Welcome all to the town of Wilson Development Review Board on Tuesday, October 8th. We will open the meeting at 7.04. First Order of Business is a public forum. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the board on an issue or topic that is not on tonight's agenda? Hearing none, we will go into the First Order of Business. Item 2 on the agenda to clarify the DRB recommendations of DP-20-03 PREAP, America Real Estate Company, and you all international. Andy, good evening. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Andy Rowe, Lamar Owen Dickinson, 14 Morris Drive Essex. Thank you. So you wrote a correspondence. You are looking for additional e-mail and our conditions of approval from the last meeting. Yes, we had talked with staff and they suggested this is one avenue and I guess we're looking for some clarification on some of the additional recommendations. Are there must haves in there? If some of them are addressed, does that make others less important or not applicable? And in my notes, we're not looking for the DRB to design the project, just I guess a prioritization of the additional recommendations and whether, for example, if the 20-foot street tree spacing eliminates or makes some of the other recommendations less important. If one of those is implemented, does it eliminate the need for another or are they all must haves? That's basically what we're trying to get a handle on. Okay. Well, I applaud you for coming in. This is a great way to do this. I think that we'll just walk down item by item. However you want to do it, I realize this is an added agenda item and it's not a warned item, so we need to keep it focused and quick. So we'll just go through the items and keep in mind that these were DRB recommendations. So take them for, in the spirit of that, the east and west walls, item number nine or condition of approval item number nine. East and west walls are considered dead walls. What we were thinking as a board is that although those east and west walls were architecturally activated, they were not activated to the level that we would like to see them activated, given the size and scale of the wall and the proximity in the gateway to Williston. And so we were looking for some additional architectural interest be added. Do we envision something of significance? I speak up for it, but I don't think we're looking for the level of interest to be quadrupled, but we're looking for some enhancement on those two sides. So, please. A couple of things. One, because these are just comments and these were recommendations from the board, individual viewpoints that you might hear are not necessarily the consensus the board would come to a DP hearing. So, I think you did a great start though of kind of generalizing kind of what the board was thinking.  If that stripe goes 300 feet and it's not providing a lot of variation in that wall. If any 30-foot section looks the same as the 30-foot section next to it. If it goes on and on forever, then, you know, there's a pretty uniform treatment of that wall. I guess this is how I would look at that. So, with the intersection of the mini storage unit building on this wall, is that West Wall still conserved with that building intersecting it, limiting the visibility of that entire wall from Williston Road? Well, I think that ties into the answer to your question is maybe. One of our other recommendations that we'll get to as we go through these in order was to do something with the mini storage and move it to the, our recommendation was to move it into the back of the property. And so if, if you were to implement that recommendation, then that wall would or could be potentially fully exposed. And so I think some of it depends upon what action you take on our recommendation as it applies to moving the mini storage into a less visible portion of the site. Okay. That leads right into the second one, which was reconfiguring the site so that mini storage units are not visible from Route 2. So the thinking, the thinking from the board there is that we're, we're really trying to be protective of, of the, the first building that people come to in Williston along Route 2, while also being respectful of your rights, your client's rights as a landowner and, and following the, the bylaws that we all, which are the rules of engagement that we all need to adhere to. So we were trying to be respectful of, of both of those, which, which don't necessarily work in harmony sometimes. And so what we were, what we were hoping for is some creative rearranging on the site to still have your business model succeed while lessening the visual impact from Route 2. So it's not simply eliminating the doors that face Route 2 on the main building. It also has to do with the individual standalone mini storage buildings as well. No, it actually has to do solely with the individual units. Okay. If that wasn't clear in our, in our, in our staff report, I apologize for that. But it had, do you have a site plan that you can put up, please, Andy? Well, so the doors, there are some mini storage units in the first level of the building where those doors face Route 2. And that's what we were wondering whether those were the concern or whether it was the buildings which are perpendicular. So the storage units themselves are less visible, but it's that type of building. It's the standalone, it's the standalone storage units that that note was intended to address. But I think he brought up the correct observation that, you know, this, this is a gateway building into this, into Williston. And so we are concerned with how that, this building is perceived as you proceed down Route 2 and approach Williston. So, you know, you can say that they're, they're perpendicular. And yet the only time you see a short perpendicular end of that building is, you know, if you, if you turn 90 degrees as you drive by it 30 miles an hour, which is pretty fast. You know, it's, it's the side, you actually get a longer view of it and angle as you approach because you can have a constant view of that. That's why signs tend to be not parallel with the road, but perpendicular to it. So those are our concerns. And I think, you know, we're, we're looking to have the next application kind of address how that building looks as you approach it. I think that's, I think that's really a key to a lot of the comments that we had here. Yeah. So. One question that came up after driving by the site location was the elevation of the road compared to the elevation of the lot there is a road quite a bit lower at that point than what the building site would be. I didn't want to get into new testimony, but yes. So as you're heading toward task corners, the road's coming up, the site is relatively level as you get past the house and up into the area where the driveway will be located, you'll be, you know, plus or minus a foot, same elevation of the road as you get closer to the industrial lab intersection. There's a definite great difference between the site and Willison Road. Again, I don't want to get into new testimony, but as you're headed towards task corners, if there was additional screening added here, combined with the topography, you're going to have fairly limited view of that end of the site. Obviously coming from task corners headed toward South Brillington, it's going to be somewhat the opposite. Right. And that was one reason I had asked previously for the perspective views from both, from both directions there. I think that's, you know, the best, the more you can model what that's really going to look like, I think it would be helpful for all of us to kind of not imagine what it's going to be, but actually talk, you know, evaluate what's being proposed here. We're viewing this as a serious project. It's a big, it's an important project at this location. So I guess understanding that point from the board is important because I think that is a major element for them. If they've got, they've got to put the mini storage units on the side or behind the building that obviously displaces what they've currently got on the side and behind the building. So they're going to have to make a decision on whether they can live with that or not. Or, or if you can come up with some, some creative screening, keep the build, keep the mini storage where it is, but come up with some additional screening that's right next to those mini storage buildings. There's, there's, there's many ways to do this. Certainly. And one of the things that we try to avoid is to be, to dictate the design modifications. And so we're really looking for, for you to do that and for us to convey our thoughts as to what we were, what we were thinking when we wrote that condition of approval. Understood. Your hedge material, think of a 12 month type. Again, that's something for them to consider because I think I'd mentioned in the notes here, visibility is important for them. So it's a big building. There's a lot there that is visible. So pick the most important parts maybe. Yeah. And just think about it from the perspective of you can still maintain visibility so that if you're driving on route two, you still know what it is. And you still clearly can identify the purpose in the business intent while, while creating some buffer for a portion of that elevation. So it doesn't have to disappear because, you know, I think that, and if I misrepresent from anyone here, just please chime in. But I don't think the intent is, you know, to put up this, this, this big wall that you can't see anything behind the wall. It's, that's not the intent. No, you could have, you could have the equivalent if you say that the lot is slightly higher than the road, right? Correct. So if you had like say just a six foot kind of hedge that covered the section where the mini storage was, the people won't see that, but they will still see the top of you. That would be entirely dependent on what it actually looked like and what that image is. I would say I would have an impossible time saying that that's true from right here with my eyes closed imagining what you're describing. So I think we need to, we need to comment on what they're actually proposing. Yeah. No, no. I think it goes up as an option if they had a hedge. But we're going to stay away from designing. Okay. Okay. Because, because that's not what we do. Is, is our explanation of what we are thinking of item number 10. Is that sufficient for you, Andy, at this point? Yes. Okay. Item number 11. Tone down colors and use earth tone colors. So the elephant in the room is. The orange. Is Sierra sunset. Do we consider that to be, to be an earth tone color? No, we don't. And I mean, we could argue about whether that's in the earth tone color hues and all that. And, and I'm not interested in having that conversation. We just, we, we really are looking for something more subtle. It's too much orange. Too much orange. That's what we're looking for. There's a lot of contrast on that building, especially between the orange and the other colors on the building. So, so we're not, so we're not saying that, and I understand U-Haul's brand. I understand their color theme. I think it's, it's pretty universally recognized. And there's a lot of power in that brand. We're not, we're not saying that there can't be any, let's just call it orange. There can't be any orange on the building. It's just that those, those doors. Trasting with the exterior elevation is, is more than we are comfortable with. John mentioned the contrast if, and I'm not, I'm not putting something in front of you. So I know it's difficult to comment on, but if there's less contrast, if the other colors were darkened so that there was less contrast between the orange and the, the main color of the building, is that going in the right direction? Is it simply the, the brightness of the orange? I mean, to answer that question, you'd probably have to pull each one of us and see, you know, and now we're starting to get into it. I wasn't even thinking until you mentioned it. Right. I mean, so, you know, I think you'd have to take the comments that are here and judge that. You know, at some point you're going to have another proposal in front of us and we're going to listen to it and then we're going to deliberate whether that, that adequately meets what we're looking to, to approve, or what we can approve. Is it also worth noting, I mean, just per our discussion with the canopy, the gas canopy over by James Brown Drive that, that orange could be considered part of the sign. The signage? When just asking kind of an open question. When you have it as the background of a text or logo, you start to have that question. So it's kind of like the gas station pump by one question of, you know, two colors that are both corporate colors with a logo that uses the same colors on top of it. What do you call the sign? The bylaw says it's the logo or text plus the background. So an orange door, you know, off by itself with no copy on it, I don't think you can ever measure that as part of the sign, but an orange band on the building and in, you know, one eighth of it it says U-Haul. Yes, you could make an argument for measuring that entire surface as the sign. But if it was just a panel that was U-Haul orange, that wouldn't count necessarily as a sign as part of the... It's a lot harder to do that because it's hard to say that it's truly carrying a commercial message at that point. On your contrast question, I think it's something that would certainly be discussed amongst the group once you've presented it as part of a reasonable response to our comments. Okay. The next one, reducing the mass of the building is seen from Route 2. This was one that, you know, we talked about potentially relocating the storage units. If those are moved, if the colors are changed, is the massing of the building addressed or does the massing of the building, is that still expected to be addressed? It might be addressed with the colors being toned down. And what we were envisioning there with the massing was not to reduce the building massing by 20%. It was more to do some architectural features and architectural elements that make the building seem smaller. And as an architect can speak to this, perhaps better than that. Could, but it would be a couple-hour lecture. Well, I'm not interested in that. But that's what we were envisioning, Andy, is not reducing the building by 20% or 30%. Not that type of massing reduction. We were looking to do something that creates visually the appearance of less massing. And if I could, I think number 16 and 17 on here got us, we ventured a little close to doing some design work and kind of being more specific about that in terms of the greater variety of building materials and varying the height of the parapet. I think you could take those as perhaps a couple of suggestions on ways we might be open to. We were leaning forward a little on that topic. Okay. That makes sense. Yep. I like the idea of your answer to number 12, the idea of the 20-foot tree does, from the road breaks up when the guy's looking because he's going to see, you know, not just this huge building, but he's going to see a building with a tree in front and another part of the building with a tree in front. So I like your answer there. Well, that was actually a condition. The 20, well, same thing. I like that too. The studies is- The studies is- No issue. I think we're on the same page on the studies. The landscaping along Route 2, we were looking for the spacing required by the bylaws to be 20 feet. I mean, it's 40 feet in the bylaws and we're looking for it to be 20 feet for the reasons that Paul just cited to try to create some visual element to that. But I think you had commented earlier that you're not expecting a wall of landscaping. You're looking- You understand there's going to be visibility of the site, but with appropriate screening. We're not trying to block out the building. That's not what we're suggesting. But we are concerned about it being this behemoth that is sitting there greeting everyone as a- Our only concern there was, you know, in sufficient landscaping that it meets the purpose in the first year, and then having that mature over three to five years, and at that point you've got landscaping that goes much further in limiting the visibility of the site. And we didn't want to get into a situation where the site's in conflict with its permit because they go out and thin shrubs. But I think you've provided comments that addressed that earlier in the discussion. So 15, as far as the future 20 additional parking spaces, if in fact you were just looking for those to be identified on the site so that there's ample room to accommodate those, your denies arise. We got it. And I guess if there's anything to add on 16 and 17 other than the earlier reference that 16 and 17 apply back to reducing the appearance of the size of the building, we'll take those as intended. I look forward to the creativity of your designers. And if I can just add, not just to reduce the appearance of the size, but to make it architecturally interesting so that it doesn't look like a strip mall or just like a... I mean, I think there's ways to make the building more architecturally appealing than what has been proposed. So those features 16 and 17 would make it more interesting from my perspective and isn't just to address massing. Does that make sense? It does. I'm trying to think how to phrase this appropriately because I know the question that they're going to come back with is that this isn't an industrial zoning district. They have no problem designing to the community standard and I don't want to compare it to the building across the street or the buildings between the town line and this building. But I guess all of these comments are looking for a nice-looking building in the industrial zoning district, not a building that you might expect to see another 1,000 feet down on Willison Road in a different zoning district. We don't have the ability to influence what has been built. And I'm not suggesting that that should hold back additional development. I mean, this is probably going to be... not that it can't have stone facade similar to another building at the corner of Commerce and Willison Road, but it's not going to look like something in the town's corner zoning district. I think you're on track. You know, I look at this. I look at this process a little bit like the process that we went through with the Healthy Living Building, that different zoning districts, different buildings, different locations, a whole bunch of different circumstances, but the spirit of the conversation was similar and that the Development Review Board was not trying to prevent that building from proceeding or are we trying to prevent the U-Haul project from proceeding? We're trying to make it nice a building within the zoning district that is reasonable. And I know we could all debate what that means, but that's really the spirit of what we're trying to do here. Understood. And I think the context in the site makes a difference. It's in the middle of the woods and all. It's a lot different than right here where it is. Can you just repeat that again? I said that the context and the location of where this site is makes a difference. It's an extremely visible location. It's an insensitive location for our town. I hope this was helpful. It was. Thank you for your time. We're squeezing us into the agenda. Okay. We're going to close the clarification recommendations on DP 20-03 at 729. Next order of business is Final Plan Review 06 for Hotel Group LLC. Is that something that we do in public hearing? It's not a hearing. It's just an open session agenda item. So we have received final plans for the Blair Park Hotel and find them in order with all of the conditions of approval imposed by the DRB and by reference conditions that came out of Public Works and other departmental comments and do recommend approval of those plans. And you can see a response from the applicants engineer attached to the little staff report there that just enumerates some of the ways in which the plans were adjusted. You may recall briefly there was some confusion over showing all the landscaping. Some of it is related to drainage trails and stormwater treatment. Some of it is related to more traditional landscaping taken together. The final plans reflect the DRB's requirements and the representations made by the applicant throughout the review process. So staff is recommending signature on those plans. And there's just a brief motion prepared for you to consider for that. Okay. So the DRB retained Final Plan? You did. Yes. Okay. Serial samples are available as well. Read my mind, Emily. I'm going to pass this down. I'm not going to pass this one down because it's really heavy. But it's going to see it. How it's going to fit? Yeah. There's a brick sample over there? You can just hold it up. Yeah. You might recall. Somewhat similar to stone detail next door. Oh yeah, right. Nice. That's good. Is this a 91 or 92 room hotel? It says both in here. That's a good question. Well, it says 96 in the agenda. Well, the agenda that I accidentally copied into this was the original one, which was 96. And then to accommodate the floor plan, it got reduced to like 92 or 94. The other letter says 91. 91. Abby, are you confident that it's a 91? Questions from the board on this topic. Who would we ask? You'd ask us. Or you'd ask to see the plan. Yeah, we'd start with staff. Did you have anything that you saw that didn't seem to agitate with what? Yeah, we looked through the landscaping to make sure because it has shown a water catchment basin. So we flipped through and compared those. Okay. Hearing no further questions for staff. We will close DP 18-06. That's 734. Next up, DP 20-11, South Burlington Realty. Discretionary permit. Good evening, Abby and Tim. If you would state your name and address please for the record. Hi, I'm Abby Dairy from Trudel Consulting Engineers. I'm Tim McKenzie with South Burlington Realty Company. Okay, staff goes first. All right. This is a request for a discretionary permit. The request is to permit ongoing construction staging and outdoor storage, and two to perform a boundary line adjustment between lot five and 182 Winter Sport Lane. This is all taking place in the industrial zoning District West. The parcels are currently developed with an access drive and some site clearing. And the activities as discussed there are sort of underway. If you were to go by you would see construction equipment materials, et cetera. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this request due to the scale of the proposed project for approval under this pre-application review is not required. Staff has prepared a development and permit history for the site for the DRB. There were some past permits for sand and gravel extraction and renewal of those. A subdivision and site plan approval for lot one of the subdivision, which was completed. And a three lot commercial industrial subdivision in 1994. There's always been some level of extraction and construction equipment there and in and out of the site. But in May of 2019, I zoning administrator observed there had been a significant uptick in activity and observed some erosion impacts, sedimentation impacts to nearby stream coming out of the property. And I did issue a notice of zoning violation requesting that the applicant cease the unpermitted activity on the site and provide an application for discretionary permit to designate areas on the site for outdoor storage, provide landscape screening buffers, delineate wetlands on the site, and establish an erosion protection and sediment control plan for the site. And so this application is the response to act in May. And so did activity cease upon issuance of that notification? No, not not in my observation. They've been more or less ongoing since May. We were informed relatively quickly by Trudell engineering that South Burlington Realty had engaged them as a client to pursue permitting for the site that happened within within a week of issuing the violation. So they've been in process on that. I will also note we do have a pre-application request scheduled for October 22nd, the DRB's next meeting, to do some other development work on this same subject property to reconfigure the Hammerhead Road on the site, consolidate internal boundary lines, and to propose development on lot two of the subdivision. The applicant is submitting this permit first as a stand-alone to clear up and resolve the zoning violation before requesting approval for additional development on the site. So the proposed use in this action is construction staging and outdoor storage. Construction is an allowed use in the zoning district. There are no changes to access proposed. Lots two, three, five, and six are accessed from Munson Drive, which is a private drive with a curb cut on Milliston Road. Munson Drive was platted as a private road with Hammerhead because the original subdivision was anticipating industrial developments on each parcel in the subdivision. So at this time and under this application there are no new structures proposed. The storage and staging areas are uncovered. There's no new site work proposed. The applicant however has proposed landscaping and wetland delineation on the site. As part of this application the applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment. This would convey 0.9 acres from 182 Wintersport Lane to lot five Munson Drive. Both of these parcels are owned by South Burlington Realty. Currently there's some of that construction staging activity encroaching onto the 182 Wintersport Lane lot. So this would be up in the north eastern portion of the site if you were looking at the site plan. There's no outdoor lighting existing or proposed. And then we go into our discussion of setbacks. So development in Milliston generates a requirement for a setback usually achieved with a landscape buffer as identified in the table in the staff report. And then the applicant has proposed some buffers along the edges of the individual lots as noted in the report. So on lot six you have a 50 foot wide type one buffer which means existing wooded vegetation along the northern boundary and a nine foot wide type three buffer along the western boundary. They would retain existing vegetation and also enhance the vegetation along that western boundary. On lot five the applicant would install a new nine foot wide type three buffer that's dense plantings, the traditional row of Arbor Vitey type vegetation on that eastern boundary where the parcel of butts 182 Wintersport Lane and then a 50 foot wide type one existing vegetation buffer where it abuts a residential property. Lot three the eastern boundary abuts a residential property. The existing wooded area and class two wetland would meet and exceed the requirements for that type one existing vegetation buffer along that boundary. Then along the exterior parcel boundaries you have a summary there of those buffers and the definitions of those buffer types quoted in the staff report. Normally we would require street trees along Williston Road as the board was just discussing in the U-Haul application across the street. Here if you look at the site you note that the wetlands on the site are right adjacent to Williston Road and there's a pretty steep embankment coming down there. There's really in staff's estimation nowhere to put some kind of a street tree section there. We're not looking at this application as generating any requirement for parking. As noted there are class two wetlands on lots two three and five. They were delineated in June of 2019. There has been some encroachment into the 50 foot wetland buffers by the construction staging and equipment storage. The applicant is proposing to install a silt fence and restore those disturbed lands in the wetland buffer with landscaping. The site plan they've submitted identifies a final stabilization plan with seating specifications. Right now the proposal is for a barrier tape to delineate the wetland buffer and essentially a no mow line. This project did receive recommendations from the Conservation Commission under their review they suggested permanent fencing or a row of boulders in that location to delineate that buffer. In terms of traffic this development like all others can be subject to traffic impact fees assessed by the administrator time of the issuance of an administrative permit. In terms of signage there is no new signage proposed. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing freestanding sign on the site outside of the wetland buffer. In terms of stormwater this site does have a state stormwater permit for 4.55 acres of impervious surface and at this time there are no water or wastewater connections proposed. Outdoor storage is a component of this application. The applicant is proposing the keeping of equipment and materials and staging areas on each lot. Staff is recommending approval of outdoor storage in the location shown on the plan. There's not any screening of that outside storage currently proposed. The board may decide if a condition of approval is necessary as it relates to the requirements of 36.7.2 as quoted in the staff report. So at this time the staff has not prepared a condition if the DRB wants one. You'll need to come up with it. Lots two and three in this subdivision do abut Williston Road and are therefore subject to the design review requirements of chapter 22. This application because there's no buildings proposed was not reviewed by the historic and architectural advisory committee. Applications for development where there are structures proposed would receive that review. But most of the criteria there do apply to buildings and not other elements of the site. There is a short list there in the staff report of criteria that would apply to this project. They're very similar to the ideas expressed in 36.7.2 about screening your outdoor storage. And so again for the board to look at those requirements and determine if and where any additional screening is necessary to meet the standards of the bylaw. Public comment. No comment letters or emails were received at the time of our packet mail out which was October 3rd, 2019. Nor have we received any since that. We did distribute this application for comment to the police, fire and public works departments of the town. We did not receive comment from police or fire. Public works did write a comment memo which is attached to your staff report. They wanted to know the state's stormwater permit number. That number is reported in the staff report. Know where the outdoor storage locations were. Understand the amount of impervious area for the lots including outdoor storage. And noted that public work standards for a road terminal do indicate a call to SAC. This project was reviewed by the conservation commission primarily due to the presence of wetlands on the site and their report is attached and their recommendations are drafted as conditions of approval belong. As I mentioned, the main one relates to the limited wetland buffers with something like things with more folders. So that said, staff is recommending that this permit can be approved with recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as provided in the staff report. And again noting that if there are additional conditions necessary by determination of the DRB to achieve outdoor storage screening, wetland delineation materials, or meeting the design review criteria on lots two and three, the board would need to draft those. And I will stop there. Okay, thank you, Matt. Abby and Tim, walk us through your thoughts. So yes, the application before you for continued use of the lot for construction staging and outdoor storage. We had initially come in with a plan to Williston to do some development a lot two and three and approve the construction staging at one time. But that proved to be the wrong sequence of events. So we submitted solely the application for discretionary approval of the activity that's happening on site. And that's why we're here tonight to talk about this. We'd like to a pretty large amount of lots three, five and six are taken up by those activities. There are base material stockpiles, construction equipment, barriers on lots three, five and six. We're proposing the appropriate landscape buffers between the slot and adjacent lots. And I guess that's where we are right now. The applicant has demarcated the wetland buffer with barrier tape now. They have silt fence downslope of all the disturbance activities in place and are open to having a permanent wetland buffer demarcation as recommended by the Conservation Commission. Have you looked at the draft recommended conditions for approval? Is there anything in those conditions that causes you pause? We can, you know, I read through these and I think we definitely can comply with all of these conditions. We can incorporate those into the final plans. Staff report cites a $200 a day violation of crewing since the end of May. What is the applicant's position on that topic? My being here is a little unique in that South Burlington Realty is now the owner of the land. It was owned by Munson Earth Moving until Mr. Munson's passing. Not completely familiar with the permit status. I know that they truly believe that they were permitted to do what they were doing. What started out 35 years ago as an extraction permit where they would extract sand and make a pile and then maybe have some leftover material from a job and leave some leftover material next to that sand pile and I think over the course of 35 years that has morphed into certainly more than what was permitted and it wasn't malicious, but to stop all activity as of May 31 would have put Munson Earth Moving out of business. I think they tried to stop doing activity towards the front of the lot which caused, which got Matt's attention, but like I said, without the access to their materials and their piles, they would have been out of business through the summertime. I understand, there was a 30-day period within which they could have appealed. The clock called it the accrual of the $200 a day. Is that how that would work? It depends on which way the appeal would go. I'll give you a little bit of background in terms of Williston's history of performing zoning enforcement. $200 a day is the statutory amount of money that zoning administrators are allowed to assess against any violation of local zoning. Typically, the matter of a fine, the negotiation of a fine or the payment fine in the whole time I've been in Williston has only come up once we've actually had to take somebody to court to obtain compliance with a violation letter, which often happens after years and years of non-compliance, and typically the amount of that fine starts at the $200 a day and is then negotiated between the parties and ultimately because at that point you're in a legal settlement between the select board and the violating party. Williston's history around that has generally been to advise fines that cover the town's legal costs where it has incurred them in having to go out and enforce a violation. So $200 a day is a statutorily supported number. It gets people's attention. It rarely results in an actual bill to somebody to pay. But if you get 95% of the way to compliance and then things kind of go off the rails again, it does give you a stronger leverage point to make sure that compliance gets taken all the way through. So in this particular case, the applicant quickly upon being notified, engaged, TCE, and started working towards what we are ultimately seeing tonight. That's correct. Were there any other changes in the activities on site that reduced the level of violation? I believe they stopped their activity towards the front of the site and in the rear of the site, they continued to have their sand pile and I think they have a topsoil pile and probably a couple of gravel piles back there which they use throughout the course of the summer. Which parts of their activities were in violation of the... Well, we don't have a good permit record with going past about the mid-1980s as it relates to gravel extraction and some associated activities. The way the site has been used since then is not all that out of line with what we might see in lots of places in the industrial zoning district and in lots of gravel mining operations. If I were to be in a court of law sort of fighting or negotiating this violation, one of the things that would likely come up would be, well, how much of what's out there right now has been going on since more than 15 years ago which is Vermont statutory limitation on all claims on land. If you go by the site every day for 15 years and see the violation and don't do anything, eventually there's a right to basically continue with that violation that can be awarded. There's always been some level of activity on that site. Certainly for the last dozen years that I've been observing it, what I observed in May was a significant increase and was starting to have some actual impact offsite vis-à-vis sedimentation in the drainage swale along Williston Road. So we write the letter. We get a call from TCE saying we're taking this on. We're going to work towards a permit. I also did observe activities, moved to the rear of the site where the soil fence installed fairly quickly along that wetland boundary. That's where we're at. So in other words, they didn't appeal, but they complied. They took steps toward compliance. Okay, that's it. Most of the staging is labeled temporary. What kind of material will go in those areas? Is it just fill, sand, gravel, equipment that will go in those temporary areas? There is some equipment there. The materials are typically stuff that they will reuse. So there's different size gravel piles. There's topsoil, there's sand. It's not like machine rail. And some of the staging in the back looks like it is equipment. Some of the things that they are storing back there is they do have some jersey barriers and they do have various size buckets. So am I understanding the site plan correctly that pretty much the hatched area is what's being proposed as an area available for outdoor storage? Yes. I think it's labeled as staging, but that's really, we could call that outdoor storage area. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean the label temporary staging was because I don't know what's going to be there. I don't know exactly what's going to be parked in that area. So things will come and go as months in needs. It's months. Sorry, I didn't hear that. It's months on the left seat. Do they lease? Yes. There? You know, it's a close relationship. The extent of their lease is basically pay the property taxes. Like I said, the property was owned by Monson upon Mr. Monson's passing. The property was taken out of their ownership and put into the trust controlled by Salvador. So it's kind of their properties as long as they pay the property tax for their operation. Does that answer your question a bit? You're the only one that has a chance of understanding. No, I followed, well, it sounds like it's owned by the trust. The assets are owned by a trust. Correct. I was kind of curious, I was on the one side of the lot, six that goes up against the parking lot and on the back of six it goes up towards the other parking lot. What is the slope on that out of curiosity? Very steep. What's the chance of an ocean just out of curiosity? It's all vegetated. It's wooded right now. Wooded and vegetated. They're not proposing to remove anything. How stable is that sand in there right now? I don't believe they're doing any more extraction. They have piles left. They're primarily just using this as a staging place. Correct. No more digging. No more digging. Okay. Just for clarification, lot one is the Aston Johnson building that's listed on here. No, lot one is the Williston or Vermont discount stores. Okay. The other one is actually labeled as lot one. Yeah, behind lot one is the Aston Johnson. Okay. Aston Johnson is the former lot four. So that was the question has been begging to being asked. Where the heck did a lot four happen? So that was formerly lot four and it's owned by another. It's been sold. Okay. All right. Thank you. The applicant are two, three, five and six. We'll see. As well as the adjacent parcel that's being made smaller to add to this by the boundary line adjustment. I want your support. Yes. That we, we develop that as fully as we could with additional extra space storage units. That's another one of our related businesses. It appears that some of the structures are in the right of way for months and way. Is that a public street months and way? No. Private. Private drive. Yeah. I'm not proposing to put a cul-de-sac. So maybe that is one I would like to discuss with you. Is there a need to have a cul-de-sac at the end of this road when the only, really the only thing served by the private road is the lot one warehouse building. There's not multiple businesses at the end of this road. This was originally going to be an industrial subdivision. But when sewer didn't pan out in this location. The other challenge, the other challenge with future development of this site is that the sewer line is up at the top of the hill up by winter sport lane. And so currently working just fine as serving months and earth moving. And we, other than potentially additional extra space storage units in the front lot that don't require sewage. It'll continue to operate as it is. It's just not feasible to pump it up the hill. Yeah. Just, it's a pretty big expense for a modest size building. Disproportionate most likely. I will note, in regards to road configuration, we do require in a couple places in the bylaw that private roads meet current public road specifications that do come out of the public works facts. That said, you know, platid subdivision with a hammer head terminus, this may remind some folks in the recent residential subdivision that was in a similar situation in which the town demanded a cul-de-sac and lost in state environmental court. So once you have a platid subdivision, your ability to require a reconfiguration of a platid street is somewhat limited. That's been our experience. And that might be the planning staff's advice back to public works. It's just to recall that I don't really want to go back to the Costello courthouse again to talk about cul-de-sacs and hammerheads if I don't have to. Where the hammerhead is actually an artifice in one sense because the trucks can drive almost anywhere in that hard pack back there, correct? That's correct. They actually have a little loop road back there. That's what I was going to say. So in other words, the hammerhead per se is more for someone drawing pictures than for actual use at this point. Correct. Is there any, do any of these maps show the proposed boundary line adjustment between Lott 5 and 182 and where the old line is and where the new line will be? I don't think there was. The existing lines. I can see where the existing lines are. The proposed lines. Just right here. Mm-hmm. I think we're going to hide away from that. We're going to keep going from the side. It's a fight of gain. Getting it. Yes. It's going to be this whole chunk. Any questions? I'm good. You're good? Anything else to add? Okay. Thank you for coming. We're going to close DP 20-11 at 804. Thank you, mate. Next up is DP 16-05.1. Cottonwood crossing phase one. Endment number one. Welcome all. Thank you. You would please start with you Al and work your way towards Bill and give your name and address, please. I'm Al Seneca. I'm a book development. I'm Mike Lawrence. I'm Dan Heil with O'Leary Burke Symbol Associates, 13 corporate drive Essex. Brian Birch, Allenbrook Development, 31 commerce salves, South Burlington. Bill Gardner, Gardner, Kilcoin Architects, 147 Allenbrook Lane. Thank you. And welcome. Staff goes next. First of all, there are two applications here to Cottonwood, one for the phase one amendment and the other for phase two. Just as a note of clarification, these both appeared as a single pre-application. And so I'll be referring to the pre-application for each of these two applications. Same pre-app. They've just been separated just for clarity. So this is a request for discretionary permit review of a proposal to amend a previously approved mixed-use development located at 6180 and 6226 Williston Road in the mixed-use residential zoning district. Cottonwood Crossing has undergone multiple stages of review for a five-phase mixed-use development consisting of 72,130 square feet of commercial space and 173 dwelling unit. This request is to amend phase one of the overall development. Phase one includes the development of the northeast portion of the site with three buildings, buildings A1, B1, and C1, and associated parking. And the buildings contain 19,335 square feet of retail commercial space, 10,110 square feet of office space, 6,225 square feet of restaurant space, 15 one-bedroom and 31 two-bedroom dwellings as proposed. Underground parking is proposed under buildings A1, B1, C1, all three of the buildings included in phase one of the development. The current proposal for phase one involves the phase one amendment involves a design change to the A1 building, a footprint change to the B1 building, a reduction in one-bedroom dwelling units from 15 to 11, the addition of storefront windows on the north and east sides of the B1 building, and some minor changes to the on-street parking and phase one parking area to improve circulation. No changes in the C1 building. The subject property was formerly the site of a driving range and is currently under. The project history is as follows. The DRB previously approved this project on August 13, 2019 as a pre-application. Recommendations made by the DRB at the pre-application and the applicant's responses to those recommendations are as follows. The pre-application recommendation revised number one was a revised shared parking study shall be submitted as part of an application for discretionary permit and a revised shared parking study has been submitted. Number two, explore treatments to cotton the drive judging from traffic and advanced pedestrian experience as intended by the Sawtooth curb. The applicant's response is that tree grates along the street trees along Cottonwood Drive have been added to provide pedestrians the same sidewalk width that the Sawtooth curving provided. And that is shown on the phase one landscape plan. And secondly, to improve connectivity between phases one and two, a central corridor in the B1 building that connects the phase one parking area and Cottonwood Drive streetscape has been added and that is shown on sheet B1-111 first floor plan. Recommendation number three, the Williston Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee, the HAC, transmittal dated August 6th, 2019, shall be adopted as pre-application recommendations and shall be addressed in design submitted at discretionary permit. The applicant has responded that all comments by the HAC committee have been adopted including the addition of a glass canopy on the west side of the B1 building to help define the building's main entrance. The HAC also requested that building materials and color samples be presented at the next public hearing. This development on this project was reviewed and approved by the DRB as follows. In November of 2015, Cottonwood Crossing received pre-application review and authorization by the DRB to proceed to growth management. In March of 2016, Cottonwood Crossing received 173 dwelling unit equivalents of residential growth management allocation. In October of 2016, Cottonwood Crossing received discretionary permit approval for the overall concept of the Cottonwood Crossing project with specific approval of a master sign plan for the project and the complete build out of phase one of the project, including buildings A1, B1, and C1. In December of 2016, Cottonwood Crossing phase one receives final plan approval and signature from the DRB. Phase one includes new streets including Cottonwood Drive and parking and buildings A1, B1, and C1 in the project. And finally, in April of 2017, the zoning administrator issued an administrative permit authorizing construction of phase one of the Cottonwood Crossing project. The proposed use is a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses for the property. The allowed uses in the mixed use residential zoning district are listed in WDB 38A and WDB 3813 further defines the range and scale permitted uses in the MURZD as follows. So new development in the zoning district must be predominantly residential as defined by three criteria. New development must have a minimum density of at least five dwelling units per acre and average density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre and may have a density up to 15 units per acre if there's a transfer of development rights. Non-residential uses should generally be in mixed use buildings that also include dwellings. Buildings that do not include dwellings will be limited to no more than 15% lot coverage and at least 10% of the proposed dwellings must be included in the first phase of development. And then commercial uses must be comparatively small scale. And new office space should be mixed with residential and or permitted commercial uses. Staff has evaluated the proposed phase one development with regard to compliance to these requirements and the project phase one of the project does comply. Note that transfer of development rights of 50 dwelling unit equivalents from the project on Northwestern Road Keystone Estates and Cottonwood Crossing was approved under DP 0817 and as a result the minimum density of 15 dwelling unit, the maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre is allowed. No new structures are proposed with this amendment for site work. The site is currently under construction with utilities and grading additional site work to construct the buildings, their parking areas and the pertinences would be undertaken as part of this phase of the project. There's no boundary line adjustment that's proposed as part of this application. Traffic per WDB 45.5 traffic impact fees for new vehicle trips will be assessed by the zoning administrator at the time of applications for administrative permits. The DRB did not require any major reworking of the existing traffic study for Cottonwood Crossing as part of this proposed amendment. No changes to vehicular access are proposed for pedestrian access. The design of Cottonwood Drive is proposed to be changed. The sawtooth curb pattern previously proposed for the street front inch has been altered to a straight curb section. At pre-application, the DRB recommended the applicant explore treatments to Cottonwood Drive that would calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian experience as intended, as was intended by the sawtooth curb. In response, tree grates for the street trees along Cottonwood Drive have been added to provide pedestrians the same sidewalk with that the sawtooth curb being provided to improve connectivity between phases one and two, a central corridor in the B1 building that connects the phase one parking area and Cottonwood Drive streetscape has been added. For parking requirements in Wilson or expressed in WDB 14A as both a minimum and a maximum, this number may then be either increased or reduced through various means allowed in WDB 14, such as the use of transit, shared parking, the use of pervious pavement, and others. The applicant is proposing to add seven parking spaces between the A1 and B1 buildings. At pre-application, the DRB recommended a shared parking analysis to be completed and submitted with a discretionary permit application and a shared parking study has been submitted that shows the proposed uses in phase one require 255 parking spaces. The table 14A of the Unified Development By-law states that phase one would require 313 parking spaces had these uses been proposed individually. The applicants proposed a total of 257 parking spaces in addition to 28 bicycle parking spaces. So the staff has included a table that shows the proposed and required parking facilities. So as I've stated earlier, table per table 14A of the Development By-law, phase one would require 313 parking spaces had these uses been proposed individually and a total of 257 spaces are proposed. The applicant, the DRB may allow for reduction parking where a shared parking study is submitted by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a shared parking study. It's shown on Plan Sheet 3 that shows there's enough difference in the peak hours of proposed uses the total number of parking of required spaces to 255. This complies with chapter 14 of the Wilston Development By-law. If the DRB approved shared use for a project that spans parcels with different ownership, the applicant must submit legal documents allowing for the shared parking between the properties. Currently the subject parcels are owned by the developer so this requirement is not applicable. However, if future ownership changes, a shared parking agreement will be needed and staff has included a draft condition stating this requirement. I appreciate that we do this, but I imagine most of us have already read this. Okay, so basically the number of ADA parking spaces complies the number of bicycle spaces. Overall bicycle spaces complies the number of long-term bicycle spaces and end-of-trip spaces complies. However, the end-of-trip facilities are situated side-by-side in Building A and staff is recommending that long-term bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities should be provided in each building to be shared amongst all the commercial tenants in that respective building. And I have included a draft condition stating this requirement. No changes in landscaping are proposed. Landscaping has been proposed, which complies. Street trees, the tree grates have been added to provide the same sidewalk width that was previously proposed. No outdoor storage is being proposed. There's no Class 3 wetlands that are affected by Phase 1. There's no changes to outdoor lighting proposed. There are signs proposed and the applicants provided a master sign plan which will be reviewed separately. There's no changes to stormwater, water and wastewater utilities, snow storage, solid waste. There are design review elements and there's been proposed design modifications to buildings A1 and B1. The applicants propose to reduce the height of the tower feature in building A1 and the elimination of awnings above the storefront windows on the north and west sides of the buildings. The applicant proposes to reduce the footprint of building B1 to allow for additional parking and improved circulation. And a design change to the north and east sides of the building to add more storefront windows and to improve visibility from Wilson Road. The HAC made some recommendations. They recommend continuing the brick columns through the sign ban to connect with the stone element. This recommendation is made for building B1 but would apply to A1 and B2 as well. The HAC recommends following condition to ensure compliance with the hours of operation that there be no loud noise between 10 p.m. to 6 or 7 a.m. the DRB would need to decide. The HAC recommends that final plan shall include wall sconces in the lighting plan and these recommendations have been redrafted as conditions of approval for the DRB to consider. Police, fire and public works departments provided an opportunity to comment. Police and fire did not respond to our request for comments but the applicant's been meeting with the fire department and communicating with regard to meeting their standards and the Department of Public Works had no comments. Staff is recommending approval of this discretionary permit with some recommended findings of fact that conclusions of law and conditions of approval as included. So the applicant could please walk us through the changes and also make note if there's any additional approval. So I would just like to correct one of the findings of fact and it's number four. And this was an error. It was a discrepancy between what I wrote in the cover letter and what the floor plans for the unit count in the B1 building. So the B1 building will have, let's make sure I get this right, eight one-bedroom apartments in 14 two-bedroom apartments. So that is still 24 units total but in the cover letter I had written 10 one-bedrooms and 14 two-bedrooms. So that would change finding a fact number four. The last sentence where it talks about reduction in the number of one-bedroom dwellings from 15 to 11 should read 15 to nine. And then I would add and increase the number of two-bedroom units from 31 to 33. So that was just a minor, but something I wanted to clear up. Brian, does that change the totals in the first sentence of that finding a fact? No, because phase one was approved with 15 one-bedrooms. So that was the approval from 2016. Now we have nine, eight in building B1 and then there's one one-bedroom in this C1 building which hasn't changed.  One was about the end of trip facility. I believe that was incorporated as a condition of approval number 22. Yep. And so when the project phase one has been approved and we're, you know, post some architectural changes in a small decrease in the footprint of B1, but it was approved with two end of trip facilities and both of those were located in the A1 building. I guess a men's and a woman's. And so the requirement is still for two end of trip facilities in phase one. And staff has mentioned that in the report, but then asked that the one be provided in the B1 building as well. So I'll just like to bring your attention to a note that in the requirement for the end of trip facilities where, you know, there's the requirement for building, but if there's an end of trip facility within 600 feet, that can be used in lieu of that requirement. So during in phase one, there are two end of trip facilities required. We have two in the A1 building, the A1 buildings certainly within 600 feet. So, you know, we think that requirements match. So you're asking us not to require that each building have end of trip facilities and that only one building in phase one? Yep. Are these end of trip facilities specifically gender specific? Well, they're both located on the second floor of the A1 building. And I would assume one's a man and one's a woman's, but... Are they... No. No. There you go. They're not. They both look alike. Right. Okay. So any gender can go into... Either one. Either one. Okay. So again, just to clarify, right now you're proposing two end of trip facilities and one... And does 22 contemplate one in each building or two in each building? I don't... It just says end of trip facilities shall be provided in each building. One in each building. One in each building. And what they're proposing is two in one building. And it's within 600 feet. The building that doesn't have a facility in it is within 600 feet of the other building. C1 is within 600 feet? B1 is. And so the end of trip facilities, my understanding of those are there for commercial spaces. Okay. So, and obviously, you know, we'll ensure that the employees of the B1 building have access to the A1 building. How does that affect the part about the long-term bicycle parking space? Long-term bicycle... We have... We're providing long-term bicycle storage in both buildings. So we're fine with that part of condition 22. We just asked that the two required, you know, that you recognize that both of those will be in the A1 building. Obviously, if a tenant in the B1 building wants to add a bathroom with a shower, you know, they'll be able to do that.  What about splitting the two, having two unisex... One unisex in A1, one in B1, instead of two in one? Yeah.  So... I see. It's just easy for us to keep that way, obviously. I think it'll be easier to maintain that way as well. Yeah, one location, right. Yeah, right. True. That's what makes sense. And then, this kind of, it was right into condition 23, but it was regarding the hack scum. So we met with, had the hack committee a week ago, and they had, I'll just actually turn this around and show you, this is the elevation for the B1 building that we've submitted. And so, the hack committee, it was a positive meeting, but at the end of the meeting, one of the members did bring up the comment that, you know, he thought we should consider, you know, being designed in not as continuous, but bringing this, the break, whether through the stone, you know, separates the stone from the others, taking this element of the stone, so that the first side of the stone, and, you know, we actually considered that, and we had, and I've got this elevation, we prepared after that meeting, that shows that. So instead of a continuous side in, it's broken up by, you know, Greg always felt like that. To be honest, we showed it to a few people in the office and Al, and we like the original better. That's our personal preference. The hack committee asked that it was something we consider. We obviously have three of the four board members seem pretty indifferent on that, but it was this one gentleman's comment. The way condition 23 is worded, sounds like, you know, we have to adopt that. So that committee, they kind of acknowledged that ultimately it was the board's decision. So we're asking that this elevation be approved, which is the one we submitted with our application. Every other request they had. Yeah, everyone. We'll maintain the ones that you have on the drawing now. Yeah, this is the drawing that we've submitted. This is the one we want to keep. But just for comparison purposes, you can see the two side-by-side. And we did bring that breakdown on some of the corners. You can see on the corners we did it, but with the signed vendors. Can you point those out, Al? Yes, so same elevation here, here, here. We had brick breaking up the side-by-side. But these corners we did, you know, some of the call reports we did extend that breakdown. We just thought it was too much when we did it on every single call. And then we even tried to extend the stone up to see if that would work better because it's a lighter color. And we still didn't like that. So we did try to achieve what, you know, they were recommended, but we just think that we're, we like the original drawing matter. And we checked with some of the people in the office, you know, we did that real sophisticated, hey, what do you think? You put it to a vote. And the original won hands down. Yeah, I kind of think that the sign ban helps break up the building. It's a three-storey building and it's a mixed-use building. The first floor is commercial, the second floor is residential.  And there's going to be signs in there as well. That will also bring it. We hope for that, right? Yeah, right, right. And, you know, the other thing that we, you know, we're not sure is somebody may take multiple storefront windows and in that case they may have multiple signs. So to have, you know, that sign ban broken, you know, by each window, like in this elevation, there are notches that I saw in the diagram. When you look down and the building had those... I didn't quite understand, but if you look down at the building, it looked like someone had gone through and started cutting out with cookies or something. So that, I think, is over the porches. Is that what that was? At what point we had these porches right here exposed with no roof over them? Oh, you're kidding. Yeah, they'll, you know, show us a picture with the roof celebrate and it just seems to be a lot... Bermuda makes sense, yeah. Yeah. I appreciate you considering the suggestion and I think you demonstrated that you certainly did that. Okay, but otherwise, you know, we're happy with the approval conditions as they're in and we've been working with the fire department and public works. Public works had no comment about the fire department's happy with the turning radiuses. Do you give thoughts in the 7 a.m. or the quiet time between 10 and 7? We recommended the 6 a.m. just because there could be, you know, we're hoping for like three or four restaurants in this whole facility and we know that food trucks tend to come a little bit earlier. So we asked for a 6 a.m. A couple of them said yes and a couple of them said maybe seven but we would request the 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., no truck traffic and we would schedule the dumpsters and we'll do the side closest to the pond first and then head over to the other side. They come early. No one in this residential neighbors in the area. The applicant have anything else to add? Yeah, no, I think that was about it. I have one comment I want to bring up and it's just related to a lighting detail on the site. So if you were to look at the overall lighting plan for the site, it's very evenly lit. There's no light press pass. It meets all of those typical outdoor lighting requirements that we look at. I apologize if this comment, this may pertain as much to phase 2 as anything else because the lighting along the Hottenwood Way. There's a detail there for a carriage lamp style fixture. And it raised a question for me as to whether that fixture meets the town's definition of downward facing and fully shielded because it looks like the luminaire is in the lower part of the fixture and that the solid screening on the fixture at the top is up above that where there may be potential for some light press pass above the horizontal plane. We have frosted glass on that fixture so you're not going to see a list of the lamps down here. I think that was brought up originally was that where that came from originally? Because that isn't our typical light fixture so we would It's a small detail but one we want to be careful with because they're expensive once they go in and the zoning administrators of past eras have been dogged by complaints from Will Estonians who live high above Taft Corners who notice suddenly when very bright light is escaping above that horizontal plane so just want to call it to everybody's attention to be careful and it might be the difference between one catalog number and the other and that particular fixture I noted the same thing that you did that it's available with either a clear glass or frosted glass so for the DRB to say if you are above that light and you can see illumination coming through that frosted glass does that meet your test of downward facing fully shielded or does that raise concern for the board? I just want to make sure that decision here before this bunch of lights out there and I'm asked to defend the choice of everybody about I think there's a blackened you know the fixture shaped like this so on top it'll be blackened so no no upward light will come from that and then on the lower side which it angles down that will be the frosted one fully frosted the entire on fall floor sides so in other words you guys liked your Cree edge and the Rab that's what we like for parking lot lighting this Baltimore was pictured by the hack to you guys we presented it to them and you but it was questioned because to make sure that it doesn't have that upward light it's not a typical Rab fixture with the cast shield it's got the frosted glass which will hide the luminaire but it'll still be quite bright coming out because it's not completely downcast but most street lights you know are much higher these are more pedestrian friendly street lights you got a 15 foot yeah so the buildings will hide them from the surrounding neighborhoods to the most part it'll concentrate the light right on the street remind me are there residential units in the top of A1 and B1 just B1 B2 will have the residential A1 will be auto commercial so there will be on either side of the street there will be residences high looking down on the street the second floor will be approximately a little bit higher than that height third floor third floor will be way above it anything else Matt? that's all I got there was the last condition did note that final plan shall include wall sconces and lighting plan those are not included right now in the lighting plan those are not included in the lighting plan right now wall sconces will be on the smaller emergency egress for the apartment buildings on ground level the little loading dock doors that we have in the back they'll be small waters they'll have very little impact and they will have the downcast shields those are at the entryways they show up on the salvation here the entry the hack committee asked that to help define the main entry and they actually provide very little light that can be registered by the lighting plan they certainly direct you to the entry we're fine with adding those details to the final plan just to clarify on condition 2a just saying that the final plan has to conform with the hack memo dated 10.1.19 to the extent we already discussed the end of trip facilities in each building was that in the memo? the hack committee didn't bring up the facility that came up part of the CRB review the issue with the hack was the two elevations and they asked that we consider breaking up the sign band if we were to not if we were to agree that not breaking up the sign band is the best course of action then we would have to modify that as well okay well we strike 23 but then we also have to amend 2a is there anything left in the hack? well to be honest I can't remember exactly how the hack memo was worded but when we left the meeting our understanding everyone who was there was that they phrased it as something to consider and ultimately it was the DRB's decision so I don't think there's something that they required but we told them that we would redraw it, take a look at it and see maybe we would like it I guess all of the relevant recommendations from the hack are in 23 conditions so we can just strike 2a if we decide to strike 23 yeah if we agree questions from the board I'd like to talk about the connection through B1 from the parking lot to Cottonwood Crossing looking for that word drive thank you it appears to me that it runs through the building right above the or in line with the garage entrance and so I'd like you to kind of walk us through on the site plan and the elevations of how you're going to park behind the building and then get through to Cottonwood Drive and then the businesses I presume like on the other side of the street or something or along the street there I'm not sure if you could turn to the B1 floor plan full size floor plan close to the way to the back so if you first take a look at the B1 floor plan you'll see the corridor in the center of the building but then on I guess it's the east side of the building that corridor is almost self shaped so the entrance to the corridor is actually right about here from the parking lot you enter the building go left down the corridor and then straight through so the reason why is because if it just went straight through the middle of the building that wouldn't work because it's a garage entrance so from Cottonwood Drive it's in the center of the building but from the parking lot it's a little offset and so that central corridor makes it easy if you park in the parking lot and you want to go to a store that's main entrance is on the street or if you even want to go to the B2 building or A2 building in phase 2 the B2 building has the same central corridor really we did that just to really connect all parking areas and buildings so you can go through B2 and I know it's a preview to the next hearing I guess the comment I would make is I look at this as someone unfamiliar with a building or a facility if I'm intending to walk through it would be a lot handier if when I walked in I could kind of see right through to that exit on the other side where I can see the daylight I can see the activity instead of relying in reality you're probably on a sign and then another sign to tell me to turn up this way did you look at the options for either going straight in from that door that you're entering or the door that's on the diagonal that gets you right out to the central hub there of Cottonwood Crossing actually I think we did Bill I can speak to that we did look at precisely that why don't you flip that around because it'll show up good on the elevation what we wanted to do on the Cottonwood Crossing side this is obviously where the corridor comes through on the Cottonwood Drive on the side where we had the glass entering if we had moved the corridor over one bay to be in line with the corridor through to the backside it was in an awkward spot in the building to not make it line and if we moved it down further to this one we put this pediment over here we felt too far to descend it was a judgment call our elevators up towards this side of the building as you can see in the floor pan of 1.1 so we wanted that corridor or cross corridor to connect with the elevator and with the parking lot that was the best way to make all those disparate things work together and with the elevation of the building under this prominent central feature that's what we came up with yep perfect Bill that was something we kind of thought about the only other thing I'll add to that is that from the backside of the building out of this elevation there's an entrance on either side of the garage ramp so in both of them connect to that main corridor are those a grade? yes so we put a door on either side of the pocket garage ramp down that door will service a retailer on that side and allow us to enter into the hallway where the elevator is or from the other side of the parking garage ramp so that if somebody parks a closer to building C they wouldn't have to walk around the ramp and go to the right to come back they could cut right down there'll be a little bit of a sidewalk to the left of the ramp as you're going down as well which will lead to a door into that hallway enter the building here into the common space the ramp was kind of in the way difficult to work them all so there'll be daylight John from the front looking back you'll be able to see the front the back doors light it won't be able to see the door directly but there'll be light coming from them if it's during the day so the main tenant space there on the knuckle on the diagonal piece there next to the ramp those are going to go directly into that tenant space that's correct well into a common area and then into the tenant space I was trying to show in here that would be a pretty simple change to make to just add that short hallway stuff that would connect but you're correct right now I thought I would look at both areas so that's something we can certainly add to the final plans it would certainly make the previous argument make more sense there should probably be a connection from both sides to the common area otherwise that story is closed so you can't get through there and then you're turning rock and roll all the way back around the ramp then you're not happy I assume you've got a maximum slope on your ramp I couldn't pull that back so you could have the entrance right above that ramp was a really tough place to fit because we were obviously trying to meet a parking requirement and moving the ramp to the right means shifting all those parking spaces with it and so we looked at putting a walkway over there that's what I was thinking that's how it was originally then we dropped this car going down not your car but your s and g so are you guys going to have a nice big drain under your washing machines in the laundry room that's right next to the guy's bedroom we've learned that lesson then the other one was what kind of insulation are you going to have for the other bedroom that's flushed up against the elevator we take pretty good care of insulating tenant demising petitions because we've got that issue as well there are complaints when it's late and soundproofed well I'm just curious I've heard those elevators running you can hear them and you're not in that room you can hear them on that hallway that guy's going to basically be in the bedroom with his bed right up against it we'll just mention that the elevator shaft itself is actually made of masonry block yeah it will be so that does have some I know what you're talking about you can still hear that more okay what are the questions can you show us the additional spaces so there won't be no lighting lighting there will also be the spaces that we're at originally the b1 building actually a question to where those seven spaces are and we kind of made a decision that those seven spaces were worth the reduction of the size of the building so those are the new spaces and I think originally the light was right here at the edge of the drive when these spaces didn't exist so we just moved that light back the parking spaces and the sawtooth the elimination of the sawtooth in the grates I just want to make sure I understand because which part of the sidewalk hasn't changed or is there the open kind of width of the walkway itself has not changed or it is narrower or is it wider well exactly exactly I'm just trying to make sure I understand before from the narrow part of the sidewalk then it got wider right because it judged out for the parking spot and the trees are in that triangle that's been they were in the sidewalk and they started at the closest point to the straight curb is now so the trees will be in the same part of the sidewalk people will have to walk around them but the grates will allow them to walk over that portion of the sidewalk the trees are essentially in the same spot the building is in the same spot there will be a little less landscaping space in that sawtooth more parking that's correct correct page 7 of the staff report is I guess the best way to visualize that because it shows aside by side of what was approved in the current design so on the left was the approved design and then you can see those bump out islands where we had landscaping they're not shown in that picture but that's where the street trees were and then on the right where essentially showing tree grates in more sidewalk those bump outs have been eliminated that the sawtooth created so the width of the sidewalk is essentially the same it's actually the size of the landscape portion is smaller because we're taking part of the sawtooth and the tree grates are going to just yeah so to provide the same pedestrian experience it really doesn't do much for a traffic calming but I don't think that the sawtooth was intended to provide traffic calming it was the sawtooth curbing was just something kind of interesting you know we thought would be you know different to do this project but we really got some negative feedback on that and you're going to have greater than 7 feet at those tree grates between the building so you'll have greater than 7 feet in between there good pocket park park increase in size ever so slowly I think I got just a little bit bigger definitely not smaller looks like just on the side by side what's to the left of what was originally proposed looks like well there was also a bioretention area in there that wouldn't really be utilized by anybody within the pocket park so with the removal of that bioretention area the usable space within that pocket park did increase bioretention stormwater feature yeah right so that's alright I see that but what's to the left of pocket park in the original in the original that's an island with a dumpster small islands so the two, those are two dumpsters yeah and those are we moved them so originally they were in that landscape at this general area so we've opposed three dumpsters for all the phase one buildings the trash guys like to go straight at it they don't like to have to do this little loopy loop so we did some homework and get some further away from the buildings also get some away from the parking spaces that will buy those parks and from the buildings makes for a nicer pocket park to have the dumpster not right next to it dumpster trucks do not like to have vehicles parked next to where they're flipping stuff out and as part of phase one you're going to be doing the square what's going to go in there nothing really it's just a landscape square you know we've got parking proposed around it but we didn't think it would be a great space to provide a place for people to really you know sit it's right in the middle of a lot of traffic so we just kind of thought it would make a nice landscape island what's the size of it well it's got it's going to be a curb square but a portion of that's going to be actually have to be mountable curb for a fire truck to be able to swing around right dimensions of that it would be a little more than 60 feet right that includes the raised curb so the con would drive right away 66 feet and that square is wider than that so I would say 70, 80 feet crossed but the actual landscape is only going to be in the center so that would be about 30 or 40 feet right yep I would say 40 feet I think the circle in April tree place is from a scaling perspective I do see I saw on your traffic signing plan you've got one way signs on that circle and I would encourage you to put those signs in I know it would be nice it'll feel like it's disrupting that landscape but I could definitely see people being a little confused coming up to this for the first time if the paint markings fade away they'd be apt to turn left so I think it's really important to have those one way signs there with the signs they're still coming in they do not enter at the post office at least you won't be liable if they crash an eye okay I'm going to close VP 16-01 0.5 you guys want to move your seats around so you look like a different group you don't have to go change you just do the test like this pick two fingers okay okay wait just a question on the the overall market bumping up the two bedroom down the one bedroom my understanding was that the one bedrooms are what's selling and you can't fill them fast enough but you have a sense that there's more demand for two bedrooms is that it's just your crystal ball is telling you that yeah are you planning on selling or are you just leasing them great price we just did a 24 unit building in Essex and had three one bedrooms and those went out within a day so but we tried to keep the split it was completely full we actually had three one bedrooms and 45 two bedrooms couldn't build them fast enough it was crazy I don't know what's going on but it's there yeah that's not uncommon what we're hearing yeah we're a losing population the math doesn't seem to be where we're going we're all chiseling counties we're not application dp 16-05 .2 we're going to open at 905 we have just one new member David if you would please introduce yourself and give your address please my name is David I'm with trucks column great thank you staff goes first okay so this is a request for cottonwood phase 2 phase 2 includes the development of the northwest portion of the site with buildings A2 and B2 and A2 is going to house the community bank serving and then B2 will be a three story mixed use building for residential use on the second and third floors underground parking is proposed under building B2 the applicants also proposing a five lot subdivision in order to facilitate the acceptance of cottonwood drive Connerway and future Walnut Street has public roads and and DRB previously reviewed this project August 13, 2009 is a pre-application and made several recommendations I will not read these recommendations nor the applicant's response and I'm not going to go over the project history so the applicant proposes a retail bank and headquarters with drive through service and building A2 retail commercial and residential uses in building B2 these are allowed uses for structures applicants proposed constructing building A2 and B2 B2 buildings can be similar to B1 building the site is currently under construction the applicants proposing a five lot subdivision and that will divide the site into four quadrants traffic impact fees will be assessed at the time of administrative permit traffic free working traffic study wasn't required no changes to vehicular access are proposed we've already talked about the pedestrian connection between phase 2 parking area and wilson road and then the multi-use path has been added along wilson road and there will be a parklet between the A2 buildings and then the parking they submitted a shared parking study which indicates 230 parking spaces will be required they have proposed 232 parking spaces I've included a table that shows proposed required parking facilities basically complies except the site generates requirement for 10 ADA spaces where 7 are currently proposed 3 additional handicapped accessible parking spaces should be provided and shown on the site plan and also because the parcels will be under different ownerships a shared parking agreement will be required the site generates a requirement for 24 bicycle spaces 25 spaces are proposed 11 short-term bicycle spaces are required looks like 17 are proposed the site generates a requirement for long-term bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities 13 spaces are required where 14 spaces are proposed and again staff is recommending that an end-of-trip facility be provided in each of the buildings and that long-term bicycle parking spaces be provided in each of the buildings to be shared amongst all the commercial tenants in that respective building a landscaping plan has been provided and the proposed development is internal to the overall Cottonwood Crossing project which is proposed to be buffered from adjacent parcels let's see so the parking lot behind building B2 initially was shown with 31 spaces in a row has been reconfigured to WDB 235 which states that have more than 24 spaces in a row it shall be broken up by landscaped islands there's no outdoor storage proposed there are some class 3 wetlands on the parcel they were reviewed and discussed in the overall Cottonwood Crossing approval and at that time the conservation commission had no concerns about what outdoor lighting has been proposed and the proposed lighting plan appears to comply except for that one question about the the type of lights that were being proposed and whether they were in fact going to be down and then there's the the applicants provided a master sign plan which will be reviewed separately solid waste receptacles are shown on plan sheet 10 three dumpsters are shown trash receptacles are subject to design review and there were no specifications submitted that showed pedestrian grade trash receptacles those should be provided and the hack reviewed this project which is subject to design review and again similar recommendations to these so the hack recommended continuing columns through the sign band and made a similar recommendation about the hours of operation and a similar recommendation about the wall sconces police and fire departments did not respond to request for comments the public works department submitted some comments which have been included here and staff is recommending approval this discretionary permit with some proposed findings effect right okay so walk us through please the changes and and then speak to the conditions of approval and I already noted number number 23 I'm assuming that you have the same yep that's true so you don't need to address that one okay I think I'll Mike if you want to speak to the landscape plan I know at the pre-application plan one of the that came up was we're subdividing a lot for the bank that we didn't want that to feel like it was a project so Mike has kind of designed the connection to that we're pretty happy with it let him talk about that the the idea is you got the street and you got really a whole new entrance really on both sides so I know one of the comments was the connection out to the right path so we extended that the walkway the bank itself has the through entrances on either side and this one has kind of an arching walkway that orients people out to this sort of center of gravity of the parking if you will the maps that go out and access some other areas of parking so it's efficient for people to get in and out but it sets up a direction towards this in this direction and what we did was extended the landscaping on the south side this access drive to really be the major breaking of the parking and that is about I think it's about a 20 foot wide strip it's got a walk on the other side with trees and grass down the middle and we're proposing some benches in that area so that's the main connecting piece landscape wise it's sort of not exactly a destination but it's at least a rather robust piece of landscaping out in the middle of the parking and from there a couple of jogs brings you to the main entrance to the B2 building which again has a fairly significant green space out in front of it so we're saying that's a pedestrian friendly zone along faces the buildings that's pre-application the architecture hasn't changed too much we've developed the plans a little bit but pre-application we had full elevations so we're going to jump into the conditions of approval same conditions as phase one regarding the hat comments because those apply to three of the four buildings I think we addressed that and then same comments we have regarding end-of-trip facilities so community bank has provided one for their building but we have not provided one for the B2 building so there's two end-of-trip facilities in the A1 building and those will be made available for three of the four buildings A1, B1, and B2 so all within 600 feet we feel that requirements met so the comment community bank there's one community bank and then there are two in the A1 building that we just presented in phase one none in B1 and no in B2 but the requirement allows for an end-of-trip facility within 600 feet of a building to be used in place of a one inch building you're proposing the one in A1 is going to apartments for phase two as well just building B2 not because the bank will have their own the staff's comment was that each building need an end-of-trip facility the banks provided one in the A2 building and we provided two in the A1 building so the two in the A1 building we're asking be considered for A1, B1, and B2 what is the projected employee numbers for buildings A1, B1, and B2 because the bank's out of the game right so what are we looking at for projected employee numbers that could potentially be used in the center of the facility well it's 50,000 those three buildings are about 50,000 square feet of commercial space so one employee per 1,000 it really depends on the use that was in there but employees two showers I was just trying to get a ballpark because you were saying you were looking for restaurants restaurants tend to have a higher employee density than retail space right and just trying to get a focus less than office well sometimes we have tenants in other buildings who will put in a shower for their employees but as far as the town's requirement for an end of trip facility if the requirements too for this size project we provided two in the A1 building and then community banks providing one in their building so you're saying that there is a possibility that future tenants may elect to do something that's what they want to do Melody could you clarify how we come up with the requirement for the number of end of trip facilities is it based on the number of long-term bicycle spaces so it's one per or how does that work I would guess that long-term bicycle spaces be calculated only on the commercial because obviously yeah but they would theoretically have their own size so for okay so you have 4 to 18 required long-term bike parking spaces you are required to have one per gender of end of trip facilities so essentially two for up to 18 so we're essentially what's being proposed I understand is you're combining the total number of long-term spaces in all three of those buildings so what does that come to I haven't seen that math here so we're saying you've got 13 for phase 2 but how many of those are covered by in the bank so the number is actually going to be quite low looking at that table on page 5 the total units are included in that long-term bicycle calculation so for phase 2 just looking at just the long-term bicycle spaces for phase 2 it's 13 but 8 of those are from the residential and 0.4 are from the bank so the number for the B2 building is actually going to be all these others 2, 3, 6, 4 almost 5 so 5 and then phase 1 I believe it's a little bit more but the total we're still under 18 phase so phase 1 is the total 16 but it includes 10 of those 16 are for the residential units so that number is really 6 so 5 is 11 so we're under the so 2 long-term facilities are required you know we have to in the A1 building and I recognize this may sound like it's putting hairs and it's probably aimed as much over here does the rule really say that it's one for each gender? it really says that right it's on the bylaw list yes it does because otherwise then the bank would be required to it sounds like they are required to have 2 right unless we decide that it's a clean up we do challenge anyway that's unfortunate you're proposing 1 at the bank is that right? I believe it is I need to see the floor plan staff report said 1 but I think there's more than one what we've before right on the first floor retail and office shower I'm sure you guys get questions all the time on these intertrips just trying to understand but it's gender it's gender news it's a shower room no it's a shower room and it's right between oh yeah restaurants and it's it's gender news what is the health room what is the health room health room is a required space essentially for nursing moms oh okay other things not for us to feel well but it's primarily for nursing it's a very common feature in offices now it's a very common feature in most offices and health room is kind of the standard term we all call it something different so public works did have a couple of minor comments if you want we can go through those or we've addressed them directly that's up to you guys if you want us to okay so we did reply to public works with some updated plans yesterday public works had a comment provided easement for the multi-use path over lot 82 well on the property plat we are providing a 16 foot easement on lot 82 so that comment has been met all landscaping shall be on our approved list talking with Mike Lawrence we will be meeting that requirement as well provide detail information on grease oil separator so within the restaurant for building B2 we are proposing grease oil separator inside the building it will have 100 gallons of storage for grease and it will be able to accept a flow of 50 gallons per minute which is more than sufficient for the 100 seat restaurant based on a peak flow from the restaurant of 25 gallons per minute so we are meeting that requirement as well and provided public works with some specifications and detail on that grease oil separator number four provide documentation for the four-way stop at cottonwood and phase one and two round square bouts do not require stop signs provide supporting documentation showing it is necessary so we reached out to Roger Dickinson had him comment as he is our traffic expert and he thought that the stop signs should be should remain as originally approved as he did not envision this as roundabout or square about that is an intersection and typically you don't want parking in intersections so he envisioned it as a one-way drive aisle so he thought that the stop signs as you enter that one-way drive aisle were necessary and then speed limit signs were not shown Roger did provide two speed limit sign locations one in front of building A2 as you come in down cottonwood drive from route 2 and then another one on Conner Way up at the pretty close to the property line with a maple tree housing so as you're coming in from maple tree place there would be 25-mile speed limit sign over there as well and he he thought 25 miles per hour was acceptable as these streets could potentially become public roads and Roger stated that the minimum speed limit for public road and then comment number 6 looks like it's a repeat of comment number 3 about the grease oil separator so we did provide that information public works and we also provided public works with an updated sewer allocation application as it was revised a little bit from the pre-application once we nailed down the number of one and two-bedroom units in square footages so we provided that to public works as well right items on conditions of approval that you'd like to know which is the hat comment yep 23 which is again hours of operation 24 we're asking for 6am which is a little less restrictive yep back a few to 21 about the end of trip facilities receiving credit for the two that are in the 8-1 building the b2 building will have long-term bicycle storage right got it I'd like to just understand a little bit more about the subdivision I feel like that I feel like it's a little bit missing even from last page is that right Dan? yeah it's sheet pl yeah last page of the plant set is a proposed property plot this was actually something that wasn't required when the project was approved in 2016 but came up before we started construction as an issue with Bruce or the director of public works he had asked that the roads within cottonwood cottonwood drive in Connerway and even Walnut Street which is going to be in one of the later phases be offered to the town as potential public roads he's going to accept to take those over but wanted those roads offered to the town so those roads subdivided the property into four quadrants the fifth lot came about as the result of community bank wanting to own their own lot so on the right side of the road as you enter in from Williston Road that area in phase two is two lots so total is a five lot subdivision so the property line between the A2 building for community bank and the B2 building will be kind of right along this divide of parking spaces but you know really won't be noticeable if you're you're visiting the site but it appears so right now as proposed the buildings that are on B2 and A2 are not both in lot two lot one nope so so lot one consists of the three phase one buildings and then lot two has only the A2 building that will be owned by community bank and lot three will have the B2 building okay so the community bank will be on lot two correct lot three okay sorry I was misoriented when I was looking at that okay this was originally approved as a four lot subdivision and now you're adding no actually it was originally approved without a subdivision it was all approved on 12 buildings on the master plan on a one acre lot so I'm sorry one 17 acre lot so now we've you know with the road issue that's kind of created four lots and five and this application kind of cleans it all up because this was the road was something that Bruce had asked for after the project was had been approved but you know we were happy to offer him the roads because that may you know maybe someday those roads will become town roads and that would be good for us so A2 then meets I mean I don't see where the proposed building is going to be so we would meet all setbacks and everything that is there any plan that shows the proposed construction so so 3a 3a is the site plan that shows the buildings and property lines so we would be meeting the 50 foot setback from Williston Road and staff does note in the staff report that although this is a subdivision that it makes sense to evaluate individual phases as they are developed the five parcels can still be viewed as a single planned unit development when considering the overall compliance of the project to the standards of the WDB 38 and other bylaw standards such as landscaping buffering and setbacks so I think the takeaway from that there was they would still be looking at the overall development as a PUD for setbacks they wouldn't be looking at the setbacks internally for each individual lot as it's a PUD yeah so for example the only line that would be affected if it is the one that's some of the larger buildings right yeah so for example like a lot of times with you'll have a landscape buffer requirement between your neighbor it doesn't make sense to do a landscape buffer between A2 and B2 so I think that's staff's comment that they're reviewing cottonwood crossing as a project overall project in compliance with the zoning but that this creation of lots allows the board some flexibility are there any findings of facts related to that in the division itself pertaining to the subdivision and pertaining to how the town is treating it as a not in the findings of facts staff report but I did not include a finding of facts if there became if A2 and B2 suddenly became nasty neighbors B2 would find itself in trouble because it's sitting right on almost sitting on the lot line with no setback there's no room for any kind of vegetation or anything at that point this is worth a lot I see that does it meet does B2 meet setbacks the town staff's opinion that those internal lot lines historically that's how the town has treated similar developments that may include separate lots but they're all considered as one for the purposes of landscaping, they're all considered as one development so then what about setbacks and other dimensional requirements? same thing so that'll be in the document when this is all done that all this stuff has been approved as a variant I mean I guess we could add a finding of fact that states that what I'm just saying is that for any reason that there was I wouldn't want to see the owners of B2 down the road suddenly be faced with we gotta dig up our parking lot that's right next to our property because we gotta put plants there so I'm just saying there should be some kind of town document put into that that says this has been approved right in a created like the final plans become that document so in the future if there's a neighbor dispute tough luck you're under a shared parking agreement you share this driveway access and all those internal property lines for the purposes of setbacks and landscaping don't generate that requirement because they're more clerical and in nature and establishing ownership and not looking at the development potential because it's that planned unit one approval looking at this site wide should have been handled on the previous one I didn't catch the comment just to make sure the counter extension on the original on the previous plan we're going all the way right right yeah the eastern property line yeah so like I said all I mentioned was the circle and I suddenly realized well there's a piece we didn't talk about yep the eastern most piece yeah that's actually it's half built now isn't it included in phase one I didn't ask that question until this moment that's it is it is it potentially feasible that that road could connect isn't this a different zoning district just beyond that property yeah to the east oh it is okay we're going to see you guys again okay just a real quick and I think I'm on the thought process of changing designs were the buildings that were approved in phase two have those been redesigned in any way well so we had the master plan approved but we never really submitted any elevations for phase two but it was always kind of the original plan was to have at least the B2 building be similar to the B1 building so so we really only submitted footprints but the footprint actually did of the elevations that are right so those are new elevations yeah those are new elevations but I guess the one change that has occurred is originally phase two consisted of three buildings and now it's two buildings and the B2 building's a little bit larger the A2 building is very similar to what you know the original approval just has a drive through now he disappeared because we've made the entrances to the parking lot better yeah that's why I mean this is pretty much the same as was presented at FRIAT yes it is we only on the bank the hack committee access to add some windows above the drive through and we did and I think that's the only change really from what you saw I wasn't on the board then so I didn't see anything but prior to that as David has referred to this new building instead of being brothers and sisters it's now cousins it's a little different but very similar the wings make it interesting and from a site perspective the sidewalk has been in front of on the western side of A2 has been extended to the path along route two and there's also a crosswalk connecting over to building B2 which was feedback we received from the board at pre-application is there a connection to the sidewalk or the drive that goes up on the property north here to Maple Tree Place from the main landscaping path that goes between A2 and B2 right through there yep is that a sidewalk of a sidewalk that was built inside of the Maple Tree Place project 20 years ago but that doesn't connect to our property that was done because the bike path never got completed on route two but now we will be completing that bike path on route two so that connection will be there going back to 2016 we were given two options there was a multi-use path one or two and we connected this section this was kind of considered option A and then we had talked about a possible connection here as option B it was a little more difficult because we had to curve it through some potential weapons but we dealt with the Army Corps it got that permit and that path is under construction now so that was the path and the location of the town preferred obviously because it's right along route two and we were not successful to get that permit but Lisa and somebody in the town got it done and we built it so that's why we did that parking count that includes the new parking that includes the fact that you had to put the bump out on the back row and the trash cans out there and then those we would bump out in the right behind building B2 you put that in there that's still the correct count now correct yeah that parking count reflects those changes because I was going a few spaces have disappeared since the last picture I saw we're good dumpsters for A2 and B2 is that the back row there is there three dumpsters or two this is a set of dumpsters for the A2 building and a set of dumpsters for the B2 building I believe the set of the B2 building is a double set so trash and recycles what about composting dumpsters composting if there's going to be restaurants I would assume there will be composting another parking space gone potentially you know that's something we actually hadn't thought about but there's a really little smaller and they empty them more frequently we put a couple across the street and they come two or three times a week because the smell doesn't get real good it's against the back row here we got residents back there it'll be smaller we can provide it inside that screen here applicants perspective no I just want to maybe add that I think you guys will be proud of what we build there you'll like it we're going to do a good job it means a lot to us too right now we've worked hard with the town over a number of years as you know and we think we've got a pretty good project right now based on all the feedback from you guys the hack and working with staff we're pretty excited about this project right now I think you'll be happy with it what's the timing of the project we've submitted our act to 50 in fact we just paid that this week we're a little bit lighter this week hoping to have all our permits middle by middle in November community banks bearing just to close and we both want to start in December the B2 and the A2 buildings we hope to start in December and then follow it right across the street and continue to start phase 2 first yeah phase 2 is going to become phase 1 other than the roads the bank has pushed us so hard and because of the construction being so close we thought it was more efficient to build our building so they can build the park a lot does that require any kind of amendment the reversal and phasing well phase 1 will be under construction at the same time I'm not trying to throw any loops in here phase 1 includes all the site work when you drive by that site they're pretty far into buildings are kind of that's the next piece of work is to start the foundations we've got all the sewer water and storm water stuff all completed we're working on the electrical right now we've got part of the electrical system in from the power company and then we're going right to foundations after that how deep do you plan that little water pond to be the water pond how deep is it so that's bill there's a there's an angry delegation it's at the lowest point on the site even though it might be 11 feet deep on where the buildings are it may only be 9 feet deep there because we lose 2 feet of elevation these guys will tell you and that's the storm water pond the storm water pond the bottom of that is at a 390 the bottom of the 4 bay and the top of it is approximately 390 9 5 so what would the parking what would the parking lot say behind building B1B the edge of the parking lot there is a 4 0 just under a 4 0 1 at the top of that retaining wall there so you're looking at 11 feet and again it slopes so you lose about 2 feet so it's probably only going to be about 9 feet deep the wall itself is the wall itself is 5 feet and then it slopes down so it's not a 11 foot drop straight down nothing that you'd want to do like a storm night ball no no no I was just saying it's deep enough if the kid falls in there he probably can't get back out you're going to want to have at least potentially something to say hey he would be able to walk up the other side because the other site is completely sloped with no wall and walk out the backside there's actually a path proposed along the top of that ground what was the what was done recently on Connerway right where it intersects with maple tree place what's the purpose of that I don't have worries me where were you when we needed you that's horrible that was acquired by public works in the select board some traffic calming what's it intended to do because it's not going to do what it's intended slow the truck by making well it funnels you into an hour or area so you either slow down or you have the potential of hitting a curve you know it's not the other thing if you're going in and out of there it's going to allow you to actually pull further out past the grazers truck to actually see before you pull out onto the road so you don't get smashed you also had to cross we put the electronic crosswalks in so people could those are your those are your improvements part of this but I wasn't sure if they were going to widen anything that's done sidewalks in pedestrian ways is all they've widened they've narrowed the roads to do that we've just stabbed Connerway I was impressed how fast that went I was impressed how fast that went yeah well a lot of people working gets us to get that done for those of us who speed through there all the time it was okay we're going to get a chance to have work times and we're going to close you know I had that thought but I wasn't going to say anything out next to ourselves we got one more here we're going to close DP16-05.2 at 9.51 we are going to immediately open DP20-12 which is a master side plan for the same development driving some of them away huh yeah send these guys all at that time like all the architects can leave yeah that was sticking around though he loves a good master side plan nice Dave okay that goes first this is a request for discretionary permit for a new master side plan at Cottonwood Crossing proposed plan is for buildings A1 B1 B2 Cottonwood Crossing which are collectively all the buildings expected to contain commercial uses within the project master sign plans are required in Wilson for new or for type of sign that can only be permitted under master sign plan and for greater number of signs that are larger in size that are allowed by Wilson development bylaw 25A Wilson development bylaw 25.5 provides a mechanism by which commercial site plan may gain approval for master sign plan for the other applicants proposing master sign plan because the site contains or could contain multiple commercial tenants I've included a table that shows a listing of the sizes and the number of those size signs WDB 25 allows a maximum potential amount of allowable signage under master sign plan at 8% of the area of the street facing elevation of the building on site the applicant's proposal compares to that maximum as follows so the total area of the street facing building elevations is 37,809% percentage of the building elevations 8% is the maximum percentage maximum potential sign area allowed is 3,024 square feet and the proposed sign area is 2,520 square feet staff notes that two street facing facades of buildings A1, B1, A2 and B2 were used in determining the maximum site wide allowed area and the applicant has proposed the use of more than one street facing building to determine a maximum site wide allowance for sign area this can be permitted but only if the DRV is willing to make specific findings that allowing these signs is consistent with the Wilson comprehensive plan and the intent of WDB Chapter 25 and staff has drafted those findings below. Thank you, Melinda. What do you have to add? To answer the question about using both streets that was how the board allowed it during Phase 1 when we had our Phase 1 master sign plan approved in 2016 so we calculated the same way I assumed it would be done like that throughout the development. So this is for Phase 2 this is just using the buildings in Phase 2 so you've got two separate master sign plans for this site. So I believe it's being considered one sign plan application for Phases 1 and 2. So there's five sheets total one's like a site plan and then one for each building and all four buildings in Phases 1 and 2 are included in this table of proposed signage. So the 37,809 speed of street-facing building elevations two sides all four buildings. I'm not exactly it's I guess that is true. A1 has two sides, B1 has two sides side and half with the angle A2 has two sides and B2 has two sides. So each individual sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 show that measurement into the total square footage allowed. Didn't I hear about an hour and a half ago you said potentially the reason that you wanted not to have the breaking up the line was because potentially a couple of those windows could all be one organization, right? Correct. So not knowing who's going in the building we've proposed a lot of signage but So in other words the signage count is the outright maximum single usage. Worst case scenario. Worst case scenario and what we could potentially see is relatively less. You probably will see relatively less but it just gives us options to put it anywhere on the buildings in them signed in. I'm just trying to get the ideas. What you're saying is this is the worst case scenario but potentially if some of those end up like double double windows as one building one company, you actually have less square footage signing actually that we're going to see not that you can't use them but I'm just saying that's correct. Okay. That company may take the maximum amount as well but more than likely it'll be less. Okay. Emily and Melinda talk about sign types not proposed, awning or projecting signs. How does a town define a projecting sign? And that sign that hangs on the side of the building? Let's confirm before I give a wrong answer. I only ask that because in a situation like you have that can be extremely effective. The projecting sign extends outward from the wall of a building. It may be perpendicular to the building wall or at an angle. It is a message intended to be read primarily by the people approaching for one or both signs. If we find that and it's want that, we'll come in and try to. That would be an amendment. I just know that in Montpelier they've now put a lot of those on and encouraged you to do that. It's actually quite nice as you're walking down the street to actually look up and know there's the subway actually the subway didn't put one in. The local store instead. Book store or something. The toy store. It actually adds a lot of life to that streetscape as you try to figure out because there's eight stores wind up next to each other. If we find that we get a similar setting with multiple little tenants like that, rather than maybe one tenant taking half of the building, then we may come back in and see you guys for that. What about a directory sign? Any contemplation of that at this point? We have the overall Conway Crossing sign that's going to be at the corner of Conway Drive. We have an proposed like a directory sign. We don't think that there'll be an externally mounted directory sign at this point. Again, if the tenants come to us and say we think it would be nice, then similar to the we're kind of just getting some signage approved right now because we don't really know what the tenant base is going to be. For the standalone Conway Crossing sign, are you proposing one at each on each side or no, just a single one? Just the one. One free standing sign. On the A2 side? Yep. And then nothing where it comes in on the way. No. The one that's on the Willis Roadside will be two sided, but just one sign. Are those going to be higher people to do sandwich boards? Yep. Just what college kids need to do for the summer. You mean the soup? No. Everything in the same way. We want you to employ some of the Willis and you. I did notice one thing on your Sheik 1 was the wall design under building A1. At the bottom it has A6 again and I think it should be A16. On the bottom A. Up in the legend. Oh, you're right. I see where I caught that. Yeah, that's a typo. I figured it was. That's something we can clean up for the final plans in the middle. Thanks. John? I'm going to close. Master sign plan happens at 10 o'clock, so it's a quick review. I'm going to close DP20-12 at 10.04. All right, gentlemen. Welcome back to the Town of Williston Development Review Board Tuesday October 8th. The DRB is out of deliberation at 10.44 p.m. Do I have a motion on DP18-0 6.1? Yes. Jill Spinelli moved that the Williston Development Review Board approve the final plans for DP18-06. It authorized the applicant to file an industry. Thank you. Any seconds? Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Next up is DP20-11 Munson Drive Industrial Park. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, David Saladino moved that the Williston Development Review Board approve the final plans for DP20-11. It approved the discretionary permit subject to the conditions above with the one change to condition of approval 2A to add at the end of the sentence, the following acceptance of the application of the williston development bylaw and having heard and duly approved the following except for the requirement to replace the hammerhead turnaround with a cul-de-sac period. Thank you, David. Any second? Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Next up is there a motion for DP16-05.1 Cottonwood Crossing Phase 1 Amendment 1. Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I John Hemmelgarn moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Review Board. It is considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 8, 2019, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff to the review of the DP16-05.1 and approve this discretionary permit subject to conditions above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from requirements with the plans on which this approval is based. We're going to make a couple modifications to first the findings of fact number 4. It will read Phase 1 as approved includes 15 one-bedroom dwellings and 31 two-bedroom dwellings. The applicant is proposing a reduction in the number of one-bedroom dwellings from 15 to 9 and an increase in the number of two-bedroom dwellings from 15 to 9. Change a couple of the conditions of approval. Number 2, we will strike the second sentence of that Part A. And we will change condition number 22 to read the requirements for long-term bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities are satisfied with the proposed long-term bicycle parking in and two end-of-trip facilities in building A1. We will delete condition number 23. We will clarify condition number 24 to limit or to read there shall be no maintenance or delivery activities that generate loud noise between the hours . We will delete the reference to 7 there. And that is it. I suppose we should renumber those last two conditions based on the fact that number 23 was deleted. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. All seconds it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Next up is DP16-05.2 Cottonwood Crossing Phase 2. Is there a motion? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I.D. Turner moved the wills to review the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on the application by the Williston Development Bylaw. Having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 8, 2019 and the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the staff for the review of DP16. 16-05.2 and approve this discretionary permit subject to conditions above. The approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff and then seek administrative permit for the proposed application which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We'll change some of the conditions on condition number 2. We're going to strike 2A. We'll strike condition number 23 and on condition 24 we'll change the hours of operation between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and condition 21 we'll change to proposed long-term parking in B2 with end-of-trip facilities in A1 meet the requirements. Thank you. Is there a second? Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP20-12 which is the cotton wood crossing master sign? It is authorized by WTV63 I. Paul Christensen moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application materials submitted and all the accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards. Required to comment on this, on the testimony presented. Comment on this application by the Wilson unified development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 8th, 2019 except the findings of fact conclusions of law, conditions of approval proposed by the staff for the review of DP20-12 MSP and approve this discretionary permit for a master sign plan. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval for these plans from the staff and then seek an administrative permit for future development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. In reference to that plan change? Oh, there is a note on the first picture. Sheep one of five. On sheet one is there's an A1 that should be an A16. Is that correct? There's a typo. What is the wall sign designation A6 at the bottom of the listing should actually read A16D. I'm still having trouble with that one. I heard it but I'm trying to, I don't see it on the, on the, it's up in the table up in the top right. Oh, it's up here I think. It's right here. Oh. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. On the sheet one for building one on the wall sign list goes A1 through A15 and the last one says A6 which should be A16. Okay, is there a second? I'll second that. John seconds it. And before the discussion those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjourn? Yes. Thank you, everyone. I would like to move to, that we approve the minutes of September 24th, 2019 as written. Second. I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjourn? Aye.