorded a couple months ago says proposed or planned planned right of way or planned easement it doesn't say actually shows a 100 foot right away he doesn't use that language i'm sorry i don't have it in front of me okay but now you're asking us if we will make accommodations for that elsewhere because our understanding is that you haven't actually provided it and that i think that's probably the root of this because that mylar doesn't say well i'm sorry but that's where we we agreed we gave you the property you show it on your official city map and now you just don't want to arbitrarily move it to a different place i don't see how that's our responsibility that's all enough said thank you you're welcome may i add to that which is that two things one is that we we did take a look at the question of whether or not this would impact wetlands and while we have not done a detailed delineation on lot two we do have some wetlands information more historic it goes back you know more than five years so it's no longer official if you will but according to that earlier information the 100 foot easement that babushad was just referring to does not impact the wetlands themselves there are places where it touches the wet the wetland buffer zone but not the wetland so we believe based on our responsibility i we just said here's the property that you're asking for yes i i completely agree bob but i i just saying we have done some additional you know per the staff's request and we believe that's there that said um what uh the uvm medical center has assured us and dave you can confirm this is that on the northern portion beyond where the parking lot is happy to accommodate if you want to swing the road through that area in the area where the the gravel wetlands will be and the building and the parking it's just not feasible to do that but if if there's a need to do it that said if you look at the approved plans for the o'brien property on the north side if i may borrow this for just a moment i'm going to borrow the pointer the access point for them is actually several hundred feet i can't tell you how far i don't know off top of my head but it's it's well over here so you know the connection through the residential neighborhood is here which we've already said will accommodate you know we'll work with you but this one where they're coming through i don't see how that conveniently connects if if there's a way that you want to see along the northern portion here that we're not planning to develop we're happy to work with you on that but we do believe that you'll that this is you'll be able to accommodate this road i'm not guaranteeing it we haven't done a current delineation and we don't believe it's our responsibility to do that's off our site but we believe that this as shown will impact perhaps some class 2 wetland buffers we do not think based on the older information we have that it impacts the wetlands themselves and given that the location of that road is more in this vicinity we don't while we'll work with you we don't think this is going to impact our property you know in a practical way when you say when you're talking about the delineation that you looked at are you looking at the same delineation that's shown on page five of the packet we can pull it up could be i don't know off top my head where would she well i have loud hearing so someone's got a point this this is the lot too this is where they're showing the dashed line and they're asking about this wetlands that certainly looks similar to it is i think the point is we went back and took a look what was in the existing file the last survey and we're we can't stamp that for anything but we did try to take a look at what the impacts might be so marla where do we go from here in terms of this issue so going back to the substance of the staff comment um we want to make sure that this project is not preclude development of a roadway on the official map um and so i guess the next the thing for the board to determine is whether um they want to ask the applicant to do a slightly more in-depth evaluation or whether this sort of desktop level evaluation is adequate to make that determination evaluation of whether the official map exact configuration is feasible i can well i think also the other question is whether or not there is anything that is shown on the official plot or you know for lot two for a hundred foot you know proposed street right away yeah so we i i would love to talk more about that because we did we went and looked at our land records and we weren't able to find anything that actually used the term easement so i if i would i would love to be wrong they never used the term easement you did okay okay okay it's a dedicated roadway i do see that on on the conditions plan it says 100 foot right away future ramp and then it veers off the way and it then it says plan 100 foot wide right of way i9 i89 off ramp and it's on lot two and it sort of goes off yep right so where are you looking mark i don't know how you're asking plan 100 foot right of way yeah i guess that was the confusion because a plan 100 foot right of way is not a dedicated right of way but i'd be happy to be wrong i just don't that's not what we understood from this language or from what we were able to locate in the land records so uh this is a public meeting right bob i mean do you you've conveyed that to the town no okay so what we preserve the property okay got you that's what they asked us to do at the end of tillie drive there is an irrevocable offer of dedication to the city the city owns that hundred or eighty feet here they didn't make the request for evocable offer of dedication they have to preserve the property for them for this potential okay got you road extension right and we we said fine we're happy to do that whoa okay so marla i need some guidance from you about where we go next have we do do we have more research to do on this sir well i think i think they've just got to the heart of the matter which is a difference in in language legal legal um commitments versus yeah can i can i mention just one i just have one question for clarification what does this have to do with law six that's i mean i'm just from a objective standpoint the question is um you know to not preclude the development of because because lot two is so much wetlands um and the lands are under common ownership then any development in the vicinity of this future road should be cognizant of the ability of that future road to be developed in the future we we certainly subscribe to that the the issue that we've got it's not as what's advertised as what we're buying uh in terms of being able to develop the law that was represented to us that that that said 100 and uh foot right away was on separate premises and and we didn't factor that into any anything in terms of understanding so we'll be happy to to do whatever we need to do to accommodate the town we just don't feel that we have an obligation to do any engineering or evaluation related to that given it's not on a site that we're anticipating buying i mean that's just and i don't know that i can have more productive dialogue about this at this time okay i want to ask something so the city's had these things on the official map for a while and why aren't we trying to promote the use of an existing right away that was on an official map such that instead of having yet another brand new driveway we have people building roads to public spec as part of the development in a planned area where it's been on the map for 20 or 30 years and then it's turned over to the the city and the city's plowing that and maintaining it why aren't we doing that i think that's what we're saying in staff comment number two and in staff comment number six no yep six which is if the site access were to the east we would be furthering development of the planned roadway i understand it it looks like we have these things on the map and they never get built they just sit down and have these funny little stubs all over the place yeah and sometimes it's difficult to kind of try and say because of the way the board reviews projects and reviews one staff comment at a time it's sometimes it's a little hard to say the title says move the driveway to the east and then there's like five reasons for it you know and that's kind of the way this is set up but except it doesn't have the title in red saying move the driveway to the east and here's five reasons why um okay but on the other hand i speaking to to play devil's advocate and recognize the issue that this is the city's right of way that the city wants this road to be built and us bearing some of the cost for the wetland delineation in that fuzzy line which is what it's mostly been you know there's a road it's going to be our road at the end then we should have an obligation to study its potential impact that's certainly within the realm of possibility but not within the realm of the authority of this board um and i can take that back to the city manager's office okay what one quick comment to kind of follow up on this is that in all the documents that we had seen as well as the official map it refers to this road connecting through it's always been connected with the future 12b exit and so that's just how it's been what we understood was envisioned was it was related to the off ramp for that exit 12 b whenever that future exit happens okay it is 10 till 10 we do not go beyond 10 if we can help it so i we're going to have to continue this at another time and i'm just wondering if we should take some public comment now well why don't we also just make sure that there's no other big red items that we can't at least well but let's see if we only got 10 minutes left if there are any members of the public okay continued anyway oh i see yeah yep are there any members of the public who would like to comment do you see any online delilah all right so um let's go ahead for a few more minutes um i think all the comments are sort of equally sized so is are we on five okay number i'm going to read this the board should direct the applicant to provide a 50 or 60 foot right away on the subject property dimensions to be determined based on development plan for the northern portion of the parcel from the o'brien roadway to the plan north south roadway in a location that is viable given the geography if master plan is required it should include the roadway connection so this is on the previous page um sort of location a and i think that they've already said that they can do that we'd be happy to work with you we just we don't know where you want it okay yeah you'll have to coordinate your plans with o'brien brothers sure go ahead bob do you have a response to that i don't know how much traffic we go through that no in in what way are we encouraging it right so the line that i've the pink line i've just drawn is the roadway that the board um agreed to as part of the o'brien you want to connect that to the proposed future road tomorrow that what you'