just got it okay uh welcome it is uh Tuesday October 5th 2021 the meeting of the south city of south brolington development review board i'm vice chair dan albrecht serving as chair for this meeting as our chair is absent um just uh we'll uh go through a few things first thing if you're here in person in the in the room please sign the interested person sheet in the back of room be sure to note which application uh you're interested you're uh i want to testify in a representing etc for folks um online please type in the chat um what your name and what application you're interested in this is important to um good ringtone oh that's a good ringtone though um so it's it's important at the sign in there so that we can establish interested persons stat your status uh for certain projects and also for the accuracy of the minutes and all um on the uh again with the chat it is is not there for uh side conversations um and it's it's not there for ad hoc testimony things like that um so if you want to testify um we'll get to that after the uh board applicants presentations and board discussion we'll have invite public comment on the applications um as far as emergency evacuation procedures for here in the room we get two exits in the back and you go out the back there and either either side um of the building the north this conference will now be recorded um and then excuse me okay um so uh first uh so the our agenda tonight um is the uh any comments and questions from public not related to the agenda announcements uh we have two applications which will be continued um one to first one to november second the lark and real t1 ms dash 21 dash 04 for stream alteration and storm water drainage 1195 shoving road that will be continued to november second so i don't feel the need to stay or on the line or in person if you want regard that one the next one um sd dash 21 dash 21 of donald and louis current to amend a previously approved pud of two lots that's continued to october 19th so same thing there um uh we have people that need to recuse themselves and things like that so uh we'd like to see about moving the approval of the minutes of september 8th up to uh item number four to take that care of after any comments and questions that okay with the board members yeah okay yep all right um so that's the change in the agenda there um any other announcements from staff okay uh any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda all right thank you i'll go to the minutes of september 8th have um board members had a chance to review them okay any corrections yeah can you hear me we can hear a little scratchy go ahead okay um just i was not in the sentence okay is jim on the phone do we have jim i am yeah jim langan is there great okay i'm gonna so i like do you want him okay perfect thank you okay so there's the minute for september 8th with the correction to remove uh mr bear for the members present can you hear a motion on the minutes thank you there a second all second thank you mark thanks tiffan oh jim okay that was jim all right motion has been made in second to approve the minutes of september 8th as corrected all those in favor say aye all right and any abstentions all right great all right so on to uh the business at hand uh like the applicants for site plan application sp-21-039 of south village communities llc hang on we have to actually take a motion and accept the motion to um continue items number four okay sure thank you all right okay could we hear a motion to continue items four and five ms-20104 and sd-21-21 so move thank you frank is there a second a second thank you mark motion's been made in second to continue items uh applications ms-21-04 and sd-21-21 to dates uh november 2nd for the ms-20104 of larkin realty and october 19th for donald and lewis curwin motion's been made in second all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye okay abstention vote from there for number four larkin realty all right motion's been made in second and approved share votes aye on the motion and the motion passes okay back to item agenda item six site plan application sp-sp-21-039 of south village communities llc to provide a replacement plan for trees and shubs that were improperly removed the plan consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path between akon and spear street east of the existing paved recreation path at 1840 spear street here's here for the applicant dave marshal from civil engineering associates hello dave good to see you do you have the magic language for swearing in i can open it it's in the dave rule of procedure thank you i didn't print out that whole all of that i got most of the most of the cheat sheets i would be happy to open it for you thank you thanks for your patience i got this part memorized yet hi mr marshal do you hereby swear the evidence you give in the case in a consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth so our help you god are under the pains and penalties of perjuries i do awesome thank you go ahead and do we have the uh let me bring up the uh staff comments um so if you want to just uh summarize the the issue here dave and then uh we'll address the um staff comments so uh in this particular case there is a plan that identifies the proposed improvements but nonetheless there was an existing um not even a hedgerow but a grouping of trees that separated the uh now under construction uh multifamily buildings uh associated with south village uh primary lots for for a and for b and that particular area that separated those particular buildings from the street um it was over cut uh it was unauthorized removal of trees and this application seeks to correct that with uh replacement plantings in a manner that actually creates a little bit more organization of what otherwise had been that mass of trees and also introduces a a walking path of a wood chip walking path through that particular area as part of the augmentation and enjoyment of of that new planting plan that's i can't make it more complicated than that okay thanks um all right so we'll walk by walk through the staff comments here on the application um the first issue addresses dimensional requirements um and this uh you bring the staff comment up there uh um so staff comment uh number one mp2101 approved an overall coverage for the pud of 20 percent uh i won't read it in detail there since coverage increasing um this is clearly encouraged um so we'll start for the beginning so the maximum overall coverage on a lot by lot basis is 30 percent overall coverage numbers on the application form indicate the existing coverage of five percent but zero percent for proposed coverage since coverage is increasing this is clearly incorrect those staff is unconcerned about the parcel exceeding the allowable limit for lot coverage staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide corrected lot coverage in acreage in percentages so based on what did just said this comment may not be relevant um sounds like it's a wood chip path which i didn't understand is that correct this so that is correct there's no increase in coverage there's no new impervious area associated with the replanting plan and the wood chips uh there is that walking path that i mentioned that is a wood chip path intended to try to retain the imper previous nature of the area so given that information i would just recommend a condition of approval that requires the numbers get cleaned up if i may offer that now uh we did confirm the five percent value as far as the existing lot coverage and that's the existing recreation path that runs through the that open space lot and since there's no new increase we're very comfortable reporting that the number will remain at five percent sounds okay board members okay uh staff comment number two deals with southeast quadrant standards a plan for the proposed so the standard reads a plan for the proposed open spaces and or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant south village so the staff comment is south village has an open space management plan which the applicant has indicated pertains to maintenance of the large natural areas large natural open spaces east of phases one and two and west of phase three since this is the first active and managed open space proposed within the development staff recommends the board require the applicant to establish a written plan for management of this and similar future open space including assigning responsibility for maintenance prior to closing the hearing staff recommends that such plan be incorporated into this approval thought state uh that is correct uh i think that's a good summary in regards to the original open space management plan that was created back in 2004 for the project and again at that particular time the intent was to basically work and maintain those particular natural areas uh as part of the ongoing management uh in improvement uh elimination of invasive species and the like uh from those particular areas to try to improve upon them but at the time that particular document was was created there wasn't an envisioned area where we would be replanting existing natural trees so what we would like to do is is probably use some of the portions of that uh current document to create a framework for a management plan that would deal with this more man-made uh area uh going forward so in this particular case there's two options um one is is that we can wait we can continue the hearing and have that presented to the board or the fact that there's already a management plan in place um we'd be comfortable with the condition that we work with staff to the point where we would get their ultimate approval with regard to the components of that particular management plan and have that management plan be uh obviously uh the means for managing that particular area both now as well as in the future okay thanks Dave tomorrow is that something staff feels comfortable doing responsibility without our consultation it's a little vaguer than we typically allow um that you know the board can approve conditions so long as the conditions are specific um and drafts an open space management plan seems a little unspecific um so in my mind the open space management plan for this active recreation area would include things like how often it gets mowed um who is respond who the responsible parties are the fact that um you know the vegetation yeah um you know if we could write a condition that says it shall include x y and z things then I think it's okay but if it's really open ended I think it's not and we're we're happy coming back you know with that particular plan in place so that the full board can review that uh or the staff can present that to the full board so we're comfortable either way however you would like to manage the situation I'd rather not see you again no offense I'd rather not see this project again no offense I'd like to see keep moving you know I'd love to come up with a solution that we can all work with so that this project so that this tree replacement can take place um board members uh are the other board members thoughts on this can we park this for the rest of our discussion and just kind of get through there see see how we do on the rest of the staff comments and circle back on it here all right um thanks uh item number three bottom so uh again continuing on the the question of construction entrance construction access the applicant uh provided the narrative regarding construction access wasn't there on the bottom page four on the top of page I don't know what page number it is but continuing on um basically staff recommendation is to the board include a condition requiring the applicant to modify the plans to show construction access as described we're acceptable okay thanks Dave board members so does how's that sound okay all right moving right along to site plan review standards 14.06 b relationship of proposed structures to the site so the the standard is the site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site from structure to structure and to provide for adequate planting safe pedestrian movement and adequate parking areas uh staff considers that the trees were removed the trees that were removed provided the transition between the seq and r on the east side of spear street and the r1 zoning district on the west side of spear street the proposed planning consists primarily of medium trees interspersed with shrubs including a mixture of evergreen deciduous species the pre-existing plants that remain in the wood consist of tall thin trees forward staff recommendations staff recommends the board asked the applicant to describe how the proposed plan provides equal compliance with this comprised criteria when compared to the improperly removed trees and then the board determined whether this criterion is met it's a fair question for a civil engineer but i'll do my best uh so uh delilah it would be possible to get the landscaping plan up on screen so what you're seeing in front of you um the plan doesn't go quite far enough to the left to actually show the street but nonetheless immediately on the left is the existing recreation path and then in the kind of grayed out area that's clouded uh that's approximately the limits of the existing vegetation that was not impacted by the over cutting and then the colored portions to the east of that that would be to the right on this particular plan uh is the proposed infill and in this particular case it it offers a mixture of vegetation types whether they be trees or shrubs and in this particular case will create probably a healthier environment than what we was there before i'm only guessing because when i went out to take a look at the site a lot of the existing trees are overgrown by vines and things that really do create some uh challenges for the health of trees so in this particular case perhaps with the management plan uh we would be able to create a very healthy area for these particular new plantings to survive and and to thrive so with that i think i i was i was not involved in the preparation of this particular plan but when i saw it for the first time it's like wow that's that's going to be better than what it was before so keep in mind that uh you know some of the goals may be associated with screening um the not that not that what's out there today is the best and and marla's staff report does talk about some of the very nature the applicant did send in a picture today but we won't take the time to deal with that but i think the important thing is the is to make sure that what is being placed in there is viable uh that it has a variety and uh and will create interest which the old pot of trees really didn't have a lot of interest so i think there's opportunities to actually create something better it will take time obviously for the the full height component to take effect but nonetheless in regards to planting the seeds quote-unquote of uh of something that will be very interesting and and uh and i would like to think very diverse um this particular plan proposes that i'm sorry frank this is starting diameter of the tree oh okay well that's a good question now you're going to check see if my eyes work today there it is so thank you i can see that better uh nonetheless it has oh depending on the type of tree it's generally ranging about two inches there's a couple of two and a half inch there's one inch and a half of as far as the crab apple otherwise the shrubs are starting out at approximately 30 inches to 36 inches in height they were frank yes i didn't take them down but nonetheless they should not have been taken down is there some reason we can't ask for more substantial initial planning so what our city arborist always says when someone proposes a larger tree is you know it's sort of admirable aspiration but it does require a lot more tlc to make a larger transplant successful than a smaller transplant um so that's just something that has to be kept in mind when thinking about requiring larger trees how long does it take these trees to get to anywhere near the size where they want to fulfill the function that have been asked of i think you would be doing well to get a foot a year and so keeping in mind if we can go back to the previous sheet um some of the trees still remain and those trees i don't know if you had an opportunity to go out i did ask the board if they had the opportunity to go out and do a little drive via this site so most of them are familiar with what it looks like um so some of the trees remain and they tend to be sort of uh not a lot of understory and so what they're proposing here is more understory so it may have the effect sorry i just put that in there go to the jpeg to lila um yeah that's my mistake sorry about that so that's what's there today yes from the south village side from spear street if you have the opportunity to drive past it it just looks like a bunch of tall skinny trees to me but that's you know driving that driving by at the speed limit at five o'clock in the afternoon um and so it may be that the understory trees will actually fill out this area a little bit more than retaining a bunch of really large trees the um just to be clear if you pull back up the plan there there isn't um vegetation screening the entire in the entire north south stretch between the road and the that's just one little segment and there's there's nothing to the south or north of that in terms of landscaping is there that is correct and there was nothing in the original master plan approval about eventually vegetating this whole strip no no that is correct so when you drive up and down the street and you look in the single family homes all have only what they chose to put on their own lot otherwise there is no screening of the um open space lot between the street and those single family home lots okay i mean i hear what you're saying frank but i mean and and were that in my mind where there were extensive landscaping to the north and south of this and this was leaving a gaping hole because of some contractor's mistake and i could see rectifying it immediately but in this case it's sort of a funny little vestige at least as far as i can tell it was specifically mentioned in the approval for this phase like not this board's approval but the approval back in whatever faced one was approved this board was mentioned as specifically providing a transition and that's why i mentioned in the staff comments right other board members have comments on this issue and can i comment you speak up mark yeah i'd like just to offer just a comment you know i think one thing that i agree with most of the comments that have been said both by dave and the other board members um and marlon staff um but you know the the the heavily wooded area was was really meant to be a buffer slash transition because of the multi-story multi-family housing that went in um i know that the majority of the stuff that was in there was a lot of sort of i don't want to call them junk trees and drunk shrubs because sometimes you know it's still vegetation um and but i do think that with time um this landscape planting plan will fill in nicely and that along with the wood chip path i think it's it's a nice amenity that without the mistake that occurred would not have happened you would have ended up with the existing shrub tree area that over time would have gotten just kind of more of i want to say that this i feel is an amenity um so i think it does offer a nice transition okay all right um i would recommend kind of carrying on through the staff comments and then deciding if the board you know generally feels they don't the board doesn't have to make their decision in public but you do have to get enough information to make your decision before closing the meeting so you know if you want to think about this as we discuss it and then kind of at the end decide if you have enough to make a decision that'd be fine sounds good to me board members okay all right let's keep moving on here uh staff comment number five under landscaping uh modifications under landscaping and screening requirements section five modifications where the existing topography in our landscape provides adequate screening or would render the normally recruiting required screening inadequate the d rb may modify the planting in our buffer requirements by respectively decreasing or increasing the requirements staff considers the relevant elevation of the site which is 15 to 16 feet higher than spear street to be a relevant factor in the effectiveness of the screening the comment is staff recommends the board determine given the provided plans and testimony as well as any additional testimony the applicant wishes to provide whether the board finds the criteria of 13.06 c and by extension 14.07 f is that f i think it should have been d right d yeah d to be met so this is a comment on sorry this is like me getting fancy with tabs and spacing so you're supposed to be able to tell that by this comment i'm referring to all of the words on the page above it which is in retrospect not super well done okay so is it so does it provide screening um does the landscaping minimize erosion and storm on a runoff um is adequate given the topography those are sort of the things that this question is asking yep and the general standard error and 13.06 c of why why these uh do we feel that the intent of this section is being met this criterion is being met jim langen any thoughts on this i i don't have any issues with the with the plan from what i've read and heard so far okay mark yeah i'm okay so far as we continue discussions okay frank another minute there to absorb it is there any additional comments you want from from staff or the applicant that can aid us in making a decision okay thank you all right moving to the last page of the staff comments the applicant has requested two modifications of the provision of 13.06 i that all planting shown on approved site plan shall be maintained in a vigorous growing condition throughout the duration of the use first they have requested the board included condition allows the applicant to remove any remaining invasive tree or shrub species as well as any dead dying or diseased trees within the remaining stands of shrubs and trees as approved by the city arborist staff comment staff considers the board may wish to allow applicant may remove to allow applicant to may to remove invasive dead dying or diseased trees within the remaining wooden area but such removal should not occur without the applicant excuse me providing the written approval of the city arborist of the zoning administrative officer yeah sounds reasonable to me board members it sounds reasonable dam but i just have one comment about that and that's that you know we're basing some of our discussions and review on what's been left and then saying that this additional planting will sort of provide sort of nice under shrub or under you know tree plantings my concern is that when they go through and clear out any more additional dead or invasive species that the appearance of what we're approving will will be changed and different from what our perception is tonight well what i'm hearing mark say is that if everything was invasive species as far as what we're seeing from the street and we go and take all that out it's really going to look naked so the question ultimately is is do we have a certain period of time in which the new plantings have a chance to get established start to fill in before we start to strip out those particular invasive species and there may be some ways to achieve both goals you know when we're dealing with vines as opposed to the main body of the the trees or shrubs that are out there today what can we do actually to improve their health so i think it's it's it's one which perhaps a condition that indicates that we're not looking for wholesale changes in regards to the viewshed from the high from the street into the project area but at the same time if it if work can be done in the manner that maintains the character then that may be the middle ground to achieve both address mark's concern as well as ultimately to achieve the intent of eliminating the invasive species that occupy the space today and frank i think i think species it should be removed that doesn't care whether it strips the whole yeah that's the role they are yeah the city arborist is um not part of the planning not planning is any department right so i think there's definitely needs go ahead well in that case maybe we should add a condition yes there's approval of the city arborist and the development coordinator how about that and if i may offer that i think that's exactly where staff is kind of going in the fact that we have two layers of review one with the arborist city arborist another with the zoning administrator but the important thing is that the board identify what the intent is so within the condition identify that the intent is is not to strip away the undergrowth of this particular area as part of the maintenance of the removal of of invasive species until the other plantings have had the chance to infill i think that's that's really a very site specific opportunity but i think anything that we do different than what the board approves requires that we come back or well i'll leave it at that i think if unfortunately i just don't know enough about those particular burdened areas to understand how much opening could occur without the checks and balances i think it is important to have those checks and balances in place because i don't think any of us want to go and be looking through the understory which is fairly healthy with secondary types of growth so i've talked my way all around it but i think at this point in time a condition that requires that the intent of the screening be retained with minimal removal of invasive species until the new plantings have taken shape is ultimately the direction that serves the purposes the best and then i guess we condition the maintenance plans but they make sure that the invasives don't extend beyond where they are now i mean we could certainly during our findings we could certainly address that kind of language all right um all right moving on to the last item here um staff notes the request the condition that would allow the landowner to replace trees on the landscaping plan is approved by the city arborist based upon supply chain limitations uh take a moment there to uh to read item seven i won't read it all out staff recommends if the board does wish to grant this flexibility it should require replacement with plantings of the same size shape and nature parentheses deciduous and evergreen and requires this plantings to be approved by the zoning administrator prior to planting do you want to say approved by the city arborist and the zoning administrator and it's kind of a given but yeah that's why i didn't write it because it's kind of a given okay um does that sound how does that sound dave so okay my kind of condition sound reasonable dave oh yes okay thanks board members any final comments on that no i'm trying to uh condition would say that uh let's see i don't know the exact language here's um it would say the applicant may replace trees on the landscaping plan as approved by the city arborist um but it was also based upon supply of chain limitations but it required replacement with plantings of the same size shape and nature deciduous and evergreen and requires such plantings to be approved by the zoning administrator prior to planting some kind of language like that all right um so circling back to staff comment four we're going full circle do we feel the criterion's uh been met regarding the overall criterion of the site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site from structure to structure to provide for adequate planting safe pedestrian movement in adequate parking areas so that in this case do we do we feel that planting is adequate to be able to resolve staff comment number four given our discussion tonight any further questions we need or information from the applicant to make a decision i'm okay with the information we have okay i'm sorry what mark said he thinks we have enough information at this point we still have to see if there's any public comment but all right well you still have your opportunity to convince other members of the board during deliberations all right um thanks dave hold on there let's see any members of the public we were going to circle back on number two as well as well after a public comment sure yeah we've we've all talked a lot dave's talked a lot let's give dave a break um any members of the public um here in the room wish to testify okay and any members online do we have anybody online here yeah okay looks like stewart has his hand up stewart you have your hand up um i i do can can you hear me all right okay uh go ahead stewart hi okay i have a couple questions really focusing on the maintenance i mean in general i like the plan the trees look very nice and i'm glad that the you know the replacements are going in that my concern as a resident and indeed the president of the hoa is what's the long-term maintenance requirement to keep the plants healthy because you know the developer will be going away and it'll be up to the hoa and the stewardship committee to take care of these so um maybe there are extensive costs for an area that really it was free of maintenance costs before so um i'm interested to know about the long-term maintenance costs and whether it was discussed with um the stewardship committee at all dave i'm sorry stewart i don't know uh with regard to any of the communications that went on with the stewardship committee so i'm totally flat footed i apologize for not knowing that answer uh relative to maintenance i think of you know the what what typical i don't want to say street trees but but around a a project that requires site plan approval you know they often have uh very aggressive landscaping plans and there is maintenance that goes along with it but i'm i'm not sure if it's exorbitant but i think that really comes down to ultimately to the plan that is put together uh that that is just that it was identified as being an obligation of the applicant is to identify exactly how this area is to be managed and i think once that particular program has been put together we'll all better understand what those cost obligations will be going forward so i didn't answer your question because i don't know the answer right yeah i would say it's disappointing that you know the developer hasn't been in touch uh before just dropping the plan on us again i would say the plan looks very nice but i would have liked some previous communication um my other question dave and you hopefully you know the answer to this will the whole area be mulched or will the area just um allow the you know the dead leaves and stuff to grow underneath the trees as it currently does that's a very good question uh again i'm not sure if i can answer that off the top of my head um i would love to see it fully mulched because that would eliminate much of the the weeds and other things that otherwise will want to occupy those spaces and compete with the trees um but it's not clear to me right here sorry uh on exactly how that's to be managed so would it be possible would it be possible to get answers back to the HOA and the stewardship committee on those issues absolutely yes that's only fair thank you steward um any other uh folks uh online wish to testify are on the phone okay and last call for anybody here in the room okay um it's the pleasure of the board will motion to close or continue the um the hearing so going back to staff comment number two the question was whether we should see an open space management plan for this area prior to closing hearing um and so you know given the public testimony and the other testimony we've heard from dave tonight um whereas the board on that this is a good question for mark yeah i i think that this would be a very good time to take a pause and let the applicant meet with the HOA and the steward committee to come up with a maintenance plan that is acceptable to all parties and that way we have it and you know everyone can be comfortable with what's going to be do what's going to be implemented and managed going forward sounds agree a little bit of me jam any thoughts no i yeah i think um given what i just heard from public comment i think it'd be good to have the plan first okay all right the chair would hear entertaining motion to continue the hearing and do you have a potential date we can squeeze it in past we're gonna have to do it on november 2nd because there's no way you can get it instantaneously and that gives you two weeks to meet with the HOA is that feel like enough so as far as answering the questions that i could not answer tonight those will be solved very quickly and steward as far as the ability to meet with the stewardship committee if we if we can you know satisfy the submittal requirements for the november 2nd meeting it just means that we need to get together fairly quickly and is there any logistical issues in regards to the ability to do that i'm sorry to use the board's time for that those internal questions i don't see that day of the stewardship meets every two weeks and the board can meet as and when necessary so i see no um likelihood of a problem that sounds good um quickly before the motion do we need more photos at all for visualization or is this okay all right you're gonna make a motion frank there a second to the motion thank you all those in favor of the motion to continue the hearing for site plan application sp dash sp dash 21 dash 039 to november 2nd say aye opposed aye all right share votes aye all right thanks dave thank you steward next item is site plan application sp dash 21 dash 038 of beta air llc to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex the amendment consists of changing the approved exterior materials adding a mezzanine and minor site improvements for an existing 61 thousand and 62 square foot three-story hangar slash office building 1150 airport drive yes are there any board members who wish to recuse themselves okay thank you have a good evening all right uh who's here for the applicant all right thanks okay okay all right so we've got we've got we've got five of you folks there all right so this is a new application here so i'm going to swear you guys in do you hereby swear that the evidence you give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me under the pains and penalties of perjury all right would you like to give an overview of the issue at hand before we dive into the uh staff comments okay all right dan i'm not able to this is jim i'm not able to hear the applicant um i was for the last one but not for this one the green button on there art oh he's coming to technical support's coming in here oh there we go sorry about that can you hear me now the fake green button thank you i've never been accused of being quiet so yeah okay do you need that repeated mark or jim yeah i didn't hear any of it okay go ahead sorry go ahead get in art yes certainly uh so tonight uh we're here to amend the previous application uh as is the nature with construction projects from time to time changes are required we had some modifications some site conditions as well as some trees unfortunately removed during the process and we're here to discuss those and remedy those uh through the discussions okay so we'll walk uh through the staff comments here we've got a couple things to go through here so first item is regarding dimensional requirements Delilah you got that scrolling through there staff comments perfect thanks okay the first item is regarding the maximum building coverage on the additional square footage staff notes the applicant is proposing an additional mezzanine the square footage the area is unknown can you uh enumerate that additional area so we get it correct for record keeping purposes do you know off the top of your head or yes me mezzanine area is 435 square feet great and just to put it out there um art sent me some numbers just a few minutes ago so that i'm don't have to write them down but all the numbers he's going to say okay great thank you can i ask a question i mean is the mezzanine relevant to building coverage i mean a mezzanine is just like an additional it's something what does that have to do with building you know i asked that question too because people use the word mezzanine i mean all kinds of things what does it mean in this case uh in this particular instance it's a mechanical equipment mezzanine there was some equipment that needed to be raised off the ground to allow an egress door to remain on the outside of the building yeah it's on the outside of the building it's not on the inside of the building so it's on page 15 of the packet it's shown in red on the right hand side of the page new and that's a totaling there's no building there today and this is going to be a new building at that level that's not what i that's not how i understood mezzanine but that's a i understand i understand your response better do we know the existing i notice what says unknown for the existing mac the building coverage do we know that do we care is it negligible so we don't want this answer now or well it's the airport pud as a whole which is why it's unknown never mind large can of worms okay all right and it's a it's a very very small amount of square footage so all right okay uh next item and it's a big one but so i won't get into what i'm going to read the standard there at the bottom of page three of the staff notes first we're an applicant with umbrella approval proposes a minor change well first actually i'll note in the paragraph above it in the middle there regarding umbrella approval staff considers the potential uses are all allowable uh in the middle of that paragraph from the bottom so now standard b 13.09 b2b we're an applicant with umbrella approval proposes a minor change in use the administrator officer may approve the change is an administrative action and grant a zoning permit criteria for determining if the change is minor shall include an assessment of projected pmp power trip ends and other numerical criteria specified in the umbrella approval if the applicable numerical criteria are the same or fewer and those specified in the umbrella approval the change may be de minor uh staff considers this provision to be beneficial for beta since their business is rapidly evolving and then top of page four extensive comments there from board um and the gist of this is staff recommends the board um determine the appropriate use or uses for the property and consider approving a range of uses under an umbrella permit um because the three examples provided below uh staff notes staff considers the one of the below examples of three use categories may presently apply to all or most of the uh use research facility or laboratory manufacturing light manufacturers um and then regarding office space staff considers it unlikely that the property consists of an office use so marl if i see that the key item is right at the top you want us to determine the appropriate uses for the property and consider a range of uses for an umbrella permit right so you know this is previously approved as an office and a hanger is that still we understand things evolve it's not a punishment or anything um is that still the appropriate category and what other categories might be appropriate in the next couple of years so that we don't have to see you every and yeah and if i can you do you understand how an umbrella permit works generally okay all right just so that you don't have to keep coming back to the board yes thank you appreciate and just to be clear there's no challenge to we've got hangers it's called hanger slash office right now and if that's what it really really is then right can we can we keep hanger slash office and just add three more uses yep okay because who knows if you go back to having some office space there or well it's interesting in the information and the numbers that i sent marla here just a little while ago went back and actually looked at the 61 thousand square feet in terms of how we use the space roughly 50 of that space is hanger another 25 percent of that is i'm sorry 25 percent is hanger 50 percent is actually office and the remaining 25 percent is r&d so the the as described use is fairly consistent in that the majority 75 percent of the building is hanger or office use with the added use being the research and development so would you become comfortable i gather that we need to specify we need to allocate the square footage according to you marla at the outset you do but then they can alter it as things shift because it is it is very fluid we move back and forth this is kind of a point in time today as we build out the space and our needs changed those numbers will fluctuate it was just interesting to see based on staff's comment that regarding office that actually office is you know the the majority of the space that is on the side right now and do you see any manufacturing or light manufacturing taking place uh no the manufacturing light manufacturing will happen elsewhere we do do prototyping we don't consider that manufacturing to do some prototyping on the incident of r&d that's right that's right yep i'm not picking up something you said if they want to change their internal proportions that i have to come here every time or can we frame it so no they would just send me a letter okay so how many uh again well we can fine tune it during a decision process but it sounds from the discussion and and the and the thanks for that detail art um you know it's just really adding research facility or lab at this point to hang your end office is it where we're at and then i just put those numbers that art sent me in the supplemental folder it's called the file called beta by the numbers if we want to share those on the screen so we could establish those numbers as the initial numbers um and then the other thing i noted is that there needs to be a traffic budget yeah assigned and so delilah is actually much more familiar with this than i am is that typically done by taking the the highest trip generating use and saying that's the budget and if you if you exceed that over time then you would yeah or is it based more on like what the roads can handle or how does that budget get established typically when it's based on the use it's the it trip it trip then but it's not the use today it's whatever worst case scenario yeah okay so we can run that number then without any additional testimony is what you're saying because it's the it yes okay and you would have any reason to not use the it for this property okay yeah okay so we can do that part without any additional testimony jim and mark thoughts on this i'm i think that it's fine at the umbrella and the way they've got it sort of outlined okay yeah i have nothing more before we leave that item there is an item in black just below the last staff comment that staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate acceptance of the project by the fAA prior to issuance of a zoning permit the 7460s were submitted as part of the original zoning permit so you should have those on file if you don't have those on file let us know and we're happy to get those to you do they require modification because you're modifying the building again in this situation um the reason why we had to even get a 7460 for that south addition was because it protruded out into the airfield and usually if you read the rules if you're behind a building you don't need to get a 7460 and that's why this additional mezzanine isn't requiring additional 7460 because we're below and behind okay and for the benefit of the public and to avoid inside beta language what is the 7460 an fAA 7460 is a process that you go through with the fAA it's a permit application that you submit to determine that your project or your building will not impact fAA airspace or equipment gotcha thanks okay um moving along so we go to page six of the staff comments relation ah we love this standard always keeps the meter running for everybody um relationship proposed structures to the site the site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site from structure destruction to provide for adequate planting safe pedestrian movement adequate parking areas the applicant is proposing to change the material of the exterior veil from courton steel to aluminum with courton steel frame and its decision on sd 20 sd dash 20 dash 21 the board approved courton steel mesh as the exterior veil as the screening for the h-vac unit and that screening for the dumpsters staff notes the staff considers consistency of materials to be a factor in creating desirable transition and recommends the board review the elevations and determine this criteria continues to be met with the revised material delilah can you bring those up staff notes that the board relied upon renderings and making their determination on sd dash 20 dash 21 which have not been provided as part of this application so do we have well as one who always finds rendering suspect anyway because they're always beautiful i i actually uh do what i usually do and ask mark what do you think's the difference in how it's going to look is going from this from from steel mesh to aluminum steel mesh to aluminum mesh is there a color change well thank you for the vote of confidence frank but uh you know i i don't think this is an issue i mean both of them are sort of higher in materials the courton steel has sort of like that you know rusted look that's kind of i don't want to say trendy because i hate that word but it is kind of trendy these days in a lot of architecture and construction but i think that if you go to the last page of the packet i assume that the aluminum that aluminum sort of mesh material that they're showing on the materials board is what they're proposing but i think that it's an attractive product i think it'll be fine that that change and and the applicant agrees with uh staff's comments about consistency of materials the aluminum will actually be framed out by the court end so it there'll be that consistency with some of the other materials used on the building and then joel and his team have extended that into other features on site whether it's hvc enclosures or the dumpster enclosure so it's not just in one particular area it's part of a consistent helping feel on on site for that particular building joel's happy to answer any question is the is what you're calling the mesh what we're looking at now that's sort of overlapping that lattice appearance in the lower it's the lower left hand not quite yes that second image from the left yeah on the lower side that's the okay that's it so what will it be the blue or the or the silver or both it's it's the silver frank so all right can i ask you a question because i just don't remember what the original um elevation renderings looked like before the revised veil material that's now currently being proposed as sort of as the aluminum that was also a court end steel with a court end steel frame and now you're proposing an aluminum mesh veil with the court end steel frame still that's that's correct mark yes okay no i think that it's i i still put the test that i think it's going to be very attractive building and um very interesting building which is a nice change so i didn't hear an answer and i may it may be my hearing i didn't hear an answer to the color question uh marks correct the original color was going to be the the rusted steel look that is changing to the aluminum look that you see there on the rendering but each of those aluminum panels those vertical panels are framed out with the court end steel so it ties in with the rest of the building that you see up front so it'll be natural aluminum not that blueish color okay um board numbers any further questions on this item number three okay thanks um next item uh staff comment uh number four is regarding um circulation so um so basically this the intended fence realignment also results in the middle of page seven of the top of page seven of the staff comments this intended fence realignment also results in a modification of the configuration of the previously approved connection to the adjacent property staff is included a side-by-side comparison staff considers the previously approved configuration to provide a safer vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern though the current proposal may be acceptable depending on the anticipated volume staff recommends the board determine whether to allow the proposed driveway and sidewalk modification um maybe you could just talk a little bit about the right hand side of the screen and how you envision circulation happening there and it's so zoomed in it'd be great if you can talk a little about who's circulating from where uh on this I think the zoomed out one is in the packet too that's helpful Chris yeah right so if you're the history behind this is that um that building six that you'll see there on the upper left that is owned by btv their landscape maintenance crew so they want to be able to use that and access the land side not have to go to the air side to get to the land side so in a future project that btv is proposing they're going to extend their fence their security friends around that building so it's not you don't have to go out to the airfield to access that building so what beta is proposing is let's not make that difficult for them let's leave that area open in the meantime so that way we'll leave that paved so then when they come in and do that work they can access they can perform that access and then what that does is it changes the orientation of our entrance to make that possible so their maintenance vehicles can get in and out previously they wouldn't have been able to make those maneuvers because our drive was shifted to the south right so we had to shift it a little bit to the north to allow them to make that angle to get in and out with their maintenance vehicles okay thanks um board members do we want to allow this proposed driveway and sidewalk modification or any thoughts on it any more questions yeah can i ask a question yeah okay um art is there any reason and i guess i'm trying to understand the rationale of access so it's just sort of i guess one question i wonder is is there any way you can't why you can't just um compromise and sort of do a hybrid of the previous approval and the current proposal by rather than crossing twice just crossing more on a diagonal sort of like where it sort of says i think it says a e and t on the um i'm looking in the staff comments the side by side yeah that's a good question mark um actually in the information that we sent uh marla just a little bit ago we provided an alternate um layout that i think speaks to your question um the original diagram as proposed modification as proposed is developed that way because it's anticipated that there'll be a sidewalk that will extend further to the right and that allowed easy connectivity to the sidewalk if you've been up and down tried to walk up and down our side of the street it's very difficult right now because that sidewalk stops but we do we do have an alternate option if the board would like us to head in that direction for some period of time until the sidewalk is available that does essentially what you're talking about which is we can cut that corner have one crossing point for pedestrians until such time in the future the sidewalk's installed all right i agree with you completely that you know without that sidewalk that's running down the whole length of the street so you know that um it does get you know it's probably tricky to walk down there so your current proposal which has the sidewalk with the the crosswalk across the curb cut eventually will be the right way to go um i think you can even do another hybrid again and still have that crossing where sort of it's the a e and t line um so that you're not having two crossings in the more trafficked um areas you're not trapping across crossing pedestrian crossing across sort of that the entrance to the more used parking lot yeah so yeah i'm so can you see the screen then mark with the alternate yes i can yep yep so yeah that's exactly what i'm talking about on the left hand side and eventually you'll get the sidewalk and the the crosswalk on the right hand side along the street but i think that the one on the left you know until that happens and even once that happens is still a better solution and still gives building six's access yeah we're happy to um move towards option one on the screen i just have a question looking at option one is there a sidewalk along the bottom of the photo bottom of the drawing that parallels the street yeah as it goes from the end of the the uh modification there if you go left there's a sidewalk if you go to the right there is no sidewalk and if you go down there's a crossing correct okay if you're going to the right is there a sidewalk eventually farther down you have to go all the way down to the intersection and you get a crosswalk down at the intersection okay so if that sidewalk ever does occur then that the that section on the right hand side of those two alternates will could possibly happen okay will happen we're not there yet we don't need that portion yet i know i'm just saying so the option on option one is the better solution okay okay all right uh that's enough information i think on that one staff on number four number five regarding disposal of waste uh just intensive comments there by staff just of which staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a specific provosional for enclosure and screening for the dumpster prior to closing the hearing staff notes the previous approval previous approval included court and steel screening and enclosure which would have matched the previously approved exterior veil though the exterior veil is now proposed to be aluminum thoughts on this art so i think there's some renderings and on the last page of the packet that shows the proposed dumpster enclosure and the materials okay again to match what we're doing uh with the change on the building there was also a detail provided you know was that a snow is a supplement actually yeah so yeah back in the supplemental there's a full there's a file that's just called beta yeah and that's what chris sent me yesterday the second page of that has a i'm cheating i'm looking at now yeah and frank there's a good picture of the screening that we're going to use the aluminum all right so where does it end where where is the dumpster shown here dumpster screening it's the lower elevations there right and the dumpster itself is shown between the two material pictures there's a plan view right there all right and then these are the slides all right so we've we've got the detail um everybody okay with the any other further information or questions on the provided exact or the provided information the enclosure and screening okay no i'm good now all right thanks jim you're good you're still there come here yep no issues great okay on to trees okay proposed landscaping whoo there's a lot in here so um the proposed landscaping the applicant is responsible for providing landscaping with a value of $2,304.78 plus replacement of the six removed or damaged trees etc staff considers the replacement a three arbor vitae with six are with south end of the parking to be appropriate replacement has excluded them from this discussion staff considers the other elements of the applicant's proposal do not meet the landscape requirements so can i do a little paraphrasing yes please do all right so there's one two three elements of required landscaping for this project there is the required minimum landscaping anytime you do a building addition that three percent on the value of the building so they're doing this little tiny building addition and so they have a small amount of landscaping required based on that they also despite um some pretty vehement testimony on behalf of stewart construction during the last hearing um ended up removing some trees that they were required to retain um and they are very sorry and carolin is very mad at them um so they need to replace those trees and then the um hang on and then there are trees that are proposed to be removed because of the work that they're doing so new new proposal to remove trees and i guess there is the fourth thing which is that there's a couple trees down where the dumpster is no that is that's the trees that are proposed to be removed that weren't previously proposed so they're down where the dumpster is going they're going to take out some existing trees and they're going to put in some new trees and that staff thinks is pretty much a wash they're taking out three existing arbor vitae they're adding six are providing staffs pretty much ignored that it seems like they're good on that element so it's the question of are they doing enough new landscaping and then are they doing enough to replace them properly removed trees invite the applicant or come up to a microphone or so um i'm Keith Wagner and i apologize in advance because i know uh marla's been working with carolin who's much more um affluent at this than i am but i think i have it understood um so um taking the six arbor vitae that we're replacing the three off the table out of the issue we have six trees um that have been removed either during construction or um were damaged and aren't going to make it and we had one honey locust within those six trees that we had planned on transplanting but it's a fall dig risk so it was determined that it would be removed so six trees mature trees um they include a six inch caliper crab apple a seven inch caliper spruce a 14 inch caliper spruce a 17 inch caliper uh pear tree uh the 11 inch honey locust that i mentioned and then finally a a third spruce and using the perdu tree value um formula that that marla had recommended us use the replacement value on those trees uh is twenty two thousand three hundred and forty nine dollars and that formula is quite extensive um it looks at species it looks at site it looks at their condition and also their size and in a memo to marla from carolin dated um september 10th we're proposing to replace those six trees with six new trees a four inch caliper crab apple uh three twelve foot to fourteen foot spruce because you typically value a tree based on their uh an evergreen on their height um we're adding a four inch caliper pear and then uh four inch honey locust that replacement cost for those is fourteen thousand six hundred and twenty nine and so there's a difference of seven thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars now this is a little different than a previous uh cost estimate that carolin had put together for the replacement trees where i felt that her multiplier that a typical landscape contractor uses when they buy a tree they they multiply it by you know two point eight to three times it covers the guarantee planting etc and she was using a two point five multiplier so i bumped that number up to two point eight so we still have a deficit of seven thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars and like i said i'm i'm uh i'm stepping into this a relief picture so marla you might want to or i would i would recommend that you and carolin regroup when she returns from vacation but the intent is to uh provide these trees um and whatever shortfall in the replacement cost we're prepared to work with the airport and have those funds committed to the airport landscape master plan so that it's part of that beautification process that's been laid out already frank if you've been here for the airport landscaping overall planned at all did i yeah i don't recall can you explain what that is for frank's benefit uh larry do you want me to come up there yeah here and the the podium also has a functioning microphone if you guys are feeling crowded um a couple of years ago it was determined that you know every time we come forward with an application from the airport it's very difficult sometimes to get the landscaping involved because of our land use okay so we went through and developed with Wagner Hodgson and carolin that we've that they were talking about is this the across the street plan yeah this this is from the intersection of wilson road all the way up to curvy lane with beautifying trees fencing paths all that type of thing um under and so for example we have to get approval site plan approval every time we do a portion of this we came through uh several months ago six months ago and received approval 21-20 which approved $57,954 in value okay we did that because we were doing the terminal integration project which was 21-18 and we needed to commit 33,477 dollars and 71 cents to that which gave us a balance of about what what's that 23 24 thousand dollars as part of our application for the zoning permit for what we're calling the gateway projects which is wilson off wilson road or an airport drive we were required to provide a spreadsheet um which is being reviewed by um the lila right now for a zoning permit approval so what what they're proposing to do is for us to add this seven thousand plus dollars or whatever you work out to that to take away from the balance of between the 33 thousand and the 57 thousand dollars um we do know outstanding is the hotel when or if that happens they have until may to apply for their permit application or their zoning because they asked for an extension of the year and we understand as we talked in the meeting with staff last week that we need to come back and and add to our landscaping plan we also have missing we also had um a signed sculpture wherever you want to call it that was removed from that approval of 21-20 which could add some more value which uh wagger Hodgdon is working on so all we're asking here to do is all revise that spreadsheet that you already have to reflect that seven thousand or whatever you end up working out towards that which will more than take care of they'll commit that to our gateway project off wilson road on the airport drive I have two comments I don't I don't remember where we came out on the across the street plane does that have general approval from the board yes that was approved in your so that's not open to revision here that that's the way it is yeah secondly I want to question or at least inquire about this this multiplier does the developers definition of value comport with our definition of value when I mean that that's a lot of elasticity well 2.5 how about the cost of the tree right so I in this case would probably do what I do when somebody tells me how much a road is going to cost and I would go to the person who builds roads or the person who installs trees and ask if these values seem correct that that that skirts the issue so it's always been installed cost and they are allowed to include the cost to install it and would you mind I'm sorry I'll try to remember my hearing aids it's really hard to understand so they are allowed to count the installed cost and they always have been how about this maintenance stuff that seems to me to be entirely separate question yeah and that's why I would want to go and I'd want to talk to the arborist and say is this a number that you would consider the cost of a tree or is this inflating the value and I inappropriately and I suspect obviously because I'm asking the question I suspect the latter so just just to add to that there is a difference between buying a retail tree and having a commercial landscaper install a tree which is what Keith was referring to and that we do get a warranty with that that is part of what we pay for that tree to have that tree installed so if it dies they have to come back and replace that tree which argues against if anything argues against a maintenance factor in in a signing cost well I was leaving the maintenance piece off to the side Frank because that's a different piece but you know we're we don't want to make this a big deal listen if the multiplier is 2.5 we're happy it's not a big shift in the cost here we really would like to you know support the airport do what we think is the right thing to do per the land development regulations for the project in the community and move this item on and the difference between 2.5 and 2.8 on this project is you know staff I'm sure has plenty of well maybe it's a difference I mean I don't know I don't have enough information but you know I'd like it might be what the difference between 1.5 and 2.8 you know the tree cost one and what is the installation cost I don't I don't want to argue about it because I did I just don't know I mean I kind of take offense to you know call me a liar I was not well you're implying and I don't appreciate it we have the cost of a four inch caliper tree I know what that cost at a nursery about $1500 then you ship it then you plant it you guarantee it and I never said anything about maintenance I thought that's what I said was planting it mulching it you put guy wires it adds up now you may find a landscape contractor that does it for 2.5 multipliers the four or five that we use around here that are what I consider top the best there's a 2.8 so I think art makes a good point if you want to call it 2.5 fine but I know exactly what these trees cost because I call the nurses I know what they cost sitting at the nursery so well my all I'm saying is that my and I'd appreciate you to respect my 33 years in this profession that's all I'm asking my broader point was what does cost mean under the terms of the that's the question I was asked more information on that I'm going to look up the specific language so I'm not caught out misremembering yeah as suspected there is not a specific definition of landscape cost I think the relevant portions of the section on landscaping budget requirements are the development reboard shall require a minimum land planting costs for all site plants as shown in table three point thirteen nine below which is the the table about the breakdown three percent for the first 250,000 etc some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives are not reduced the landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer end of section quick question and approving budgets for numerous other projects over the years what has been the practice of the drb looking at you know essentially installed cost installed cost yes okay and and to Keith's point which is a really really important point um we're developing a campus out there we have a certain vision that we're working side by side with the airport that requires a certain quality of product the core 10 the aluminum the design of the buildings the plantings there is no doubt you can go find somebody to put a tree in at less than a 2.8 we do not believe it's consistent with the comprehensive plan by doing something like that or what the airport goals are or what betas goals are won't get any argument for me about finding a cheaper frank you can do that but is that really the intent for what we're trying to do here as a community thanks um let me just kind of move on here i don't know if we're going to get any farther on this let's hear i don't know the answer art if it's cheaper does that mean it's worth you know i i didn't mean to start down that road i was asking what our definition of cost is install cost seems not an unreasonable parameter if that's our history if that's what we've done but we should require some consistency okay well we don't have a we don't have a standard value for a tree or a standard multiplier in the ldr's so we'll leave it to staff to if they saw something in the calculation i want to get to the larger issue which was the explanation of the seven thousand seven hundred twenty dollar difference the deficit do i have that correct okay and then we also have your comment in number seven at the bottom of page nine the applicant still needs to provide two thousand three oh four and seventy eight cents in new landscaping to address the building addition staff notes that this the previous ms dash twenty dash oh one allows us to be located on or off site no proposal has been provided any thoughts on that two thousand dollars yeah so there's a couple things there and and certainly similar to the replacement of the trees any deficit that would come out here would get added to that in the contribution to support the airport landscape master plan my understanding and i may be not reading this correctly but we had an initial construction cost of two hundred and eighty three thousand dollars uh and seven thirty one the landscape budget was calculated three percent on the first two fifty two percent on the remaining which would have been thirty three thousand seven thirty one and these are some numbers that marla has sent over to you which would have put the initial landscaping budget eighty one seventy four uh per table thirteen nine now this is an amendment this isn't a new project so from the applicant's perspective the the cost or the value of the new landscaping should reflect the two percent not the three percent because the total construction value actually went from two eighty three plus the seven seven the seventy six to three sixty we're not starting over so at that point because we're above the threshold it should be a two percent calculation and and not the three percent which means that when you look at the landscape budget you add another two percent based on the seventy six thousand dollars of construction value we have a budget of nine thousand seven hundred and eleven dollars that we need to provide for this project we're actually providing ten thousand and forty dollars of in-place landscaping so we have a credit coming back of three hundred and twenty eight dollars and eighty six cents which we're not asking for but we're not asking to be charged additional landscaping either marla we're in the weeds here i am so i did you follow i i followed i followed the argument i don't i don't have all the numbers and i haven't looked at your numbers okay so i had the advantage of having this by the numbers document up on my screen while i was talking so i did follow if you want to pull that up um i don't know and the reason i ask you to lila is in the case of a building addition do we ever consider it on top of the initial building cost or do we just not because it's usually like a very distinct like one project ends in the case of a building addition we don't with a new application we consider it as a standalone separate and apart from previously approved additions yeah i haven't i have not i have not treated them as accretions upon other additions but this project is not yet complete so i mean i'm true not the hill i'm gonna die on if that's the argument the board wants to accept then then i throw it to the board to to consider Dan can i offer a comment yeah go please mark go okay um i hear both sides of this argument i also hear you know art's pretty clearly stating you know that i don't think this is the hill he wants to die on either in regards to landscaping and the overall big picture of what beta is doing at the airport um but i do follow art's logic and the way he's looked at this and i would have looked at the same way as an architect sitting on the other side of the table which i often have to um and this is i would look at it as an amendment to something that's in progress so i would say you're looking at it as the two percent calculation that he has looked at it we have had other projects which are additions to already built projects where we look at it as a standalone so whatever the addition costs you've recalculate that three two one you know however plays out and so i'm i'm comfortable with the way art is proposing it and i'm also comfortable with his proposal for the seven thousand and change to go towards the master plan landscaping i think the bigger picture question we need to ask and maybe it's already been answered but when we always look at these deficit landscape donations to the overall is whether the initial project is adequately landscaped and do we feel that the replacement plantings do achieve adequate landscaping compared to what's been removed and once we've answered that question we can then look at um whether the deficit can go to or the bone the additional monies can go to the master planning or whether we still need additional plantings yeah and to follow up on your um question and comment from the previous applicant frank you notice um we have four inch trees here so they're they're fairly substantial we did look at and talk with the landscape team about trying to increase the caliber of that and it does get to when when you get to that size tree so we were looking at say five or six inches when you do get up into that realm it's just as marlowe described it but we felt again that the smaller than four inches was not appropriate for the site and so we elevated the the size of the trees that we were bringing on property so i have a question about these numbers that you were talking about um when you're talking about the cost of the landscaping that's actually currently proposed that doesn't include the replacement plant that's correct okay this is just that is absolutely correct i'm sorry i didn't hear that this is just um as marlowe described it this calculation that we were talking about just a few minutes ago is separate from the calculation for the replacement cost for the trees that that keith talked to right and i agree by the way i agree with both you and mark on your calculation of you know for for for a project that's in process that is this is just a correction and you should be you should have the benefit of the of the more leaning calculation for that on the other point so the question that mark asks is the board to consider is whether the site is adequately landscaped is there a good sheet for showing well what what what power do we have at this point i mean let's assume well i guess it's for the replacement trees right and i'll keep you on to that well i mean i think i think that plane showed it i mean it's a relatively small area it's full of a lot of circles which are trees with that we don't see is all the underground so we felt that we have populated this site does that address staff comment number eight there on the replacement planings which have not is that where we're at here so we haven't touched on eight yet eight was something monkey wrench we got at the last minute but it does seem to address six and seven so we're looking at here okay all right no go ahead go ahead because we're sort of front-loaded all right so item number six and seven another further discussion or questions on six and seven okay so number eight on september 23rd the applicant provided a supplemental plan and it came at plantings previously approved to be installed on the south side of the building are not feasible due to site conditions they have proposed proposed replacement plantings which have not yet been reviewed staff further recommends the board continue the hearing to allow reviewings of this review of the south plantings for the comment on this marla yeah so this was something that just kind of came in um just before we published the packet um and so we didn't really have chance for craig to review this but it looks like on the south side of the building there's some additional trees that need to be removed um and you know i guess we could just think about that as a separate application but i hate to do that i'd rather because then i need a separate warning and everything else that maybe i'm wrong but as i understand it that additional tree that had to be removed was the spruce the third four 12 to 14 months prior to that we had the crab out which was in the way of a new trench the seven inch spruce was in the way of a trench for the electrical gun the 14 inch spruce was in the way of a new trench for the electrical the 17 inch pair was uh the root for damage because of its proximity to a new sewer line the 11 inch on the locus that i mentioned was slated to be transplanted it's in the way it can't replace it and then the final tree was this well can you please pull at page 21 of the packet kief i can point to the the plantings that we're referring to here they're not actually trees hi this is this is jim as a applicant uh microphone is difficult to hear again yeah i just found out that it wasn't on sorry about that mark um so to the right of the screen that's showing right now there's two little red lines and there's a call out there nope to the right yeah that red call out was what i was referring to you know plantings designated for the zone unable to be planned to do the poor site conditions replacement plantings as shown okay thank you so not totally understanding what's happening with that just because i worked i was working very closely with carolin on this um what i can say about that is if you see um at the entry way the southern entry way to the left so let me back up the south side we put in the mezzanine what that did is that restricted some of the additional landscaping that we were trying to put in um there was also some other constraints with vehicle charging stations and we thought it better the the plants would have a better chance of surviving if they were located in a grass area not on the industrial side of the building so so so that blue area the large blue area to the lower left is where those plantings were relocated right so it's not a new planting plan we're just putting them in a different place to allow them as christ just said you survived and so it's the same plants same plants and then there's the and you can see the blue circle tree right where the dumpster used to be right but that blue circle tree was already in your list of six correct the tree the blue stuff at the bottom the left where they're bubbled those are the things that were on the south side in the in the in the inclement area and we are still putting them on the site but not in where you where we had originally proposed them and the blue tree was on the original submission for this application the tree that's shown in blue on this plan when you say original like back in march no like for this for this hearing oh right yes right okay okay so what you're saying what we're seeing on the screen in blue right now there's a tree that we've already talked about so we're ignoring that and then there's the three red lines up at the top that say planting plantings designated for the zone unable to be planted due to poor site conditions replacement plantings as shown down so it's not really replacement plantings it's like relocated that's a really good description marlott should have been relocated and apologize for the confusion there thanks okay really good so if the board feels like relocating them from the south to the west is not a big deal then i don't think it's a big deal looks okay to me board members i don't think it's a big deal same all right so and we've got this whole thing worked out to staff for the you got what you need on as far as budgets and trees and the differences and the calculations you've got the information you need yeah and i'll have the city arborist review and approve the multiplier prior to a zoning permit and if if that's different it's going to be different by a small enough number that it can be made up in the off-site landscaping thanks board members any last questions for the applicants see if before we do any public comment okay any members of the public here in the room that wish to testify on this matter okay and is there anybody uh online or on the phone wish to testify okay um chair would entertain a motion to close or continue the hearing Dan i'll make a motion that we close site plan application sp 21 038 1150 airport drive beta air thank you mark is there a second hold second thank you jim okay the motion's been made and seconded all those in favor of the motion say aye aye hi hi okay eyes have it all right thanks very much appreciate it thank you uh let's do a five minute recess because i need to use the bathroom and stretch our legs next item on the agenda you can stand you can sit um sketch plan application it won't swear you in so you're on scouts honor here scouts honor okay sketch plan application sd dash 21 dash 23 of greenfield capital llc to consolidate three existing lots into one lot of 19 point acres for the purpose of construction of a 1333 770 13377 square feet two to three storey office and light manufacturing building 419 parking spaces and associated site improvements at 443 community drive who was here for the applicant so the applicant is john ellick representing technology park and we have roland groenfeld representing on logic and our architect david roye from weeman lamp here okay great well if you'd like to uh give an overview of the project that'd be great and then we'll look at the staff comments roland's going to introduce the project and his company green line on you hear him okay no we're getting a we're getting a no signal from the back that's better yes that works um so i'm just going to start with a little bit of background of the company just give it a little bit of an overview um we uh on logic has been founded in 2003 and we've moved to um south berlington in 2007 so we've been here for quite a while currently in a meadowlands business park um and uh we we actually originally were called logic supply in 2019 rebranded to on logic we have offices in vermont headquarters over here north carolina the netherlands taiwan and malaysia and what we do is we make industrial computers for very difficult environments um think warehouse automation factory automation those kinds of things um we've been growing pretty rapidly um about 25 to 30 percent a year um consistently throughout our history and um we expect that to continue uh certainly also in the next five years or so um our um current facility is about 36 000 square feet so we're looking to really go to a larger facility to house um and and add house the team and add the production and warehouse capacity that we need um we in our calculations we um are currently planning for about 400 people in this in this new building um that will be happening over the course of probably seven to ten years or something like that um another thing to add here is that we uh we really focus on very high paying jobs the average salary at the company is um about one hundred thousand dollars a year um and uh we really want to create an environment that is that is a great environment for employees um it is um you know clean manufacturing light manufacturing in the definition of of the d rb i'd say or the city um we are focusing on a very energy efficient building solar power e v charging stations etc um the other thing that's really important state here is that the building is laid out um obviously very close to the interstate and very visible from unistate um and obviously also very visible from technology park so we want to make sure that this building is a really nicely designed building a beautiful building i might say um that is going to be uh in our minds an attractive building for the for the area and also an attractive building to work in um i think that's kind of the high level of view i have a preliminary question yes will it be aesthetically compatible with the whales it will be we'll work on that i i hope everything is but um thank you there's um second piece to our project in addition to the building for on logic and that is what's referred to as a sub as a subdivision although it's actually combining three lots so if we look at the drawing up on the screen you'll see something called subject area that really comprises three approved building lots in technology park we're uh requesting the combination of those three into a single lot so there's a subdivision piece and there's a site plan approval piece um just by way of orientation there on that drawing to the right of that pink subject area which the building doesn't show there is where we just finished building a fedex distribution facility to the north which is that big black roof that's the existing um 30 community drive facility uh obviously you can see the interstate as roland mentioned one of our prime objectives is actually to be very visible sometimes uh you know along the interstate we try to conceal buildings uh in this case we're going to be very proud of this building it will be an outstanding piece of architecture and it's our great pleasure to be able to see it as much as possible from the interstate it's going to be more visible from the interstate frankly than it will be from community drive and that's just based on the topography of the land there for the most part community drive sits about uh eight to 10 feet below the the level of the of the uh of the lot and so it's going to be less visible from community drive than it will be from the interstate speaking of the fedex building it would be nice are we going to see uh an illustration showing showing the fedex building showing the build up area we're not intending to show that building tonight okay down the road okay um i did have a question for historical question from when you were before it's for the fedex building a couple of years ago there's supposed to be a path that you were offering as a recreation path as part of that application is that on here some yes it is yeah and that'll come up in discussion a little later on but since you've addressed it there is a exercise slash walking path that sort of circumnavigates this property uh the interstate property and during the fedex construction we had to relocate that path a little bit we will need to do the same thing in this project but the intent is to keep that entire path okay and we'll and we'll see it in more detail later you'll see it on the plans yeah yeah get on with the items here quick question for you uh what's the excuse me uh what's the plan for the existing location of meadowland good question um so we don't quite know yet um we we depending on it's going to take us about two years to build this new building and depending on where we're at at that point we may or may not decide to continue to hold on to the building we might lease it out for a period of time and then re-occupy it or something like that but the ideal is to move the whole business into into the new building initially and then we'll have to kind of see what happens from there great okay thanks all right let's uh you know with the staff comments here and again remember that this is sketch so let's just try to give general guidance to the to the applicant and hit the big the big highlights here and and let's stay out away from callipers of trees if we can i can assure you we will all right so the first item is the maximum building height um the requirement is 35 foot flat 45 pitch and the proposal is 46 feet the board should provide feedback on whether they will allow the requested height at the sketch plan level of view staff considers the location relative to the interstate location of the airport approach cones and the requirement for compatibility between plan development patterns to be factors pertaining to whether the board should allow the proposed height and i guess i'll cut to quite to the quick here with the architect why does this need to be 46 feet uh for a couple reasons can you go to uh one of the site plans the entire building is not 46 feet um right yeah any one of those so you'll see the plan orientation is plan north so up is north on the eastern side there is a vertical rectangle that portion of the building is three stories that's the only part that's that exceeds the actual building height that was done in an attempt to consolidate you can see the three-story office building is depicted on that the intent is to consolidate the offices to be more efficient to use internally it gives better access to eastern light views out to the east as well and and better connection to the warehouse and other parts of the building but the only part that's actually 46 feet high is that portion three story yep is everybody clear about the phases here marlo i can get into that moment yeah i'll get to that in a moment let me add to what david has just said there uh the entirety of technology park is in the airport uh cone district and for each of our applications we have to get f a approval for our building height and really frankly for our cranes when we're setting this deal the all the office buildings we've already constructed our three stories which is an efficient use of ground you cover less area when you have that height this zone allows 70 lot coverage we're about 30 so we tend to build not to the maximum lot coverage the fewer stories you have the more ground you cover so there's not only operational reasons there's good site planning reasons why that height is and is is useful and we are compatible with the neighborhood thank you just just to move the question along marlo do we have standards for allowing waivers to height yeah so it's immediately above um in this zoning district the bay the board may approve a structure with height and excess of the max allowable with additional setbacks and it appears that they are meeting those additional setbacks we're considerably in excess of those additional setbacks right okay and then in terms of what are the heights of the other buildings in this park so the two buildings up on kimball avenue uh our three-story buildings they're uh just under 50 feet and the original office building we built which is 55 community drive is now 725 community drive is about 65 feet so evidently these have been approved before mom okay all right frank go ahead well you asked my question but are those buildings in now this building is right up against the interstate right i wouldn't say it's right against it but the property about the interstate yeah right but the proposed the three-story building is closer to the southern edge of this proposed building will align almost identically with the face of the FedEx building that's adjacent nearby okay frank recall that where's the interstate here to the bottom of the page it's actually off the bottom of the page oh okay all right recall that the interstate requires 150 foot setback where where no building can occur and so our setbacks are well in advance of that so i i would say we're probably 300 feet from the interstate i'll cut it short for my question if you know if it's if it's not an fAA problem i don't care yes definitely not an fAA problem okay other board members um in terms of the height issue i guess one thing that how do you think maybe we were talking about this and i just missed it how does it compare in height to the FedEx building the 46 foot section the the highest the highest point of the FedEx building is probably right around 30 feet okay but in terms i know that from a great standpoint how does it line up the roof are the dirt we're talking about now is higher in elevation than where the FedEx building is and that's just based on the existing topography of the land okay so this building is going to be perceived as being significantly higher than 16 feet taller than the FedEx building yeah it's so far away from the FedEx building i don't know that most people will draw that comparison you know it's it's sort of good they're all sort of standalone buildings out there and they're you know the buildings up on Kimball Avenue are fairly much side by each and you would you would notice a difference there but these buildings are so far apart they're going to be a thousand feet apart right okay um i mean i i'm literally just given the fact that it is adjacent to the highway um it can be the most beautifully designed building i'm just a little concerned about the height um and i guess one question i have is you know you've got 15 foot floor-to-floor on this you know is that designed that way i mean because for general office you know that seems acceptable yeah and that you could for three stories the the floor-to-floor actually will be a little less than that so we're compelled to measure to the highest point and there is a sort of an entry element that's the tallest point of our office sequence uh and also compelled to measure to the top of rooftop equipment yeah our floor-to-floor height will be somewhere in the 14 to 14 6 range yeah the roof sorry i'm sorry and in order to have nine and a half foot ceiling which is really necessary in a large open office environment still have some interstitial space for your utility ductwork and piping you need about 14 to 14 6 floor-to-floor hi mark the actual 80 percent of the primary roof over that business portion of the building is 42 feet that's the actual roof elevation that's 14 foot per floor there is a roof element that sticks up over the entry portion of the building that we'll see later that is at the 46 foot elevation but as you stated we also want to include um you know provisions for mechanical equipment and and the like um so the mechanical equipment can be sliced a couple different ways i don't think that there's anything wrong with the way you're slicing it today but i think at the next stage of review um just making that really clear like what all the various things are would really address some of these concerns well we'll have a rooftop equipment plan at our next meeting yeah that equipment has hasn't been defined yet so yeah all right thanks uh board members let's uh move on if it's okay all right next one uh staff comment number two um this is describing the applicant described the project as a business and factory use project which is not a use to find in the land development regulations the current location of the business of 35 Thompson Street is defined as light manufacturing so the question is staff recommends the board confirmed that the proposed location will have the same function as the existing location and specifically will continue to comply with the portion of the definition pertaining to the city's performance standards staff notes that this is not the correct fit other uses are allowable yeah so as we all know businesses morph as they go through their lives right now our principal uses would be a business occupancy i.e. office light manufacturing we do we will call it light manufacturing slash assembly and then warehouse uh marley comment on that or no all those things are fine all right uh board members let me move on okay uh subdivision standards applicant is proposing two driveways staff recommends could the applicant describe why the western driveway is located where it is and identify potential concerns at this sketch plan yeah so as you can see from our site plan we're segregating car traffic from truck traffic which is which is responsible you know site planning design it's not 100% necessary but it's good planning what we're doing here however is we're combining three lots into one those three lots each would be entitled to at least one curb cut each so our perspective on this is we're going from what would be three allowable curb cuts to two curb cuts the site also has some interesting topography on the very west side which is where the truck driveway will be the land is very close in elevation to the existing community drive so site lines there are very good as you move east the land rises pretty rapidly to a point where it's about eight feet above community drive it would be very challenging to put a curb cut there without a substantial cut in the ground because kind of see it in that graphic and then when you get all the way over to the eastern driveway where the cars will enter that road is also fairly close to at grade with the existing land so it's a really wise place to put the two curb cuts we believe two is better than three could it be one potentially it would not serve our function at all well it would not serve our function at all well because the driveway would would have to be in the middle where you could peel truck traffic off to the west car traffic off to the east and that's based on the functions the interior functions of the building it would result in more asphalt which wouldn't particularly be a good thing so we believe this is the most expedient and efficient site plan what what's the distance between the driveways it's about a thousand feet yeah i think it's 880 feet 880 feet between the two drives as they're shown yeah Marla any thoughts i mean is it is this allow is this allowable of the two driveways like this um yeah so this is hopefully to prompt john's really nice presentation that he gave when he came and talked to me about the location of the driveways initially um and to kind of talk about how they looked at some alternatives um what the alternatives were and why they ended up where they did so i i hope i've described why we've done what you've done which is primarily to segregate the truck traffic from the car traffic right we do recognize that the western driveway is relatively close although not terribly close to what will be a tilly drive connector tilly drive connector on this map that you're looking at here would be in the very upper left hand corner of the drawing and it will require we've had some conversations with public works it will require coordination if and when and we hope it's when that tilly drive connection occurs it's on the town plan we we want it neighbors want it so we're assuming that that tilly drive connection is going to occur there clearly are some logistical concerns there with wetlands but at some point it's going to exist and we know our driveway will be probably within 200 feet of it uh and it will require some coordination there and we're prepared to have those discussions with public works and planning and zoning okay um can you squeeze that answer that western entrance over a little bit more to the east i mean have you gone as far east with that i believe we've gone as yeah we've gone as far east as we're comfortable going yeah when you enter where we're entering there you have to make sure you have good lines of sight to both east and really up up the north of community drive there and the lines of sight we have where we've situated that driveway give us the best lines of sight that we can have okay i guess it would be be great at the next level just to even an email from public work saying they're okay with the hypothetical location and stuff just to confirm i don't doubt you or just yeah it's nice just so we're not going well be sure and it's hard because we your location on the driveway could potentially constrain that future connectivity so i just want to be sure public works is well aware and we're definitely on board with having those discussions with great all right thanks um i have a question for for staff lower farther down on item on this discussion staff recommends that the board authorize independent technical review of the applicant's traffic impact study so it can be reviewed prior to the next level of review is that a requirement or um the independent independent technical review it is not but we often do it because we don't have an in-house traffic expert so i can address that yeah we are commissioning in fact it's already 80 done a traffic study right uh we will have that by our preliminary hopefully preliminary final plat hearing but we'll have that for our next meeting the results of that and we've coordinated that study with both public works and vaut well we're talking about my was talking about an independent review exactly and i'm just sort of wondering what what do we have standards that trigger an independent technical review because it is an added cost to the applicants right you mean reviewing our yes reviewing your review yeah yeah exactly so do we have standards in other words do we have to do we have to usually when it's something other than straightforward ipe we do have an independent technical review if there's you know internal capture if there's off-site mitigation if there's off-site improvements turning lane changes we do commission that um or the board chooses to do that because we don't have that in-house expertise um same as if you know that we didn't have in-house stormwater expertise we would have a stormwater expert review plans right so when when we did fed x we as you know we put in traffic signalization in the eastern connection between community drive and kimball we also added some turning lanes our preliminary findings of this traffic study do not indicate any additional off-site improvements so i don't believe we'll be coming back with a study that suggests any changes to the geometry or uh the capacity of turning lanes all right thanks all right um i guess that's a really good point though um if the board is interested in independent technical review being done before you see the applicant again i probably should have made that a red comment so you guys can go ahead and authorize it well i kind of i'm sorry mark go ahead oh no i was going to say that this is something that we typically do do and you know this is a definitely a project that's on the larger side side that's going to have you know quite a bit of parking and trip incidents associated with it i'll also play devil's advocate and say this is tech park whether what you know it's intended to have this type of development and um volume but i still think that it's a good idea to um get a second set of eyes and you know review the applicant's traffic report and it's just to make sure that we're in agreement and no additional measures um are to be are being recommended or that are warranted so that said i would make a motion that we approve technical review of the applicant's traffic impact study i didn't pick up some of what you just make a motion okay that's what i thought all right so and i assume this we we wouldn't need any technical review yes the traffic study okay there's been a motion i'm sorry the motion is to yes to have an independent technical review of the pending traffic study before they submit theirs no no before the preliminary at preliminary plot we would have both the traffic study okay yes i would like the independent reviewer to have the benefit of the of the applicant's review oh yes that's what they're reviewing yeah that's the big review part yeah i i would that's why you're excited to meet us okay motion's been can i ask a question is that review undertaken after we apply for our submit our materials for a preliminary final and it's done in that period or is it after the your traffic review as soon as it's done and then i can just get it started okay so we'll you'll have an independent review done before the preliminary final hearing if you get it to me before you yeah okay yeah if you would like that to be so then yes for the preliminary plat yeah it should give some comfort that because this is also an act 250 project vaot scrubs our traffic study quite vigorously okay so we have a motion yeah exactly yes motion in the second is all right all those in favor of the motion is stated by mr. bear say aye hi jimmy there yeah i'm not in favor chair votes aye jim's and a jim's and a yeah okay does it pass still or it does not you need majority do we have two days one day and you know we need a majority of the board which means it has to be unanimous okay um so okay so motion fails in that case that's fine um if the board later changes their mind it may delay the preliminary plot we accept that i would go back to what i just said though that this will get a very vigorous review by vaot because it's also an act 250 project we're using a traffic count based on an employee count that's in excess of it standards so you're gonna find that our we will find that our study is not aggressively managed i have i got a question here um so after this is built how many total employees with this whole community drive complex have counting counting FedEx counting this counting existing buildings counting the nice shiny glass ones on the front um i would say uh i don't have that number but i can come pretty close 15 will be about just under 2000 maybe okay is there ever any kind of consideration to some sort of campus it's a campus several different uses but it's a campus of multiple multiple employers is is there any plans for for any kind of uh you know in-house transit you know like major employers do so that you don't have 500 2000 cars coming to one spot right now uvm medical center does run buses between their location here and their main campus yeah but because everybody else is a is a one-off business there you know where would you transport them to there is public bus transportation i'm not really quite sure what else could be done yeah i know it's it's more of a thing of i mean it's you know whether it's organized carpooling or you know vans that come from all over i mean it's i'm not trying to it's and it's not required by any stretch but yeah it's just it's one of these things it's and i think about other larger projects that you know we're we're growing as a community and we're getting the jobs here and then you start to sit there and you go wait a minute why can't there be some coordination so that we don't i mean i analogize it to a to a land covenant for common land i mean you guys could easily these significant employers could easily get together and you know have a little bus company in effect by by agreement and fund it proportionally or in equal shares to take the burden less than the burden somewhat yeah you will find we would all find that that's a lot more challenging to execute than it's a great idea no argument there it's very challenging to execute when you look at where people live they will live from the islands to Essex county to south of middlebury and and running a collective bus service and coordinating that at right times businesses start at different times it's just very challenging the public bus service that is readily available stops at the property line is available for people to use so if they were inclined to use buses they i presume they would use buses i don't i i don't see it as i mean you can maybe it is challenging but it doesn't seem so challenging to me we have at outlying areas we have already carpooling centers you really you don't have to solve the problem a hundred percent nobody's suggesting your parking lot should be empty but for example take the richmond take the richmond commuter center you have one bus running the commuter richmond commuter center is specific time if people can make it great if not well then they can drive their car Essex you know i mean they're they're dotted all over the place you could have that kind of limitation it's a pretty easy to operate employee incentive programs etc free will pay for your bus pass and then and i don't know we have facebook pages for everything or you know or group chat i'm sure hopefully people will start to carpool as they go oh you're in the same neighborhood as me i didn't know that you know we'll see it happen but it's it's interesting to see you know like okay so and this is just a personal comment so electric electric cars are great and they don't use gasoline and all that but they don't necessarily change where people live and it doesn't necessarily change the demand on traffic infrastructure and parking and lights as well as creating a previous service so one of the challenges is we're not an employer you know i mean in a way we're no different than wilson road yeah it's it's a grouping of businesses in a geographic location but they're all independently owned businesses yeah and so it's a little bit it would be a little bit like herding cats if we were the hospital with 2000 employees it's a lot easier to manage that employee benefit yeah very well taken all right let's move on here thanks for your forbearance with this that discussion so um so back to parking reserve for future use in order to minimize construction of unnecessary parking and administrative officer development you board may approve a site plan with parking reserve for construction at a future date and granting such approval the a or d rb shall specify a time frame during which said parking may be constructed without receipt of an additional site plan approval in no case such time frame you see 10 years removal of parking reserve areas shall require site plan amendment staff recommends that the board consider approach that would approve some of the proposed parentheses phase one parking for construction at a later date you guys got a comment on that well i like can you put the site plan up please so when you're designing a facility that's growing is wonderfully and as rapidly as on logic is it's a complex science you have a piece of land that has discrete boundary and you want to make sure that you accommodate current conditions and your future growth so what we're showing here in the lighter color building is our phase one the darker is phase x two and beyond and appropriate design would sort of direct you to design the ultimate build out and then go back to what you want to build initially so we've designed site accommodation landscaping storm water building footprint growth areas even site lighting storm water management to accommodate our ultimate growth what we're asking to build right now is simply phase one and as you can see from the parking plan a small amount of parking under 25 percent is in the front yard if you were to peel away the two northernmost additions to this building which would be a future phase no not that one over to the right those yeah so come back to the building area come back to the building area now go north go the other other north up to right there you go yeah that dark brown box and the one immediately to the left of it would be a future phase once those are built that parking is well I can see a couple of spaces in the front yard still but they're marginally in the front yard so our position is that that's the best use of this land and we will get there which would mitigate this parking in the front yard element when FedEx was built of course we had 25 percent in the front yard and how the DRB got there would be reflected in their final what about the the phasing question here which is which is really what this is about so so that first building how many parking spaces do you need for that we're designing this facility to accommodate 400 employees we don't have foreign employees today but we're designing the phase one to accommodate 400 employees the ultimate build out would be considerably more than that so we're showing 400 I think actually 419 parking spaces that might vary one or two when we get to final design so we're accommodating the exact amount of parking that the building is designed to accommodate so our traffic engineering study will be based on our water sewer allocations we're all based on that amount and just to clarify too the light gray is the actual parking which will be installed in phase one and the darker gray both on the eastern edge and the west northwest corner are proposed future parking areas so at the beginning you mentioned that the current facility is 36 000 square feet that's their existing building yeah and this facility is four times larger is it fair to say you have around 100 employees today we thank you we currently have well over 100 employees and we we don't have enough parking we have about 100 parking spots in a current lot and we don't have enough parking there and we're overflowing into into the drive into the street so I just want to make sure that everybody understands this parking reserve for future use standard um this isn't to not permit the parking this is to pre-approve parking that comes online as you need it and not separate from the the orange and the pink phases it's it's to say you build the first two bays and then without coming back with just sending a letter to jelilah that says hey i'm going to build the third the third bay now you can do that with sometime within the next 10 years if you feel that you know you don't need it all at once so if you have 150 employees you know maybe building 250 parking spaces is all you need and then a little letter in five years saying we're going to build the rest and that's great with the city but we do have to deal with other parties stormwater you know all those kinds of things active 50 potentially those kinds of things so the the problem is that those regulations also change over time so it makes it really hard to plan for so it is just simpler and more straightforward to go and build the whole thing all at once I promise you that we will use these eventually and and and then some we probably will run into the situation that we won't have enough parking on this site in a future build out and we'll need busing and those kinds of things as well so that's this is a very wonderful problem to have you know a company of the quality of on logic adding people and filling up parking spaces we recognize the concerns no one wants more infirmia surface than they need we don't want it no one does doesn't serve anybody's purpose we need it so this is a request that we're making because we need it when you evaluate deferring something that you might not need day one the question you're always dealing with is when will I need it if you need it inside of three years you got to build it now if you need it out 10 years you might kick it down the road but the cost of mobilizing demobilizing and mobilizing again even if the cost of construction doesn't change you're adding a burden to the cost of that that you shouldn't bear if you're going to build it relatively soon thereafter we're not going to occupy this building for two years we got to get through the permitting process and then it's the year and four months to build so we're going to be occupying this in probably early whatever that math is 2023 yeah yeah and so by that time and then with a little bit of growth we're going to consume this parking board members any more discussion on this item number four I agree it's hard to make the call about what's going to happen prospectively have you I understand cost is an issue south barely there's under a lot of pressure about parking has been for a while has been an angry subject of discussion have you considered structured parking I mean you have you have elevated ground here have you considered subsurface parking at all as a as an option no subsurface parking would triple the cost of our parking and we are so far under our lot coverage our allowable lot coverage that it would not occur to us to have either structured parking above ground you probably recall what the hospital went through when they put you know their parking garage in which is you know subterranean parking it's just it's just extraordinarily expensive it's actually more expensive to go down than up it costs I was I was thinking about down down is actually more than up yeah the way I understand it is about the cost of a car per parking spot to put it on the ground and it works something like 40 000 dollars per parking spot 35 to 40 000 yeah it's it's it's just not a it's it's an extraordinary delta if you don't grow well it's a lot of asphalt yes it's a lot of asphalt it's a lot of building and it's a lot of employment that comes with that well they will have strong water standards to comply with we have to comply with all of it yeah okay moving along here um the lot is located within the mixed industrial commercial or industrial open and open space zoning district and it's clear that the circulation of the layout cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors employees and inherent operations of the use of the loss staff recommends the board as the applicant to substantiate their claim that the use of the lot cannot accommodate all parking to the sides and rear of the buildings at this time based upon staff understanding of the nature of business it does not seem there would be conflicts so as far as use as a visitor's employees but can you address the sides in the rear of the building issue yeah yeah so let's go back to the site plan if we can and this is what I was aimed at a little bit earlier that when this project is finally built out we won't have any parking in the front yard we'll have our building up proud to community drive and therefore everything will be behind it we're planning for the future in the interim we do have less than 25 percent in the front yard I would also suggest that that parking which will be beautifully landscaped I think all of our work is it's above community drive and you will have a very challenging time seeing it I presume the principal objection to parking in the front yard is it is an aesthetic one it's a visual one and we've taken a lot of pain to make sure that we've addressed those concerns so I think the argument here between precedent set with our neighbor which I think everybody would argue would suggest is a very nicely done site plan and our own internal needs and our future growth that this is a well thought through comment Marla just a slightly unrelated tangential thing I noticed the faint lands of the trees along the side are they existing trees or those are those are on the FedEx property that's what we show them there but they're not our trees okay and incidentally we're also showing a potential future connection which was part of the FedEx approval requirement that we set aside an easement in case neighbors ever wanted to share parking and we're willing to have that same easement in reverse Marla can you uh is it required that they accommodate all parking to the sides and rear of the building so the standard in the LDR is that parking date of the sides and rear there are some exceptions available one of the exceptions is for a lot in the mixed IC or in the IO when it is clear that the circulation and the layout cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors and employees and the inherent operations of the use on the lot so this exception is only available in the case of say remember we had oh you don't remember because you went on the board um we had a shipping company and they had all of their shipping trucks doing all their ins and outs and loading docks in the back and they had the parking you know well they they actually met the standard they had parking to the side but they didn't want it co-mingling they didn't want the people who were arriving in passenger vehicles to co-mingle with the pickup with the trucks um so that would be an instance where this standard would be appropriate um and the question here is whether there really is a conflict that exists or if this business consists primarily of passenger vehicles and maybe small box trucks um is there actually no conflict and so the standard wouldn't be allowed so are you allowed zero in the front yard or 25 percent i'm a little uncertain you're allowed 25 percent in the front yard if there is the potential for conflicts between use of the lot and pedestrians and visitors and employees so our position is we definitely have that conflict which is why we have the driveways and shipping receiving versus parking arranged the way it is we want it's imperative to us to keep those segregated for both safety but also for aesthetic reasons when our employees and our visitors our customers come to our uh office we want them to have a wonderful experience coming in there we don't want it co-mingled with shipping and receiving well what would stop you from putting and there may be perfectly sound reasons but you know if you what would stop you from putting what is now white gray where the dark gray is if you see what i mean in other words expand expand the parking to the east now in phase one you have you have a good point frank the the only issue with that is that it creates more in part of your surface or an art yeah a covert service because you end up with more roads than you need so that's the that's the reason why we decided to go this way well if you didn't if you didn't build the parking out front yeah when you're it's a fair question and technically it can be done the problem is when you're building parking like this it's more economical and i know you don't like the economical argument but we all have to think about that to build an entire strip if you're adding in this case north south to that strip it has an effect on the storm drainage which is the biggest deal if you're building portions of that and building more of them which would be the case if we went to that dark gray and pulled this light gray south it's just more expensive well it's probably not i mean it's probably not a good enough i understand from a developer standpoint the economic argument is very very compelling but it doesn't override what the ldr's we weren't suggesting that our suggestion is that we do have meet this one exception which is not co-mingling passenger traffic just as marlis suggested this other entity did but that's what i was addressing if you take you know until you need it and that is until you get to the point where you're not in the front yard right what the ldr's you build more expensively in the dark gray you don't co-mingle because you picked up your extra the spaces you need in the dark gray by spending more money and thereby complying with the ldr yep and meeting your objection of not co-mingling that that's fair enough for sure what i was also suggesting however is when we do our next phase we're going to be there anyway but so if that parking we're ultimately okay because we build to the north which we will be doing then why wouldn't it be okay today so it's okay it's okay so it's not well part of that but except it's not there that's not your your proposal you want it now part part of that is how this is going to be phased though if you do the light gray now it is very easy to add the parking area to the east that entire line parking to the east without interrupting the daily current traffic flow that's going in and out of this office building if you do all the parking at the north end of these three individual lots you're going to disrupt the traffic flow as you're putting in that second phase parking tremendously in order to do that you're going to have a problem with us or some of us i understand i know you're coming from i'm just saying from a from trying to install that subsequent phase what what what one of the but one of the members on one of the boards my late wife was chair i've said oh it's a legalism okay yeah um this is a legalism yeah and we appreciate that yeah we we believe we have i'm not sure you appreciate it enough well i i'm not trying to agree with it but i appreciate the argument it's you know it's an legitimate position all right let's uh mark and jim any comments on this yeah i got a um the academic comment on it so i guess one question i have is obviously you know you guys have given some you know a lot of thought to this because you know but again this is still sketch plan so you know um and we haven't seen the architecture of the building and whether it's worked out you just haven't submitted it or been certainly thought of because i mean obviously you know i know on logics brand and it's going to be quality it's going to be a good-looking building um i know women land-seers designs and you know so i i'm not worried about the design and architecture of the building at this point you know we're sketched so i'm more looking at like the 30 000 foot look at the project and i guess one question i have in this does relate to parking and potential phasing of the parking um and whether you know there any way that we could you know you could you look at possibly moving the building a little closer to um community drive and putting one of the strips of parking that currently runs north south you know making the the the bay of parking that runs east west behind the building two days of parking so that you know you have more of an even spread of parking around the building you could still you know this way also you have less parking um it's going to be in the front of the building because you're kind of you know you can move the building like before or just wondering if there's any thought on that because i think that that would cut down on the percentage of parking that's in the front of the building and you know so i'll just leave it at that that's just sort of one of my thoughts on the project this particular drawing doesn't show it but yeah in our stormwater management plan in what that where that green arrow is will be a stormwater detention base delilah can you move to one of the next pages down either the stormwater or landscape plan future gravel wetland is that what you're talking about yeah yeah and that's part of our stormwater management plan yeah i'm not suggesting that building couldn't move an inch a foot 10 feet or even maybe 20 30 feet further north it's not going to be enough to accommodate zero parking in the front yard as we currently have it configured right yeah we need to move the building at least 60 feet to allow a little bit of green space between the building and parking and allow a second lane of parking and that would encroach upon that future development plans to the northwest all right um thanks mark jam you got anything on this yeah i don't have anything extra say again nothing more no okay um yeah i'll just weigh in here i think you've heard some of those concerns about this i mean we know yes you plan to build those buildings but they're not there they're not there now and it's going to take a while so i just you know i'll try to take what you've heard the bro would say and tweak some things if you can to try to get closer to not having as much parking in in the front um and all so uh when you when you come back so let's uh let's move on um so we've got this issue of uh qualifying open space um parking shop a predominantly screen from the roadway with landscaping features and separated from the roadway sidewalks are multi-use path by one or more the following qualifying open space as defined in depend xf so on and so forth um space shall be con fish sufficient to create a create our extended plaza and pedestrian experience largely screen parking from the street provide for additional usable open space in the parcel etc etc staff comment no qualifying open space is provided the square footage of 74 parking spaces approximately 12 000 square feet requiring an open space of at least 4200 square feet provided plan is not appeared to