We'll give one more minute. If you want to hit record, we can start the show. This conference will now be recorded. Hello and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for Tuesday, November 17, 2020. My name is Matt Coda. I'm the chair of the Development Review Board joining us tonight as Alyssa Portman, Don Filibert, John Wilking, Mark, excuse me, not Mark Barrett, Brian Sullivan, and myself. Jim Langen we may see in a moment and Mark as well, Mark Barrett. And Mark Barrett is out tonight. So there's just five of us right now. But also in attendance from the city of South Burlington is Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner, and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. To begin with tonight, the first item on the agenda, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items from my fellow board members or from staff? Okay, hearing none, we'll go on to agenda item number two, announcements. Just a quick announcement for those in attendance, those on the phone, those watching online, anyone who wishes to participate in tonight's hearing should sign the virtual sign-in sheet. You can do that if you're on your smartphone tablet or computer by clicking the chat box, which is in the upper right-hand corner and just entering your name. You can also sign in virtually by sending an email to Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner at mkeane, m-k-e-e-n-e-s-burl.com. And it's important to sign in this virtual sign-in sheet because in order to be considered a participant, you have to sign in to obtain party status should you want to appeal any decision made by this board regarding a specific agenda item that we're hearing tonight. Similar to when we meet in person, there's always a chance for the public to speak, either digitally through the chat box or by raising their virtual hand and calling on them during the appropriate time, whether it's during an agenda item or during the public comment period. Are there any other announcements from the board or from staff? Hearing none, agenda item number three, any comments or questions from the public not related to the agenda? I'll check the chat box and I'll listen for anyone who wants to raise their digital hand and not hearing anyone. Then I'll move on to agenda item number four, which is our annual reorganization where we elect a chair, vice chair and clerk for 2021. Marla? I can take over this part of the meeting. So for the next, you know, five minutes or so, I will be temporarily chairing the meeting to provide conflicts with the chair presiding over elections. So the first thing I'm gonna do is I'm gonna invite nominations and then we'll have some discussion. If there is any, we will invite public comment and then we'll have a vote. And then once the chair has been elected, we'll discuss next year's DRB meeting schedule. So, that sounds good. I would invite nominations for chair, vice chair and clerk. I know it's John. I nominate Matt Coda to be our wonderful chair again. And it's John and I nominate Brian to be our vice chair. And Dawn, are you currently clerk? I am. Well, I nominate Dawn for clerk too then. All right, any other nominations? Hearing none, could someone like to second any of those nominations? I'll second Dawn's nomination of Matt. I'll second the nomination of Dawn and of Brian. All right, Dawn, is there any, when we start with Matt, Brian and Dawn, if you are loaded, would you accept these positions? Yes. Yes. Yes. Can we have an honorary position for Frank Cochman? What would you like to call Frank Cochman's honorary position? Troublemaker, Troublemaker Emeritus. American, yes, Troublemaker Emeritus. We miss him. All right, is there any discussion? Anyone in the public that would like to make a comment on these nominations? As far as about voter fraud. We'll see who wins and then maybe we'll talk about that. All right, so no public comment in the chat box or verbally, so I'm gonna do a roll call vote for a slate of candidates altogether. So Matt Kota for chair, Brian Sullivan for vice chair and Dawn Phillipert for clerk, going alphabetical, not alphabetical, just the order you're listed on my piece of paper here. Brian, Matt, Jim, if you made it, I still not hearing from Jim and Alyssa, all right. So the chair will be Matt, the vice chair will be Brian and the clerk will be Dawn. So Marla, I do know that Jim is on. Oh, Jim wrote a note in the chat box, Jim. Can we tell Mark Bear that he can come back now? Public hearing from one of his work projects, and like. I was just kidding, I know he was chair for a long time. Yeah, so definitely a chance to review the tentative schedule and my somewhat Byzantine notes on it. So the only comment that I had Marla was to move our Tuesday town meeting, like we did last year, move the meeting to another day of the week, other than town meeting day. It was the only Tuesday request that I have that we move to a Wednesday or Thursday if it's the will of the board, but... So that's the first Tuesday in March, March 2nd? That's right, I'm fine with the 3rd, but if someone can't do the 3rd, then you wanna suggest a different one. I think there's a lot going on at town meeting and I think we might need to be available. We might be conflicted. Now I think we're all hoping we make it that long. But I'm fine with that. Okay, great. What about the August 17th being the recess date as opposed to Labor Day, Tuesday being the recess date? Okay, as it stands? Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry, say that again, Marla. That was instead of an August recess date, the recess would be when? So as it stands, the recess is the 2nd meeting in August. So there's only one August meeting. The alternative would be to have the recess in September. Instead, the August, the 2nd August meeting would have to be on a Wednesday because of Benning, Dubai All Day. So the way it is now, say it again, we're gonna have one meeting in August and two meetings in September. The 1st September meeting will be on a Wednesday. I don't particularly carry the way. Does anyone have a strong opinion on the board? Brian, Alyssa, Jim. It's nice to have the recess in August so we can all take a vacation when it's hot out. Yeah, I think there's gonna be a lot of pending demand for going on vacation if my August was only through the pandemic. Really? Okay, so we'll keep the 2nd week of August open, then the 2nd meeting in August open, the 3rd week in August, right? Yes. Okay, yep, I'm fine with that. Okay. And I did, we did check against religious holidays. We used the New York City Public Schools calendar, which has a pretty well vetted list of religious holidays and I think we're good, but something does come up that we're unaware of at this time that it's a tentative schedule so we can always change it around. Sounds good. Okay, we don't need to vote on that. Just wanted to have a conversation. If you would like to retake control and move on to item number Cinco. Okay, agenda, thank you, Marla. Agenda item number five, which is a sketch plan application, sketch plan application SD 2039 of Beta Air LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 762 square foot second story addition to an approved 60,300 square foot three-story hangar office building at 1150 Airport Drive. And who was here for the applicant? All right, this is Joel Page, Scott and partner's architects. Chris Gendry. Joel, how are you? Good, thanks. Hey, Chris. Great. Very glad to be here. Anyone? Carolyn Orpeter-Wackerson. Who was that? Larry Lack of the airport. Hey, Larry, and I heard you, Carol. Great, thank you. Carol. Is there anyone else there? Sorry. Okay. I just want to remind everyone that the applicant and for those watching at home and those participating that this is a sketch plan. A sketch plan is a high level review and discussion where the applicant receives feedback from us, the development review board on the major elements of the project before it is fully designed. And during this meeting, we may provide oral guidance to the applicant which constitutes our determination that the application meets the purposes of land development regulations. These comments are intended to help guide the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of the comprehensive plan. This is not a formal hearing and it does not result in a binding decision. The board may choose to continue to later date if there are questions that were made to be examined. The future date will be announced prior to concluding the evening. But upon conclusion of the sketch plan meeting, an applicant who wishes to move forward with the project will have to submit a complete application. The next level review includes public notices and a formal public hearing. So there is no vote and there is no swearing in and this is where you get to explain to us what you'd like to build. So whoever would like to take the lead. Oh yeah, this is Joel. I'll take the lead. It'd be helpful if we could go maybe to the big picture site plan and then we'll follow up with the perspective. I'm not, is it possible to put the big site plan on the screen? We're working on it, I think. Okay. Give us a second. And congratulations to everybody on your newly elected offices. I won one. So big picture overview. Everybody's aware of the hanger. We talked about previously the addition to the north, which is that dash sort of box. This project is proposing to install a second story on the south end of the building where you see that hatched area. Basically, beta is changing their construction sequencing so that they can renovate the second floor of the south end of the addition that was added to the hanger back in the 70s. Most of the rest of the building has now been renovated but they need some additional office space to want to bring their existing last office space up to the same standard that we just finished in the early phase, phase one and two. And if we go to the perspective, we can show you the sort of the strategy behind what we're doing. So the building and we have some three dimensional sketches that might help if there are still questions that were sent in today. But basically the south end of the building is basically sort of the back of the house for beta. There's a bunch of mechanical equipment, as you can see that's been installed over the previous projects. As beta has realized, as they've done, looked into what their needs on the second floor, they realized they needed a little bit more office space. So what we're proposing to do is create a mechanical mezzanine, a steel mezzanine, which is what you sort of see that horizontal line just above the first, right about the second floor level. The steel mezzanine will be both a mechanical mezzanine to support the equipment for the second floor, the HVAC system, and to support these insulated container buildings, which will be a little office pods that will be added to the second floor. The intent of the container buildings is to reflect the product that beta is designing, which is sort of their recharge landing pads, which is one of their signature products tied to their aircraft strategy for the electric aircraft, having some short flight distances to unique landing pads that will provide respite for the pilots, as well as to allow for refueling of the aircraft. So the containers sort of reflect sort of the character of what beta is and does. And so by adding those to the second floor, we're bringing that character into the project. That's kind of it on the ground level, which we can have Chris explain is some, there we go. Can you go back to that first one? So the front of the building, which is the west side that you see with these Corten gutters is now in place. And then as we move around to the south side, which is the main perspective that you see here, you can see the containers sitting on the steel mezzanine. And we're also proposing a gutter, a Corten gutter, which sort of carries the theme from the front of the building around to the south side. But the gutter also acts as a major collection point for the runoff from the roof and provides some structural stability to prevent the equipment below from being damaged by falling snow and ice. The gutter will collect all of that rainwater and funnel it into a underground containment well, which Chris will describe, which will tie into the existing soon to be renovated container well, which ties into the airport stormwater system. You want to go? Sorry, Joe, let's see equipment that you're projecting. You were saying it's protecting the equipment. What is that there? There's all of the, you can see the various boxes that are sort of below that gutter area. Those are all existing mechanical HVAC equipment, plus some fans and other product items related to them. Existing equipment, not new stuff, okay. Correct. The only new equipment would be the second story where you see the adjacent to the containers that tall sort of stack right there. And for convenience, we don't have the OSHA safety rail in place. This is Dawn. So you've recently gone through a review of the renovations for the west side of your building. Was this an afterthought? What is, you're planning to do this first, correct? Yes. So as we look through the schedule and their of the timing of the different projects, the north addition, it dawned on us that the airport is doing some runway maintenance, which might interfere with the timing of the addition. And beta really needs the office space and they wanted to renovate and needed that quicker than they need the addition because they're growing so fast. So it made sense for us to try to pivot to redo the second story of the south end before we did the new addition. Joel, that's an apron project which the board's reviewed. Thank you. This is Brian. I have a question. You've been referring to the massing, if you will, on that second level as containers, plural. Are these actually separate structures or is it just one structure that's made to look like separate structures? No, they're actually three 20 foot shipping containers that will be cut open and then renovated to meet the energy code. And have basically a finished interior but still have that appearance of a shipping container on the outside. And then these are where the planes, helicopters, the aircraft device land on, they land on top of those? No, so out in the, you might have seen it if you look out where the hangar is into where the runways are, there's that sort of rectangular building with the structure on top that has the space frame. That space frame sits on several shipping containers which form the foundation for the landing pad. And beta manufactures those shipping containers as part of the recharge pad product that they're creating. So these are recharge pads that are under construction in that area that we're seeing in that picture? No, so the second level would be the new containers. They're actually just straight shipping containers that are converted. The other containers are existing on the site already. They're used for battery work, some storage and also some of their manufacturing for their rotors which are part of the engine that runs the aircraft. As we get into the site plan, we're also proposing another container next to the two next side-by-side containers that you see which will become a bike storage facility. Beta has purchased or been given, I don't know, it's like a half a dozen or so electric bicycles plus a lot of the staff rides their bikes. And so we're trying to create a location where the bikes can't be brought and stored while the folks are at work. So Joel, are some of these shipping containers then new and others are already approved? They're all there already, so I don't. So some of them are going to be changed in use from whatever they're used for battery manufacturing or repairs to bicycle storage. No, there's actually one missing that's not shown where the two adjacent are that is existing right now. That one will be replaced with one that's converted to bicycle storage. Maybe if we go to the site plan, that would be helpful. Yeah, I think if I walk through it, it might be helpful to get a given overview of the site. Give me a moment to switch screens here and items. This is actually the right set of PDFs. The page three of this PDF, I believe. Okay, that one? Yep, there it is. Yeah, so if you don't mind just zooming in on the right side, I just wanted to give everyone an overview of what we're planning to do to the site. Working from, I'll work from West to East. So the plan is to reconfigure the parking so it's more formalized. We're also, we're going to add, we're actually going to add eight charging parkings, eight vehicle charging spots with these ballards that will have Cortain steel and a charger connected to them. So each one of those spots of the lightning bolt will all have their own charging ballard to charge cars because a lot of employees have cars that require charging. As you can see, we're formalizing a couple of the entrances. So all the way to the West, we're going to put in, we're going to put in a new entry canopy over a new sidewalk. We're going to make it ADA accessible. Right now there's a step up. We're going to make that an ADA accessible entrance. We are going from 14, right now there's possible to park, it's possible to park 15 cars there. We're going to go from 15 to 14 only to provide these access aisles to the various entrances. As you can see, if you were to see it today, there's the pavement edge is not really well defined. It kind of comes in and out as you go. What we're proposing is to straighten that line and get the parking line straightened out just to make it more organized for people to park. And if you go all the way to the east, the eastern half of the site, what you'll see is a below the actual addition, the second story addition, there's a patio today. We're going to expand on that patio and make it and improve on it by putting in some more significant commercial pavers. I think right now they're just residential pavers and along that patio, we wanted to clean it up and add some landscaping. So as you can see those little square rectangles that go along the patio, there are several quartan steel planters that kind of fit with the rest of the site, at least the future site and part of the existing site kind of ties in with the seam. And then if you go a little bit further east, that first shipping container we run into, you'll see to the west of that shipping container, we'll have a ramp and stair up to a shipping container which will have an overhead door where they'll store all their bicycles that Joel was alluding to. So that will be converted into a bike storage unit with actually electrical charging stations for electrical bikes in it and also for just normal bike storage as well. That really summarizes most of the site. There's gonna be, we've got 24, the standard 24 foot aisle with 18 foot long parking spots, all of them are nine feet wide with the exception to the last spot near the bike locker where we made it a little wider. I'm sorry, question. What is quartan steel? If you, we can shoot, actually if you scroll down to, if you go down to the PDF just past this, I'll show you just exactly what I mean. And Joel can explain it better, but if you look in the top left of that drawing, that's the quartan steel planter we're proposing. So that kind of gives you a visual idea of it. Yeah, it's basically steel that's designed to rust and the rust creates a protective coating, which basically stabilize it and keeps it so it doesn't rust further. And you see it used a lot in highway, on highway roadsides for guardrails and things like that. Thank you. Okay. And I also forgot to mention this, but there was that, there is a right in the center of the parking lot, there is an existing dry well that we're going to improve upon, since we're gonna be taking all the storm water and bringing it to one central location. Just wanted to bring that up as well. Okay. Okay, if there's not anything else, I'd like to go through the staff comments, if that's all right with you. Sure. Joel and Chris. Carol. Yes. First item was regarding the site plan review standard, the applicants submitted floor plans showing the impacts of existing pavers at the ground level, an elevation showing the proposed building, but not the site context described in a narrative form that the addition is proposed to be a second floor overhang situated on columns. Staff is unclear of the proposed configuration and recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify a statement that the addition will be over existing mechanical equipment and an outdoor patio space. While in the aerial imagery, it appears that there are marked parking spaces in the location of the proposed addition, which provide feedback on the compatibility of the proposed addition with the adjacent structures and sites. Yeah, could you clarify that, Joel or Chris? So the overhang comes out of off the building about 12, about 10 feet, maybe 12 feet, which is, would stop before there's parking. So there wouldn't be parking underneath the overhang of the building piece. Is kind of that kind of what the question was? And yeah, looking from the aerial imagery that appears to be covering parking. What you're saying is that's not accurate, that's not replacing parking or not covering parking? Correct. Okay. Okay. It's basically sort of a no man's land down there now where we're just creating usable space above it and then trying to improve it as a general public location for the staff. Joel, Chris. And underneath it, you have the mechanicals. So that's why you couldn't go two stories, like why you have it on spills, right? Right, right. Well, there's a mix of, there's a whole mess of utilities down there that we need to kind of work around. We didn't need the second floor or the additional space on the first floor and we had the mechanicals that made sense to just lift everything up. Joel, would you like to submit your next application? I think a lot of the confusion is due to the fact that some of the existing site features are not labeled on the plan that you submitted. And it looks like you may have enhanced that labeling somewhat on your submission that you mailed in today. Can you just run a plot of that with the proposed turned off with your new submission so we can just better see like existing versus proposed? Yes. And we just saw the application plan. I was gonna say, we're gonna have an existing condition plan in the next submittal. It'll help clarify a lot of that. And it's been surveyed. Can you just run what you've got without that proposed shown, but with all those things labeled? I think that would go a long way. Okay. Great. Any other questions from the board members regarding? Bump out. Okay, agenda or staff comment number two. Board should ask the applicant to clarify both verbally and in their plans in the next review, what elements of the existing site plan will be modified to accommodate the tradition and provide feedback on whether this is acceptable? I think that talks about what you're gonna do for your for the next submittal. Is that anything else, Joel or Chris on that? No. No. Okay. Disposal of WACES number three, applicant as part of the previous not constructed amendment receive approval for an enclosed dumpster. This dumpster is not proposed as part of the current applications. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant how they propose to handle their waste in this phase. Sorry about construction waste. Is that what the staff comment is, Marla? What is this in general? So there is an existing dumpster in the approximate location that were shown to be replaced and surround put in on the next phase. So there is a dumpster that beta uses. Construction waste would be managed as it in typical construction fashion with roll-offs are somewhere on the site and managed by the general contractor. Okay. So dumpsters do need to be enclosed. I see in your submission from today that you've labeled the existing dumpsters. If they're not enclosed at this time, they will have to be enclosed as part of this application rather than part of the next one. But no, it's a plan that you're saying that they'd have to close the dumpster now, not when they build the second phase of this, which has already been approved, which is actually every same, Marla? Okay. So the only concern I would have with that, and it might be a minor one, and obviously a problem necessarily in closing it, but it'd be concerned about the integrity of the dumpster enclosure with construction potentially happening around it and getting damaged before we're actually done the final product. So it's a potential concern I would have. Okay. Yeah, open to creative solutions for sure. Okay. Number four, if not already this is landscaping and screening, if not already discussed in response to above criteria, staff recommends the board as the applicant for more information on the proposed landscaping concepts and provide feedback on whether it be allowed as it contributing to the required minimum landscaping value. Staff notes before it may allow elements of other and woody vegetation when it contributes to the overall appearance of the site. Minimum landscaping value is $2,500. Decorative planters beneath the building addition. Now, when this fall under the master plan, Marla. Right. So the master plan allows improvements being made on site if they are reasonable and not spending money for the sake of spending money. So if the board feels like installing these decorative planters on site is enhancing the overall landscaping of the site, they don't have to. Good. We have Carolyn explain what she's thinking. Sure. Go ahead, Carol. I mean, I don't have a whole lot more to add other than that we have proposed these five quartet and steel planters and they measure approximately two feet wide by four feet long and 30 inches high. And we propose to plant them with an ornamental grass penicetum, which will grow about 24 inches tall. And they'll, the purpose of these is to sort of enclose this staff space and also create some protection from cars. I think you spent $2,500 on it. We did include an estimate and we said, let's see, for five quartet and steel planters at $950 a piece comes out to $4,750 plus the plants themselves. I'm fine with it. I think it looks nice. Anyone else have a comment or suggestion? Matt, it's John. I think it's in, I think it's totally appropriate given the industrial zone of the airport and the nature of what they're doing to the building. Yeah, okay. That's it for staff notes. Does the applicant have any other questions that they'd like to ask us or the staff before I open it up for public comment? No questions here. Okay, hearing none, if you'd like to comment on this proposed sketch plan application, please enter your name in the chat box or say your name. Hearing none, seeing none, then I think that's all we've got for you. So the next time we'll see you is for preliminary or preliminary and final plan. Hey, Matt. Yeah, Brian. Brian, I just want to make sure that we were clear in the first staff note, it ended by saying the board should provide feedback on the ability of the proposed addition with adjacent structures and site. If it has stated clearly, I'd like to state for myself that I find that the compatibility is excellent in creating creative solution that those go very well with the overall project. And I would agree. Thank you for adding that, Brian. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you, John, Carol, very much. Thank you. Thank you, Ron, now we'll see it for the preliminary final. I will move on to agenda item number six. Agenda item number six, two, hold on. There we go. Agenda item number six is preliminary final plot application FD 2037 of 99 Swift Street Associates LLC to create a planned unit development of two lawns that 99 Swift Street and 105 Swift Street and constructed three-story 6,800 square foot, 20-unit mixed-rate residential building and associated site improvements on the lot of 105 Swift Street who is here for the applicant. Steve Kerrio with 99 Swift Street. I'm sorry, my audio was garbled. Who was that again? Steve Kerrio, representing 99 Swift Street. How are you? Any more on the city of tonight? Dan Morrissey, 99 Swift Street. Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates. Bob Duncan. Excuse me, Bob Duncan. Duncan is an FC architecture. Hey, Bob. Hey. Anyone else? Sorry, this is Dan Bial. I'm also with Duncan Vishnasky in case Bob needs any support. Great. This is a preliminary final plot. So, could all five of you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth on our penalty per jury? Excuse me, Matt. We have one more person. Cynthia, did you get a chance to introduce yourself? You have to unmute yourself. Cynthia? Cynthia Knoth, Knoth Landscape Architecture. Okay, great. Yeah, and if you haven't already, please enter your names and spelling in the chat box. It helps Sue with a minute. Or send it directly an email. Could all six of you, this is preliminary and final plot. Could all six of you raise your right hand? Swear to tell the truth on our penalty per jury? I do. I do. Great. All six said the affirmative. Okay, so preliminary and final plot just to let people know what we're dealing with here. As I do before we start every project, this is within the last six months, the board has reviewed a sketch plan and provided oral guidance to the applicant. The steering the applicant describes the project and the applicant and the board step through the staff comments and invite thereby consider the proposals conformance with the applicable land development standards. We also will invite public comments and questions and all comments will be directed towards the board chair. The board may choose to continue this meeting or later date. If there are questions that are made to be examined, the future date will be announced prior to the conclusion of this hearing. At the end of the stage, the board will decide whether to close the hearing and once closed will issue a decision on the application. Decision will be mailed to the applicant. So those who have identified themselves as interested persons, again by putting their name in the chat box or sending an email to Marla. No appeal of the board's decision is made within 30 days. The decision is final. The applicant may proceed with the project. Okay. So who would like to take the lead and tell us a little bit about the project before we step through the staff comment. I'll start in Dave Marshall here. In this particular case, of the staff report identifies the parcel of interest specifically the one in cyan blue. Actually to the left of it, which is West because North is straight up on this particular photo is actually what we call 99 swift street and that's an existing office buildings. And we're actually proposing a planned unit development that includes not only that parcel, 99 swift street, but also the one in the cyan blue highlighted, which is called 105 swift street. So the combined of the two is a little over two acres and on the right hand parcel is where we are proposing a 20 unit three-story residential structure. Two of the units will be affordable housing. And with that, we've worked with the neighbors, the loose areas to the right or the East of this particular property. As it turns out to the North, whoop, can we go back to that first page again? All right, just to orient everybody with what's happening around the property. On the North side is UVM space lands on the South side is the Farrell Park. The parking lot itself is just immediately to the South and also a little bit to the West. You can see the athletic fields, the ball fields that occupy Farrell Park. And in this particular case, we are proposing a new access. Now perhaps it would be a good time to now go to the site plan to allow us to zero in a little bit on the features of the application before the board. So that's actually the entire properties of the planned unit development where the one on the West side, 99 Swiss Street represents the existing parking and the building itself. Currently that particular building, that property is accessed off of the common drive servicing Farrell Park. So on the left-hand side of that particular drawing is the Farrell Park entrance. And there is an existing access off of the Farrell Drive into 99 Swiss Street. There was originally a family home on the parcel on the right, 105 Swiss Street that has since been removed. At the North end of that 105 Swiss Street parcel is the remnants of the original driveway that came into the property. So we can move on from here unless there are any questions. All right, excellent. Okay, well, let's talk a little bit about the proposed building. Here you're looking at the building as if you're on Swiss Street, looking to the south. So on the right-hand side of the elevation, the long elevation would be off this sheet would be the 99 Swiss Street office building. But nonetheless, this particular elevation identifies the fact that this particular steps up from right to the left or from west to the east. And ultimately that grade continues up to the serious property further to the east and or the left on the top drawing. And out of all that, this has a number of different features that are similar nature to what had been identified during the sketch plan hearing in which we asked the board members to sound in on the aesthetics of the building. Rob and Sam, perhaps now is a good time for you to talk a little bit about your building and those features that make it what it is. I'm just gonna interrupt for a second, guys. Sorry, I just wanted to announce that it looks like Don Filibur left, I don't know whether it's due to connection or what hopefully she'll be right back, but I wanted to make sure the record was clear that Don is no longer present. Marla, she sent an email saying that she felt sick and was stepping out from the rest of the meeting. Okay, thank you. We know when you guys are good. When you guys jump in here, can you explain to me, this is John Wilking, that it says that this is a 6,800 square foot building which would imply that each unit is only 340 square feet, including common area. Is that right? No, that's incorrect, John. It's a 6,800 square foot per floor over three floors. So each unit, the units vary, but they're all around 600 to 700 square feet, 750 square feet. That makes much more sense. Thank you. Marla, it might be helpful if we're talking about the building now in terms of elevations, if you could scroll to the one drawing that shows the single-family house to the east and the office building on the right-hand side, just to maybe talk a little bit about context. I assume you still have that in this packet. This is... No, there was an elevation drawing that showed on the right 99 Swift Street, one of the new building in the middle and then the residential building on the left. I assume that's still in the packet here. Yeah, there you go, right there. So before we talk maybe about some of the detail of the building, we wanted to show how this fits in its context relating from 99 Swift Street on the right to the residential building on the left in there. And so you can see as you know, Swift Street is relatively steep in that area. It slopes up. So the building has been designed to be three stories on its west side, two stories on its east side. And you can see the height of the building is similar in real height to 99 Swift Street, much lower in height because of the change in grade plane and the residential building to the left. But nonetheless in context, we're taking advantage of the contours of the land and the layout of the building to build things that don't require windows on the first floor of the east side. So we can step this up the hill. So it is only as it faces the residential neighborhood to the east, it's only two stories high. And if you could go back to the other elevation sheet, I could go into a little bit more detail about some of the materials. So we're using several different materials here and they're all keyed in that box on the upper right of the elevation. Couple of things that I'll point out. So the elevation drawing that you're seeing on the upper left of this sheet is what is facing Swift Street. And that's the same elevation that we saw in the previous sheet that we were talking about. And there are two main entrances to the building along Swift Street because we felt it was important to have a sense of entrance to the street that leads out to the sidewalk. And the one on the right actually enters into one of the stairwells of the building. The entrance on the left is a bicycle entrance. So we've got the advantage for folks, we have a lot of bike storage in the building, bike repair stand and so on, fitness center at that part end of the building. So that serves folks who are getting their bike coming down the elevator, taking the stairs, getting their bike, heading out to the bike path through Farrell Park or across the road to connect to the one up to UVM or wherever they may choose to go. So there's an entrance there that's both pedestrian oriented but one is specifically oriented to the bikers in the building. The building also has a central corridor. So on the east and west ends are common balconies for residents to enjoy. They only accommodate comfortably probably not more than six people on the balcony but tables and chairs. So somebody can go out, check the weather, maybe see the sunset, enjoy the evening if it's a nice evening or the morning if you wanna go out and see what the weather's like on the east side or catch the sunrise, you can do that. The materials include lap siding that's fiber cement. They include some wood siding and also some vertical siding that it actually looks like painted wood but it's a composite product called oral siding that we put that close to the ground because it just doesn't rot and it's much more easy to maintain than wood siding. There's also two other feature sidings in the building, one of which you see in this elevation that faces Swift Street, the main entrance on the right that has a stair tower. The siding above that is slate siding. So it recalls some of the common materials that we've historically used in Vermont. So it's actually a slate roofing tile used vertically and that also repeats on the elevator tower on the south side of the building. And you can see as you look at this a little bit blown up the horizontal nature of some of the siding, the number two that's below the windows on the first floor and some vertical siding, which is the number seven. It's a board and bat and siding vertically. And the units are laid out in the building. You can see kind of the grid line across the top but that essentially locates units within the building. So bedrooms have one window per bedroom. It's a large window. It's about 20 square feet of window. And then the living rooms have the paired windows that you see operable and fixed in that grouping with a panel in between them. So the idea is to reflect the interior floor plan on the exterior elevation by showing this grouping. So the grouping relates to a unit on the inside. The window pattern is designed to bring maximum amount of glass but also be very respectful of the energy efficiency guide that we're trying to achieve here. So we're using casement windows which are much tighter and more energy efficient than double-hung windows and fixed glass where it's appropriate. So we have some panels below the operable windows that are fixed. The operable windows are indicated by that dotted line on the windows themselves. But part of the pattern of the windows is once again relating from the office building that's to the right, 99 Swift Street to the residential building to the left. Residential buildings typically have punched openings. This has punched openings. Commercial buildings quite often have bands of window. 99 Swift Street has bands of window across the floor. So it has a lot of glass in band layout. This building has a lot of glass, a little bit more vertically oriented but more as individual windows that would be reflective of the single family building. The other materials of note if you turn around to the south elevation. So we have our main entrance there from the parking area and we'll get into the site plan layout and how that works on the south side. But can it be over that to protect the entry? One of the things that we had on the earlier plan that you saw was a projected entry at that location. We've been able to simplify the floor plan so we don't have that. And we have a more roofed over entry at that location. And you see item of the stair tower for the elevator there that projects above the roof and also the slate tiles, the number three that are in the stairwell that's on the south side of the building. And on this side, you also see a little bit more of the balcony. So the building is in plan and you'll see it in site plan is basically two bars. There's a deeper bar that is on the north side of the building and a shallower bar on the south side of the building with a corridor in between those two. So the deeper bar on the north side is a little bit longer on Swiss street than the narrower bar is on the parking lot. So you see more of the balcony. The balcony gets more southern exposure, it gets more sun and it's a little bit more private to the, a little bit more open, but private from the road on the south side. One thing that I'd like to just call attention to while we're here, because this drawing that you're seeing is a very literal drawing. It is showing the rooftop equipment that's on the building. And the rooftop equipment is really two components. One is a larger air handling unit that provides fresh air to the building. The other is a series of condensing units for the air conditioning for each unit. So while you see in this drawing a very literal interpretation of what's vertically in height, those condensing units and the air handling unit are not visible from any pedestrian or car as you're either walking or driving on Swiss street. So we want to make sure that that's clear. And it was brought up as a question by staff and we can address that later. We've taken some photographs. We've included a couple of renderings in our packet to show the fact that those, because of the angle from eyesight of a pedestrian or a driver, the slope of Swiss street that those items are not visible. And so therefore we don't think requiring any additional screening. It would be essentially wasteful and problematic to put screening up there, to screen something that you really can't see. So we just thought we'd address that at this point too. Okay, thank you. Anything else before we go through the staff questions? We haven't really presented our site plan and some of the thinking behind that. So we might want to get back to the proposed site plan and Dave has some things to discuss. We also have some landscaping that we can talk about and some of the thinking and reasoning behind how we organize the site the way we did. Okay. Well, maybe we best this because you brought it up. So while we're still on it, staff comment number one deals with those, the fact that while the mechanicals are certainly allowable in terms of height, staff considers that the number and size negatively impact the visual appearance of the building and recommends the board require the applicant to screen them or integrate them into the design of the building in some way. Relevant authorities given under the site plan review criteria in 14.06B and C below. So back to your point that you made preemptively earlier that in the elevations we can see them, but do you think that they're adequately screened because they're, because of the way nature of the building? Is there something you can show us that demonstrates? Do you have the information that Sam sent to you with photographs that you can display or do we need to call that up on the screen? No, we have it, that was sent over this afternoon. I sent it at 1130, I believe, this morning. Yeah, just a second. Thank you. I think it's the fourth page or so of this. Yep, so this is just intended to show where the photographs are taken from. So one, two, three and four, looking from the Northwest towards the site and then from the Northeast towards the site. And the next couple of photographs. So this is looking, as you can see, up Swift Street, 99 Swift is on the right. The number of trees and so on that are here make the new building virtually invisible at that, the current intersection where you enter 99 Swift Street. This is taking a little bit further away, so the same thing is true. The height of the trees exceeds the height of the building. And we have a couple more photographs coming down Swift Street. So once again, from here, the, of course there are no leaves on these trees, but the roof of 105 is basically at the height of 99 Swift Street. So I'm pretty familiar with this street, but I'm not sure the port is. I just wanna say explicitly, what we're seeing is the brick building is the existing 99 Swift Street and on the left is the building that's going to the residential single family home that's gonna remain. The site is the sort of pinkish area in between the two. Right. So there's no rendering of the proposed on this photograph. We sent you one, I think. Yo, also have that. I just wanted to make it clear for the board and you can get to that in your own time. So this is further up Swift Street, so you can see the single family home on the left-hand side there, but it's pretty intensely screened by trees in that area. So these are just perspective views looking from the Northwest. No trees shown in this, but you can see from a, this is a eye level view of the building, not far from the corner, but all of that equipment is in this drawing. You just don't see any of it because the angle that a person's eye level looking up the building can't see any of that equipment. The same thing is true on looking from the Northeast to the Southwest. We also purposely have a small parapet on the top of this building to also provide more screenage so that that equipment is not seen from sidewalk. Yeah, that parapet around the perimeter is about a foot high. You can see the difference because we've broken the parapet at the east and west ends where the porches are and also at the stair towers in the building. So that gives you an idea of how the parapet sticks up a little bit there. But from those views, and there's one more with some trees on it, just showing some of the sense of vegetation is going to be there. But as you're looking from the Northeast to the Southwest, there's a little bit left on that. Those trees are not necessarily exactly the density of the trees that are there, but we are providing more trees that area and we've located those trees before we go into the building. That number of trees includes what's there now and what's being added. The density might be a little bit off because we're using model trees there, but it shows me that with the trees in place, especially the view from the Northeast, it's pretty hard to see the building anyway and because of the angle of it, you can't see what the equipment on the roof. Okay. So your attention is you don't want to expend that money because it's unnecessary because from this angle, from the angle that you've shown us. I mean, we certainly understand the desire and need to screen things like that when they're visible. We just think that it's not critical to do that when they're not visible. We'd be screening. In fact, the screening might be more visible because we'd have to put the screening a certain distance away from all the equipment in order to provide the required access to equipment for maintenance and so on. So the screening is not visible in its attempt to screen the equipment that you can't see. All right. Board, have any comments regarding that? Hey, Matt, it's John. We actually have history of approving these unscreened, not in the very far past future for past history. So I don't have any problem with it. I wouldn't have had a problem with it if you could see them. So that's my take. Yeah. I'm okay with it. Brian, Jim, Alyssa? Yeah, this is Brian. I don't see any problem with it. Okay. Moving on to staff comment number two. The applicant is proposing a six foot high wooden privacy fence, which staff recommends the board require the applicant to remove for reasons discussed under PUD criteria related to the natural resources discussed below. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide additional landscape screening where the buffer is not densely planted or require the applicant to increase the setback of the retaining wall. Staff considers that a couple of more trees or shrubs of the desired effects. Can we see what we're talking about with the retaining wall? See ya. What would be the best slide to exhibit that? Probably the same plan. Well, if we're talking about additional plants, maybe the planting plan would be the best one to look at the planting plan. That's the site. That's the photography. I wanna be for that. Is that just one? Nope. The other way. Yeah, we did. There you go. I'll introduce this. This is Dave Marshall. In this particular case, you can see the proposed building that fronts on the street to the north and the proposed parking on the south side. What's covered up is the proposed drive entrance that would serve both the new 105 Swiss Street building as well as the 99 Swiss Street building. We'll get back to that later. Points of interest on this particular plan primarily have been over on the east side here where we worked with the city's arborist in identifying trees to be removed because they're poor conditions, these, or they might happen to be ash trees. So all of the ash are being removed as part of the management of this particular area.  But nonetheless, this particular plan does show eight to 12 new trees being planted on this east side as efforts to improve screening, but also to just supplement any cover for wildlife for very urban wildlife that may be occupying this particular area. Things that we had discussed in the past as far as at least active use areas were immediately east or the right side of the proposed building where we have a flat-ish area and we've modified plans to actually provide a pedestrian access up onto that upper plateau through a series of stairs. But Cynthia, perhaps now would be a good time for you to talk a little bit about the features of your landscaping plan so that the board can understand what your goals were and how they're indicated here. Sure. Well, I wanted to focus on native plants mostly because it will help the building blend into the natural surroundings. And plus with native plants, you end up having plants that live a lot longer than non-native ones. So that was a big goal. Another goal was to plant plants for pollinators which I think is really important these days for bees, butterflies, birds. So in this plan, there are a lot of shrubs and perennials that bloom that will provide habitat for pollinators. There are also a lot of native shrubs that will have berries to the winter and the fall. And I always like to plug those in for bird life. I also tried to create as much diversity as possible. If you create plant large masses of single species and if that species does not thrive, then you end up with big, big, bare dead areas. So I'd like to provide as much diversity as possible. And again, also providing native plants provides a lot of year-round interest, spring bloom, lush green, fall foliage, berries in the winter. So that's one of the main goals behind the planting poll. One thing that I'd like to add to just reinforce what Cynthia said is that some of the staff comments included adding some additional trees on that east side which we have done. So I just wanna make sure that was clear that we did add some additional trees there to make that space a little bit denser. We also, and just in terms of landscaping so that people understand the overall concept, because our vehicular parking and entrance where people who are driving to the site is on the south side. That is where our main interest is for people to ease of moving in, moving out with the dog. We've developed a couple of little terraces there, one for a seating area, another for a grill area, and that's at the end of the sidewalk there that you can see where the stairs lead up to this more open space that we've left on the east side. So yeah, in that area to the right, if you move your cursor to the right, you'll see the stairs that work to the green area there which will be a lawn area and preserved for folks to use. It's accessible if there are someone living here that can't use the stairs. It is accessible by coming out both handicap accessible entrances either through the bike area or the other entrance on Swift Street and out to the public sidewalk and up to that green area. The other thing that I'd like to point out and mentioned earlier how this building is designed in horizontal bands served by a central corridor. So you can see here, this is both a site plan and shows some building floor plans, but you can see how the units on the north side are a little bit deeper and the units on the south side are shallower but wider. Different kinds of layouts appeal to a variety of different folks taste of how they would prefer to live and we have a number of corner units which is nice because the building is small. So it has lots of nice features in the designs of the unit including a built-in washer dryers for every apartment and so on. So it's a very accommodating floor plan for lots of different uses. Mr. Chair. Are there any other comments or questions to the board, the staff regarding setback to the retaining wall or whether the plants are densely planted? Dave Marshall here, I just wanted to talk about the retaining wall comment from staff. They preamble to the red note actually provides some of the language where new commercial uses are introduced adjacent to residential uses and how to basically provide ample buffering between those two different land uses. In this particular case, we have a residential use that's being proposed next to a residential use granted multifamily versus single family but nonetheless, the regulations taught specifically about commercial use is being expanded next to a existing residential use. So we think it may be taken out of context with regard to the retaining wall that's slightly closer to the loose years property on the east side of the bright side of that particular ground. Now obviously you need to look at it based on your mind's eye, but nonetheless, other things that are a component of this landscaping and screening plan is the inclusion of the six foot high fence that occupies the area on the common property line between 105 Swiss street and the loose years property. The loose years approach the applicants at the city council meeting during interim zoning. And then again, for the sketch plan hearing and ask that particular fence be included in the project as part of the buffering between the two properties. You would need to zoom in on that pretty well to be able to see that fence component. Yeah, you can kind of see it. It's the dash with a single small circle. So that represents the six foot high wooden fence that would separate the two properties. And in this particular case staff had some concern that it might preclude, I'm guessing, perhaps animal wildlife movement in the east-west direction. We don't find that to be a valid statement. We can certainly leave an opening at the very bottom of the fence if necessary. But nonetheless, we felt very comfortable with this particular request of loose years as part of the program on dealing with buffering and separation between the two land uses as we have proposed. Well, this seems like an appropriate time. Well, the loose years certainly can make that comment to us in public comment if they wanna say something quickly now, they can as well, or they can speak in public comment if they wish to. Yeah, this is Craig Lucier. My father, Paul Lucier, that lives at 109 Swift Street, is on too. Correct. And yeah, that was basically the only requirement that we had asked them to kind of consider was to have a fence for privacy and security to kind of keep the properties separate. And we'd really like that to be retained in the plan. So you like it as designed, is that right Craig? Correct. Okay, thank you for that comment, I appreciate it. Yeah, they've done a great job of including us on this. And yeah, they did it exactly the way we had asked and... Okay, thank you very much, appreciate it. There are other comments on the board regarding that coming number two, it's not... Matt, it's me, it's Jeff. Go ahead, John, go ahead, John. I mean, I was just gonna say, from my perspective, I don't think I have a problem with it. We've got an awful lot of woods and fields and so forth to the south there so that I don't see... I mean, I certainly the fence could impact wildlife, but I think there's plenty of room to be able to get around it. Thank you. As long as you're headed out towards the first page, if we can go to the cover page of the staff report, that'll show the existing vegetation in the area. It'll show the Lucerus house as well as the 105 Swiss Street parcel and it'll just help everybody understand a little bit of what's going on there. You can see, again, the cyan areas where the 105 Swiss Street project is proposed, the Lucerus house to the right, and then as you go one further to the right of the Lucerus, you actually see that particular area much more heavily vegetated and as far as a place where there may be more south movement for wildlife, that might be a more viable location as far as being able to connect directly over to the UVM property on the home side. So it's free, provided they're good at avoiding cars. So anyways, that was, again, why we felt comfortable with the fence along that eastern or right side cyan blue line that would never represents common property line with the Lucerus. Okay, thank you, Dan. Staff coming number three, staff records more discussed whether to require the applicant to modify the glazing by providing larger vertically on windows to improve the transition between commercial to the west and residential to the east. I know we had some elevations earlier with the exteriors. So one thing before we start in on this, if you can remember the photos that we looked at, the existing condition photos, specifically of 99 Foot Street, it reinforces Bob Duncan's statement that what kind of long linear installations are those, Bob? So that's more of a continuous band of windows, which is very common in office buildings. And here we try to stay away from that continuous band. We didn't wanna relate to the office building exclusively. We also didn't wanna mimic the residential building exclusively. So we feel like we've achieved a balance between the kind of glazing that's on the commercial building and the kind of glazing that's on the residential building. I also wanna note that the windows are two foot 10 Y and that's the actual window itself. I think the staff comment referred to 2.6. And so two foot 10 and the windows are actually seven feet tall and the head height of the window is at eight foot four, but it's quite high and that's deliberate to get more sunlight deeper into the apartment. That benefits both sides really, but having that window go so high brings in quite a lot more light if you do your day lighting modeling. Okay, this is normally where I ask Mark to step in, but does any other board members have a question or a feeling about the glazing of this development? Well, I think it's John. They sort of mimic a French door or a slanted glass door. You can almost put a little fake Cinderella or what do they call it? Princess Juliet, thank you. But, you know, I have no problem with them. I think they're attractive. Okay, anyone else? Okay, moving on to staff comment number four. It's regarding landscaping. The applicant is not proposed adequate planning to meet the minimum required minimum budget, landscaping budget. Staff recommends the board acquire the applicant's updates or landscaping costs and increase the value pursuers to the standards discussed below. If you've taken a look at the landscaping budget comment and have a response, I don't want to do that. I think it's better to sort of revisit this one after the other landscaping comments are done. You want to put a pin in that one, Marla? Yeah, because if other changes are required, they may find that they've already met the landscaping budget by addressing the changes. So staff comments number five and six deal with the 18 inch oak tree and the 12 inch maple. Is there a way to keep them? Is the general question? I'll jump in on number five, Dave Marshall here. The design team met with the city's arborist who indicated that the 18 inch oak tree appeared to be kind of right in the way in regards to both sight lines as well as the proposed sidewalk. Actually, a previous comment from public works had asked why the 18 inch oak tree was remaining and they were jogging the sidewalk around it. So we basically chose to remove the tree. It's a nice tree, but nonetheless, I know I've sat in with a number of times with Justin Rabbit, where he has indicated to us exactly how sidewalk operators try to operate at three in the morning when they're removing snow and having jobs in the sidewalk. Just for the sake of having jobs doesn't really work very well. And in this particular case, because this is basically starting with a new pilot where there's no existing homes and that we followed public works directive and had that particular tree removed or proposed to be removed, I should say, that also assists with the sight lines as far as the driveway under certain scenarios. So we felt that we were doing all the right things despite the fact that we'd like to keep trees when we can. And out of all that, that's why you see this particular tree being removed and why we now have a street sidewalk running parallel with the street. And adequate sight lines that also have been addressed as a concern. So we thought we were doing the right thing unless that's the background on item number five. So David, does it tell you about the sight lines of people coming in and out of this property or? Or, of course, yes. The new driveway does create a potential conflict with that tree as far as sight lines, depending on where they stop in relationship to the sidewalk. Did I miss it? Did Justin have a comment, Marla, in this? Justin did not. Justin indicated that he had no comments on the application. So what he was saying is kind of news to me. I guess I understand why Justin wouldn't have commented because it wasn't something that he had designed an issue with. But we're vulnerable letting that kind of concern. Like, say, just one thing, having to jog around a tree, a little uncomfortable letting that concern be the deciding factor. So I would like to have a discussion of that and provide that feedback to the board. Those comments were actually part of the discussion. We told the board that we would address those comments and set forth. OK, thanks, Dave. OK. And then as far as the notice, I think maybe you can speak to that. Maple? The two times I was out there in the summer, it had absolutely no leaves on it. So I and all the other trees were fully leaves. So I just assumed it was not alive. Is that the opinion of the arborist, I guess? Do we have an opinion? Do we have to look at it? We did walk through a site with the arborist. And I didn't take detailed notes of each tree. But Cynthia, I think we looked at that tree together with the arborist and determined that it wasn't going to be worth saving. Because it didn't have leaves on it that time. OK, so we have a conversation that we don't have an official comment from Public Works Director saying the site line problem would be the oak tree and doesn't like to do jog arounds for snow clearance on sidewalks. And then a comment that the maple tree can't be saved. Well, it sounds like Dave remembers that comment from Justin being at Sketch. So we do have Justin's Sketch plan comments. So that's OK. I think that we're all smart people and can reconcile. Right. So I just found Justin's comment from Sketch. It says, the existing 22 inch oak tree east of the project's proposed drive may impact site distance. Please have the applicant review this issue and provide comment. And then it says, why does the applicant jog the new sidewalk to the north as a connection to this property? And that the answer is, obviously, there's a 22 inch oak tree. Ideally, it would have a consistent setback from the road as the property to the west of it. The sidewalk is outside the road. Right of way, is it the intent for it to be privately owned and maintained? So I read these comments from Justin as discussion points. I don't read them as this is the ultimate. We will never accept this project if there's a 22 inch oak tree. And if what Dave's saying is that this tree is a pretty decent tree, I argue that the city's goals of maintaining existing landscaping would potentially carry more weight than unless the site distance is truly an issue. And I don't know if Dave even speak to that. Again, depending on where you, because of the proximity of the crosswalk, some people will drive right out on to, excuse me, not a crosswalk, sidewalk. People drive right out on them. What you're supposed to do is stop before them so that if there's a pedestrian on this sidewalk, they actually have an opportunity not to hit. And depending on where you stop, that tree is in the way. So it does provide a conflict. And in this particular case, as far as I'm concerned, Justin has come back and said, OK, my comments have been addressed by his acknowledgment that he has no comments on the application. So again, public works and trees, this particular type of infrastructure is something that is going to be here for a long time. Trees will come and go. And in this particular case, this tree is in the way. So I would argue that public works comments are one piece of the puzzle. There's all the other pieces of the puzzle as well. I have highlighted that tree. I see what you're saying about the site distance if you stop behind the sidewalk. This may be a stop and creep forward kind of situation. I think that the board should ultimately make this call. And then what about the maple? Where do we last with maple? I mean, it sounds like if the maple's dead, it's dead. Yeah, we didn't have anything from sketch talking about the maple trees, even though we had. Right. I don't think so. So OK. All right. Any comments on the board regarding the trees? Oh, I see. Actually, I have a comment from the arborist at Sketch. The oak would be a candidate for retention. However, the sidewalk is much too close and will adversely impact the tree. So it sounds like Craig feels like this is a pretty good oak tree as well. I don't know if there's obvious. The oak tree or the maple tree? This is the oak. This is the oak. So nothing on the maple? Nothing on the maple. OK. And you said to put a pin in number four because of the six and seven or because of the. Yeah, if they're adding landscaping or skipping landscaping around, they're going to have to update their budget anyway. It may come out OK in the end. All right. Is that going to have any questions about the landscape budget minimum? Well, so it depends on what happens with staff comment number eight and nine. OK, well, first we're going to do seven. Snow storage. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate acceptance of snow storage in the wetland buffer by the state prior to approval. I'm sorry. You have that Dave Marshall here. We've removed in the most recent landscaping plan we've removed snow storage in the wetland buffer. OK, that's no longer part of the plan. That's correct. OK, regarding snow storage in the entrance drive, staff considers this will have an adverse impact on site distances that recommends the board acquire the applicant to find another location for the snow storage. The existing parking lot is uncurved. If trees are located greater than 10 feet behind the edge of the pavement, it's generally considered snow storage will not have too adverse an impact on the planting. So we've removed that from the intersection area as far as site distance implications in regards to snow storage. So that's been updated on the plan. No snow storage at the entrance drive, then, David. That's my understanding, yes. OK, thank you for that. Number eight, still on landscaping, the applicant's proposed perennials consist of small plants, some of which should be difficult to confirm, continue to exist as required under the landscaping bond. Staff therefore recommends the board require the applicant to place additional required planting to make up, release the minimum value, minimum required landscaping value on the east of the site and to replace some of the perennial value. We don't put perennials in our landscaping budgets. Is that what we do? I can't remember. The landscaping budget is allowed to consist of woody vegetation, unless the board finds that the site is otherwise well landscaped at which time they mail out credit for other things, including existing vegetation or hardscape features. OK, so that doesn't answer the perennial question. Are perennials considered woody vegetation in your eyes? They have never been considered woody vegetation. And this is a question that the development of the board is struggled with for some time, because a lot of people come in and they say, our site is well landscaped. It's covered in trees. Where the heck are we going to put another tree? So from time to time, the board does allow things like benches or planters or some perennials to be counted towards a minimum landscape value. This is something that the board maybe a year and a half ago said, OK, we're looking at how this is working. We're evaluating maybe we do start to include perennials. And so this comment is a slight departure from some of the comments we've seen recently, only because we're starting to see the effect of allowing these perennials and that they are sort of hard to keep track of. So the suggestion is to just play it a little less loose with the perennials. We really think about can we mostly meet with woody vegetation or at least things that are easy to keep track of. And then we make up a small portion of it in perennials. Marla, I think one of our first perennial efforts was related to stormwater retention areas where over at Bartlett Brook Apartments with Petzigale. And there are situations like that where I think they make perfect sense. This is not one of those. Marla, do you have a place where you describe that particular limitation? I'm just looking at the definition of landscaping. And it would include all things that this project is proposing. Yes, so landscaping is 13.06. And it's always exerted in the staff comments. See, under landscaping budget requirements. Thank you. You know exactly where that sentence is about trees and whatnot? No, I'm looking if you've exerted to see. I do. Here it is on variety of tree shrubs, grasses, and ground covers. That's landscaping and parking areas. Evergreen mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. 13.062, right. If I can have roof. Oh, here it is. There we go. So landscaping budget requirements, so 13.06g3. Development fee board shell requirement. All site plans are shown in table 13. Not evaluating landscaping requirements. Some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting. As long as the section is not reduced. So that sentence means the landscaping budget requirements is tree planting. Unless some kind of grant for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting. Yep, that's good. Just a point of interest that we haven't taken the credit for the retention of any of the trees. I also want to, I just looking at the revised landscape budget that Steve Terrio put together to address Marla's comment about the value here. And the revised budget estimate since we added more to the Eastern buffer is 40,105, which exceeds that minimum 31,380 by more than the value of the perennials. And so even if we back out the entire value of the perennials from our calculation, we'll still be meeting the minimum standards without taking any credit for trees retained for that matter. So I think we're meeting the requirement in that regard, even if perennials are excluded from the calculation. And Sam, that's where I thought I hoped we would end up with staff comment number four, is that it wouldn't really be an issue at the time we got through the rest of the. I would say that I think perennials are very important as part of as an element to these landscape plans. And so just, I would consider that the board should think about revised. I know you guys can't revise the language, but we want to have a variety of plants here. And as Cynthia spoke to, the perennials are an important part of the pollinator and native wildlife support that we're trying to get with this landscape plan. Noted, thank you. Appreciate that. Staff comment number nine, staff recommends the board required the applicant to provide tree and shrub planning details for the Arborist review prior to closing the hearing and to update their plans and costs for Piliacordata to reflect a tree installed at two and a half to three inch diameter. So additional details were just submitted. So they still need to be reviewed by Craig. Okay. So you have updated the tree and shrub planning. You've sent that in. Yeah. Sorry, I just need to go back. I'm looking at the landscaping budget that you submitted yesterday or today or whatever it was. And it looks like the total value is $26,015. $26,015 and then you have added to excluding the perennials. I'm sorry. And then you've added to that bark mulch, which is definitely not allowed in soil amendments, which is also not allowed, but those were only $800. So no big deal, we'll just skip those. And then you're taking credit for $6,800 of privacy fence. I don't, we can't just brush that on the rug. The board does need to explicitly allow that as a landscaping feature in order to have that come as a budget. Is there something you could show us? So this is that fence that we talked about, the six foot high privacy fence. Is there more detail that we can look at? I think I'm on the supplemental. So I don't know what else. Is this not in the packet, Marla, or the pieces that I have that you're looking at? I think you did. You're in, yeah, no, you're in the right thing. I was just looking at the pages three and two and three, I guess, if that's local numbers. So I was looking at the bottom line. I guess the question here is the privacy fence and allowable component of the landscape budget. Exactly, yeah. And so Dave, I assume you worked with Steve on this budget and felt like that was an all part of the budget. Or I don't know what the past procedure has been here. All right. So, board, we've all been through this 100 times on various projects. Do we wanna take a look at the landscaping plan in a little bit more detail? They've also got some patio areas that we've in the past given credit for. Papers, I know they talked about like a grill area. Not totally comfortable with the privacy fence, but you guys might be. And then again, for any of you to a certain degree, since you're right, they are an important element of a landscaping plan. So, some credit certainly appropriate whether to allow that to be a large fraction of the landscaping budget we discussed. I guess what I'm getting at is, is this the deciding factor and whether we, we're not to the end yet, whether we close tonight? They've got some issues with stormwater that haven't yet been worked out. Although we would be acceptable to a standard condition that we meet those particular requirements if the board so choose to close the hearing. So, I can kind of give you an update on stormwater. The stormwater section has reviewed the revised material. She just gave me a one line update at 5.15 tonight. The main concern now is that the water quality volume is modeled 2.9 inches, which has been updated in the Vermont stormwater management manual to one inch. I remember it barely passing that size so the one inch might not work. The board can allow conditions, as you guys know, that, you know, specific. I don't know that you can be specific if we don't know if the one inch storm is going to pass. So, your regulations call for- That's very technical, but my point is, I'm not sure that the stormwater design is close enough to close with a condition, especially because you can't do more testimony after the hearing is closed. We've complied with what your rules call for, which is 0.9 inches, and you don't reference the most current stormwater rules. So, we've met the rule in the, and I understand from our people that we can probably meet the one inch also, but at the same time, my frustration with staff is they keep changing the rules as we go forward. So, it's either the written rule or it's not. So, that's just my frustration with regard to that particular requirement. I don't feel like I'm following that back and forth very well. So, Matt, your land development regulations call for the applicants to design for a 0.9 inch water quality volume storm event. And the states recently changed their rules to one inch, but your rules still reference 0.9 inches. And we don't have to get a state stormwater permit, but the stormwater utility people are making reference to the new rules, despite the fact that your existing rules only requires 0.9 inches rather than one inch. So, that's what I'm getting at it as far as just rule sticklers. If you want one inch, then the rule should say one. So, that's at least me saying- I guess, so Marla, my question would be the city of South Carolina is not required to adopt the state rules, wouldn't the state change? So, on a site where the state rules don't apply, this can regulate in the wrong way. The LDR in this situation says, the water quality volume as defined in the Vermont's management manual for the lot or parcels in previous surfaces shall not leave the lot in the overland runoff and shall be infiltrated using the low impact development practices, but not, including when I'll mention you to practice detailed in the South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. I believe our quality volume as referenced in the Vermont's stormwater management manual is now one inch. Yeah. Now what, I'm sorry, that broke up a little bit. The answer is yes. The LDR says the water quality volume as defined in the Vermont's management manual for the lot or parcels in previous surface shall not leave the lot via overland runoff and shall be infiltrated using low impact development practices. So, it says use the water quality volume as defined in the BSNM. I think that's what the stormwater department is referencing. I mean- And then we can basically say that we're happy to provide one if that's what it takes to basically get us off this right here. That's not a problem. Where is the 0.9 inch reference, Dave? Well, I was looking for that, Marilla. I know my staff had more adamant about the fact that in reading the rules, now, if you have, if they're looking at an old set of rules, then that's our fault. And let's not take up a lot of time on this one. Okay, so can we go back? We're kind of moving around a little bit, but to number 10, I'll let's talk about the second entrance or the access, second access. And is this, as I recall from sketch, this is the same configuration access that you had at sketch? Actually, we- There's something changed. All right. I thought the pavement surface is the same as before, but we have modified it to make it only a one-way in. Currently, it's one-way with both an access and egress point for 99 Swift Street. And Delilah- Can we see a, sorry, sorry, David. Delilah, can we see the- There we go. Get into a map so we can see what's the significant point in this significant comment, whether we're going to keep the second access or not. And explain why you want that. To see what I have open. Going to be back to the back third of the application staff report will be where the civil plans are located. And so I do not have the benefit of my set up at the office. Got the page you want? Yes. On the left-hand side of the picture drawing, that represents the current Feral Drive, excuse me, Crow Park access off of Swift Street in the subtlety direction. And then as you come in off of Swift Street, you currently under today's conditions turn left into the 99 Swift Street parking lot. And under the proposed conditions, we're looking to make that a one way in for two reasons. One is our traffic consultant identified the fact that if we can again, coax as much traffic out to the new entrance, that's ideal only because it minimizes some of the conflicts with queuing on Swift Street during the AM and PM peaks. But also one of the primary reasons we kept that particular entrance is that in meeting with Fire Marshal Francis, they said they preferred that that remain open for their ability to basically access the site and move around specifically 99 Swift Street as part of a fire emergency access program. So we felt concerned with the request to close that off totally. We previously indicated that there were concerns with just creating a dead end parking lot there, but more specifically, Chief Francis made it quite clear that he preferred that that remain open and that's why we have done so. You're talking about the access on the western edge? Yeah, the western edge, that's correct. Yep. Yeah, so that's the one that, so rather than have, let me get this straight, the other access doesn't exist right now, but it does it. It does not. It does not. It does not. You cannot access 99 Swift Street, the office complex right now from there. You have to access it from the one that staff has suggested be closed off. So it's your plan or it's your preference that people going to both 99 Swift Street and the apartment complex go through that one, enter and leave that one access on Swift Street? Well, I don't think a human nature being what it is that people going to the 105 Swift Street new building will utilize the Feral Park common driveway that the point of least friction is going to be off of the new driveway, the proposed driveway that's centered between the two buildings. However, there are people that historically have always used that particular entrance from Feral Park.  Access road, the access road to Feral Park, yeah. We are proposing that people can still come in off of Swift Street and turn into the 99 Swift Street parking lot and to easily access those particular parking spaces because remember, it's both commercial and medical use in this particular building, but anybody would at once leave that that would be signed as being egress only. The fire department was quite clear that they wanted to keep that particular entrance for emergency purposes open to gain into access into the site. So we felt that that was a very clear, requirement that we keep that open. But at the same time, the traffic study or the traffic consultant recommended that that same thing that as a means of trying to improve upon the existing situation that we provide that as a one way in only because again, the conflicts are when you leave that particular driveway and get out and try to gain access to the street, you're closer to the traffic signal and hence also more conflicted with access during peak hours. So everybody's human nature is going to utilize the one that's furthest away to basically get you into the traffic stream with less resistance. But again, anybody that's coming off of Swift Street, we felt that the best thing to do was to keep that curtain cut open for now. And the staff's concern is that people are gonna go in through the outdoor and exit that access, even though it's marked as one way that people ignore the signs and then go out, exit that.  And then today's point about the fire marshal comments. I received no comments from the fire marshal. So, you know, if that's something you can forward to me, that'd be really helpful, even though I asked them. And I apologize, Dave, I'm frustrated too with that situation. Well, actually, they were included in the application materials in which we summarize the meeting with the fire marshal. Now you have to take our word for it, understood. But we have no problem with Chief Francis reiterating that particular request. Okay. So, Dave, so unclear is the change that happened at Sketch was at Sketch, that was a two way access and now it's a one way access. Is that right? That's right. Okay. I took the minutes of the Chief Francis and we submitted those minutes to him for review and approval and then submitted those as part of the application just to be clear of what happened. Yeah, okay. Melissa, Jim, John, do you have any comments on whether to keep this access that was configured right now? I'm fine with staff's suggestion of necking it down a bit, but I'm okay with it either way. John, I think that would be in the perfect world, that would be great, except for the fact that the turning movements of the emergency vehicles are probably going to need all of that. Yeah, I recognize that.  But I don't have a problem with it the way it is. Jim, Melissa? Yeah, I'd agree with John. I don't really have a strong feeling and if it's got to be this way to allow the emergency vehicles to have sufficient turning radius, then that's fine. I'm fine with it as well. Okay, me too, this is Jim. Okay, item number 11, applicant has proposed an extended sewer service to the building at 105 Sir Street at its western edge. At the sketch, staff recommended collaboration with interested neighbors east of the building in designing an extension to the adjacent property to the east, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate such a collaboration as an attempt at, is that assuming the Lucia property? Yes. Okay, so has that conversation happened with the Luciers? Steve Theriault, do you want to speak to that? Yes, I did have the conversation and they were not interested. And they also, they are on the comment where you can talk to them directly. Yep, yep, so I understand that. Paula, Craig, or would you like to comment? Yeah, this is in relation to the sewer line. Yeah. Yeah, I think Steve had talked to us about it and yeah, it was just not prohibitive at this point. So you're not on the line, you're on staff deck, right? Correct. Right, I don't know what to do here. Anyone else have a staff? Do you have any recommendation? The applicant is not required to build. Not an interest. Right, it's not, the applicant is not required to connect to adjacent properties, so we didn't want to extend the offer if the neighbor wanted to pitch in their part if they're not ready to do that this time. That's fine. Okay, and thank you, Craig, for talking to him. Item number 12, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide fully downcast and shielded ball of lighting to make the necessary corrections to the photo metric drawing. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. The consultant has made those provisions and submitted the application. Okay, that's it for staff comments. Made opportunity for anyone in the public who would like to comment on this preliminary final plot application to either enter your name in the chat box and say you'd like to make a public comment or to raise your virtual hand just by saying your name. Not seeing any, not hearing any, any other questions for the board or staff of the applicant, the applicant for staff of the board. Matt, I would recommend continuing this to December 1st. Most of the work is on our plate. And so I can take it and we don't need to continue them to do hearings to allow them time to make modifications. Say that again, I'm sorry, Marla. I would recommend continuing this to December 1st rather than the second December meeting because most of the to-do items are on our list. And so I can get those taken care of before the next meeting. Yeah, it seems like a very short list that we can take care of. So I would move that we continue. Matt, before you go on, don't we still have the question of the six-foot privacy fence, whether it's landscaping or not? I mean, that's pretty important. I was thinking the board would deliberate on that before the next meeting and then kind of provide feedback to the applicant on what they wanted them to do. Okay. One thing I would mention while we were talking about other things, I looked at the existing trees that were retaining. There's not 18 of them. If we were to only count pre-use shrubs and the Eastern side, we're about $5,000 short. I don't know what the typical value of an existing tree to be retained is, but if it were accounted at $300, we would arrive at the minimum landscape value. So just wanted to offer that as a possibility. Sam, it's John Wilking. Listen, the reason I wanted to bring up the fence again was that you've got a patio that's probably as valuable as the fence and we would ordinarily consider the patio. If the property looks well-landscaped and it does, we would start considering hardscapes. And so I was just going to suggest, let's drop the fence and add the patio and that way we're clean for the next meeting. If that's the way to account for it, that I'm sure we're fine with that. We'll be fine with that. Okay. Any other questions before I move that to, then I would move that we continue preliminary final plan application, SD-2037. Sorry, Matt. Matt, excuse me, it's Brian. Yep. Did we resolve the issue of the oak tree or are we doing that for deliberations? We did not resolve it. I assume we would save it for deliberations, but if we have any other, we can also ask for more information from the arborist if we're continuing, not closing. We have opportunity to show us the comments. That would probably be good to see what the arborist is. I think so too. I'd like to hear from Justin and the arborist before I make a decision on that and we can do that if we continue rather than close. So, Marla, if you could arrange that for us, that'd be great. And I would move that we continue preliminary final plan application, SD-2037 for December 1st. Do I have a second? Second. John. Seconded by John. Roll call. Alyssa. Aye. Jim. Aye. John. Aye. Brian. Aye. And Matt, chair votes aye. And this is continued for our next meeting on December 1st. Thank you very much, John. Thank you. And moving on to, yep, thank you. Moving on to agenda item number seven. Gend item number seven is a sketch plan. Sketch plan application SD-2038 of physicality properties to amend a previously approved plan unit development consisting of a 151,266 square foot shopping center, including an outdoor guard center, 55,000 square foot supermarket, a 3585 square foot banquet drive-through service, a 3,014 square foot standard restaurant and a 4,116 square foot short order restaurant. The amendment consists of resubdividing the existing parcels containing the 55,000 square foot supermarket in the roadway, abandoning a future city street, and constructing a commercial parking lot for the purpose of a shuttle lot at 218 Hannaford Drive. Who is here for the applicant? Robert Bouchard, who puts the galley properties. Hi Robert. Matt, this is Jim. I'm going to recuse myself from this matter. So I'm going to log out of the meeting. Okay, thank you, Jim. And we still have Alyssa, Jim, Brian and myself. That's four. That means we still have a quorum just barely. So we can continue. Mr. Bouchard, is there anyone else with you? No, it's just me. Just you, okay. It's okay. Good to have you. I just want to remind anyone that listening at home and to remind the applicant that this is a sketch plan. This sketch plan is a high level review and discussion where the applicant receives feedback from the board before the major elements of the project before it's fully designed. When we provide oral guidance which constitutes our determination that the application meets the purposes of self-buildings LBRs. These comments are helpful to guide the applicant but there is not a formal vote. There's no swearing in. It is not a binding decision. The next level review includes public notices and a formal public hearing. Okay. Tell us a little bit about what you want to do here, Robert. Okay. Well, first of all, thank you all very much for your time this evening. And Marla, thank you very much for all of your work on the staff comments. And she knows I'm thanking her and then I'm going to apologize as well. So about a year and a half ago, the medical center had approached us and asked if we could assist them with a problem that they have. And that was a parking shortage problem they have on the main campus. So they asked us to try and find multiple commercial satellite parking lots in Chittin County. Good access to the interstate. Obviously property that's appropriately zoned and like I said, a year and a half ago. So we've been looking quite a while. Obviously the medical center is an important community member, artist employee in the state of Vermont. So we were diligently to find them sites. This is one of a couple of sites we found. This is the one site we're concentrating on right now. It's a roughly three, well, it's actually a 2.8 acre parcel as it exists on Hannaford Drive. If you know where that is, that's directly east of the old Hannaford supermarket on Hannaford Drive and just the north of those home improvements. Property has been sitting vacant for about 25 years since it was the subdivision retail subdivision was created. Division of UD and let me just, I guess also start out by saying nobody likes seeing unnecessary parking lots or pavement when possible. The medical center has gone out of room on the main campus. And so they're looking to create these commercial satellite parking lots where possible to accommodate their employees. And this is really well situated and located right off the interstate. So anyways, here we are. Now, all that being said, Marla brought some very important information to our attention back a few weeks ago after we had submitted the initial plan. And that was that portion of the property that we had submitted the commercial parking lot on was really controlled by the city through an executed warranty deed. So we went back to not only Hannaford who has the master ground lease on the property, but we also went all the way back to Pamela Real Estate who owns the property through a subsidiary by the name of Southland Enterprises. And they all claim that that warranty deed did not exist. Well, it did. It was signed by Pamela Real Estate in 1995. And so that's why I apologize to Marla up front because a lot of work by staff was put in to these comments. And had we known that Hannaford did not control all this property, we would not have submitted the plan that you have before you now. We have since gone through actually a couple different revisions of that plan that I know staff has not had time to comment on even though they have them. And I was hoping maybe Marla could present them to you just for comment's sake, perhaps tonight. But the last, the latest plan I submitted, I think late last week to Marla basically does not involve any of this, I'm gonna call it the city control property which is basically the intended extension to Fayette Drive that runs North and South. So that's kind of where we are. Can I interrupt just so I can get some clarifications from either you or Marla? So the extension of Fayette Drive would connect to the former Kmart now, new Hannaford property, is that correct? Is that how it's drawn out on the map? If you were to draw a line and have Fayette Drive continue literally almost runs right just outside the front door of the new Hannaford supermarket, obviously not ideal. It's not what Hannaford wants. I think Hannaford has already granted a separate easement of the road that goes right behind Burger King and goes around their new parking lot and out onto Queen City Park Road. However, the official city map shows the extension of Fayette Drive and going right by the front door. Marla's showing that or Delilah is showing that. And so we spoke with Hannaford and their first comment is, no way, that road's not gonna go through there. And I'm like, well, okay, that's fine. I appreciate that. But it does appear on the official city plan and Marla is correct in saying that in order to remove it and release this warranty deed, you'd have to get the council approval. So that's just a little more detail now. So I assume you're not gonna, you're not going that route, is that right? I don't think we're gonna go that route, no. So what are you gonna do now then? Well, Marla, would you be willing to present the plan that I submitted to you late last week? Yeah, so that Delilah, that's in the supplemental for this project. But I did wanna note that some of these staff comments are still applicable, you know? And one thing Hannaford's attention to is that there are some plans in the packet that show the overall approved PUD. This project is part of, or I guess it's just the one sheet in the pocket. This project is part of the PUD that includes the former Hannaford's property, the Lowe's, the Burger King, the Olive Garden, and the bank, so I can't remember which bank it is. And also approval for another six buildings in the PUD. So, you know, as we talk about on other large, multi-phase developments, it needs to be considered in the context of what this approval, if approved, would do to the developability of the remainder of the PUD, just for context. This is the old PUD, right, Marla? Yep, and it needs to be right. If you rotate it 90 degrees to the left. No, that's right. So, go to one more page down. One more than that, all the way to the bottom, last page. That's the amended PUD. So, that's what the current approval is. So, it shows Lowe's as it exists, Hannaford, former Hannaford on the right, former Kmart and now Hannaford on the bottom, or below that, yep. And so, Delilah, can you put your mouse over where the parking lot is proposed? Yeah, that area is where this UVM shuttle lot is proposed. So, we're looking at, this is from 1990, right? When was it built? So, it originally proves in 1995, I believe amended in 2011 or so. So, this envisions the street connecting, does it imagine it connecting to the new Hannaford site? So, the PUD only had it to the property line, it didn't have it. I see, got it. Oh, that's great. Thank you for the zoom in. And then it has two buildings on that parcel. Right. Right. Okay, so obviously we're not, this is a parking lot without the two buildings, would be the built change. Correct. Okay. Now I'm gonna jump to what Bob sent, most recently to Marlon. So, this plan, as you can see, the property to the east, which is the, let's call it the Fayette Road extension, we are boarding all together. So, the city can retain control over that piece for the potential extension to Fayette Drive, because I think it's gonna be a challenge to get the city council to relinquish the rights that they currently have on this piece. And the 2.3 acres, which is the rest of this area to the west, which is where we're now proposing the satellite parking lot is, as you see it, and with the rest of the PUD, it doesn't even begin to, I don't think approach maximum lot coverage. I think it's currently at 35% for the whole PUD. This brings it up to about 44.9%. It accommodates the proper setbacks to the city control property. I'm gonna keep, I guess, calling it that.  And that's it. I guess it's a lot more straightforward now without trying to deal with that, the piece of property that the city controls. I think, Marla, you agree with that. It is less complicated. Yeah, I'm sorry. It is less complicated. Less complicated. Bob, is there shelter or something on the site for those that get dropped off and are waiting for the commuter bus? No, the hospital did not want that. Okay. No, all you have here in the front is a bike rack. So can I ask an annoying, obvious question, Robert? Which is, just to the west of there, you have a parking lot that's not there yet. That wasn't considered as using as a, because it's attached to the, you know, I'm talking about the old Haniford parking lot.  It was a good observation. And a good idea, like I said, you hate to see parking like this put right next to, I guess, consider like a vacant parking lot. And that, but that's what that is. Haniford is currently trying to release that site to another retail user. So the prospect of them, they won't commit to leasing us those parking spaces. You know, we get permits. We get pricing today for the construction of the satellite lot that you see there. The pricing is going to change. The hospital likes, you know, a consistency. You know, if we were, for example, to use the lot next door, which is the old Haniford site, and then they found a tenant for that building. Of course they want that parking. Oh, wow, we need to move fast. Right. Could be in the middle of winter. We can't start the project. Say we're in that temporary lot for two, three, four years. We're amortizing the original idea of the original satellite parking lot over a 20 year term. Well, now it's a 17 or a 16 year term. So the rates, everything changes for the hospital and they can't do that. We have to give them a firm consistent number that they can deal with for the term of the lease. And so it's just too many variables. Plus Haniford, big, big company, big company. And they don't like those, you know, they, we mentioned it to them. They don't like the idea of us saying, hey, will you temporarily lease this? And listen, when you find a tenant, give us, you know, six or eight months advanced notice before they want to move in. And then we can go in and build this new lot that didn't go over to. Yeah, no, that makes sense. The other question I have before I go to staff's comments is a lot of the board has questions, but building this lot wouldn't preclude, building a parking lot on this lot wouldn't preclude future development here where you could return to the original PUD plan to build two stores here. Absolutely not. Okay, so let's step through the comments that are still relevant with the new configuration. We're not gonna talk about Fayette Road. So we'll go to number three. Well, I think it's somewhat important to talk about a certain element of Fayette Road. And that may be, oh, shoot, where did I put it? So the application or the approval for the PUD says that the roadway must be constructed prior to occupancy of the first business with the first business in a building on lot in, what is it? The first building, sorry, I wish I could find the text of it, I'm trying to remember exactly what it said. The first business opening in buildings D, E or H. So our interpretation is that was written to say that the road has to be built before you develop the parcels around it. I think that it is wordsmithing to interpret it to mean, okay, just because this parking lot doesn't have a building that's not a business. I think the intention of the drafters of that decision was that this road be constructed at the time of development of the adjacent parcels, unless the development of these adjacent parcels is for the purpose of one of the existing building, existing businesses on the site. Does that make any sense? Well, what if it were a dog park or something like that? Would that still be interpreted as building that road? Yeah, or a city park, any city park. Yeah, or isn't the road to accommodate the building rather than the land? There was a road to accommodate access, whether or not, if the lot was going to be visited by vehicles. I think. It's a while, it's, boy, it's not like this road goes through to the little Cape Art site. It was going to circle the building E and D. Yeah. Well, if there's no building D and E, then what's the circle? There's no point. Well, yeah, I mean, we're adding more impervious surface by adding a road. Do you mind if I share the rest of that for a second? Yeah, do you got permission? Hold on. Yeah, I do. I have it up. I think this is a great question because I think that this is a tough question. So this is what it actually says, the highlighted section. Calling road section shall be substantially complete other than the final cost of the paving and other incidental punch list items prior to the first business opening in any one of the more, any one or more buildings, D, E, or H. It is no building, I don't know. Brian, Brian, how do you read that? Jim. I hear that it's tied to businesses being open, which sounds pretty specific. If there's no building, I don't see the requirement for the road. But I think the contractors contemplate that a business might exist without a building. That's too bad. Brian, what do you think? Jim. Yeah, Jim's conflicted out, but I don't think this applies to our current position. Prior to the first business opening in any one or more of buildings, D, E, and H, I thought I heard that none of those buildings have been constructed. Is that correct? Right. It feels like a loophole. It feels like a business enterprise. Yeah, it feels like a loophole and not an intention. If the drafters of this had known that it was possible for a business to be proposed on this property that did not require the use of the building, do you think they would have drafted it this way? I don't think that's the right question. I don't think that's the right question. I'm afraid that the way Vermont zoning law works is that if ambiguities or omissions to ignorance or lack of foresight on the part of the people that drafted these, they're construed against the municipality and in favor of the person seeking the use. So in other words, if the plan position way back when or whatever it was that wrote this really thought they were doing something else but they didn't quite have their hands around it, I don't think that's something we can remedy. I think we just apply it as it's written. I think as well, the other issue here is this road is never going anywhere without a building H. And so, I mean, this is the road to nowhere if you build it. It makes no sense to build it at this point. In my opinion, the only reason you would build this is if Pizzagalli later wanted to put in those two buildings that are on this lot, or if building H on the other side of Fayette Drive would get built. So it's a waste of effort, it's waste of money. I wouldn't do it anyway. Number three, staff considers that commercial parking space does not necessarily exclude shuttle service. Recommends the board discuss whether they consider the use that's fitting into the definition of commercial parking as allowable subject to conditional use review use. Parking, commercial or private. A parking area owned by a business establishment, membership association or organization placed in place of worship or similar use that made available by owners or occupants for the exclusive use of clients, customers, employees, members, owners, tenant plus ease or occupants of said business establishment, membership associations or organizations placed in place of worship or similar use. Such commercial private lot may not exist on the same lot as a principal use. Yeah. This is Bob, this is Robert, this is only for UVM medical center employees, correct? Correct. Yep, that seems to fit the definition. Yeah, that's what we thought. Any other comments? Okay, number four, staff recommends the board ask the applicants to demonstrate that their request approval does not preclude development consistent with the approved PUD. I think I asked that question earlier, but just to reiterate, Robert, you build this parking lot, you can still build buildings, what is it, H? That's three other buildings or the two other buildings on the PUD? Absolutely. And we would not be seeking a subdivision because it's just part of the original PUD. This is going to go in the location of us. We're avoiding the city control property. This is in the location of building's D&E though, right? It's, I believe so, Marla.  Yes, D&E. Yeah. So if you wanted to build a D&E, you'd have to tear up the pavement. Right, oh yeah. Some of the pavement. Yeah, so with that revised plan that I think Marla and Delilah had up for a moment, so what we attempted to do there was again, address the setback issues from the city control property because now you've got basically a separate lot that we're adjacent to. So we're trying to set back appropriately and then we'll have obviously all the appropriate landscaping and we made accommodations in that satellite lot for emergency vehicle access. We have just a single curb cut and it works pretty well. Okay, number five, similar to a lot coverage above staff requirements of board required, the applicant demonstrates that allowing the traffic associated with this use would not preclude development consistent with the approved PUD staff. Notes, trip credit for connections for adjacent parcels is available. The applicant cannot demonstrate the approved PUD would fall under the maximum allowable trip ends. They should consider credit for the required connection and their calculation. Okay, that's calculating all the number of trips in your PUD. This still falls under it, I assume. Does, I mean, I would imagine, if you give us the go ahead to proceed, whether it's another sketch, so staff has a chance to create comments for the revised plan that we submitted or on to prelim and final, we'll be doing traffic study, you know, for the city to review. Right, okay. We'll get all those on paper, yeah. Great, thank you for that. Number six, staff requirements of board discuss whether they should consider diagonal parking on one side if so considers that the applicant should coordinate with the director of public works before pursuing such a course. That's only relevant if there's a road. Okay, okay, and that is it for comment. So how do we proceed now? This is, I don't, I can't remember one quite like this where sketch has changed because of, do we continue, well, ask for public comment, of course, but we have to continue the sketch so we can get the new sketch before they go to preliminary plot. Is that right, Marla? Or do we not, does he have enough information that we don't have to continue sketch? Delilah, can you maybe show, I love your side-by-side, this is great. Can you maybe show on your left-hand screen the originally submitted plan? On the left-hand screen, yes. Now we're gonna expect this all the time, by the way. Oh no, no, never, no. Let me just make it color, hold on. So the staff comments are on what's shown on the left side of the screen. They're rotated from each other. I can rotate it, hold on. I think the one on your left is. That way. It's good, well, okay, nope. There may be degrees. Get in there, a couple more. One more? Two more, I think we need it. Well, two more either way. There we go. So the one on the left is the one originally submitted? Right. Correct. The one on the right is the revised, without leaving the area that could be the road alone. So it's really one fewer bay of park, oh no, you move that top bay of parking to the left. Yeah, we do have less. We were at 230 with the plan on the left and we're at 212 now. So we have 18 less. And you have a sidewalk on the one on the right. Right. And a sidewalk here. Have you done anything for screening because the parking areas are required to be screened? Well, we will landscape appropriately of course. And so, there's gonna be a fair amount of landscaping here. Can we add a requirement that the hospital builds the campus over in South Burlington now? I'm sure Bob would be happy about that as well. I don't know, board, it's up to you guys. I feel like this doesn't need to come back for a second sketch, but. Yeah, I've seen enough. Robert, are you all right? Fine, yeah, happy to take it to prelim if that's okay. So our next submission will be a full set of drawings. Okay, I have one question. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Lyle, and maybe Marlar already asked a question, but I, you know, it was Paula and her who did the comments on this. Is this 24 seven? Is this close some days of the week, evenings? That's a very good question, Lyle. Very good question. I don't have the answer to that. I would say it is not 24 seven. No, but why don't you let me get the answer to that. The hospitals in the process of getting me actually where the people are coming from that would be using this parking specifically. And, but they did not give me the hours of operation. We had assumed it was going to be, you know, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., but I don't know that. Okay, thanks. I'm happy to submit that. So just now that I'm looking at it in this rotation, I did just notice this guy here. Why are we not kind of to there? Well, what is that? That's, yeah, when Hannover leases that building, I'm not sure that they're going to want people coming out onto their parking lot. That's part of the Haniford parking lot, the old Haniford parking lot. Was that where that access road was supposed to go in the original approval? Is that what that's from? What are you, what are you showing? I'm looking at the- There's not a curb cut there. That's just been, I think it is emergency pull-off in the Haniford parking lot. No, I found it. It's in the approved PUD plan. You can see that it's supposed to be connected to the parking lot for buildings, D and E. So I guess- I mean, generally, the UDs- I'm just saying how to feedback box so we don't like to touch you on starting later. Have connected shared, like shared parking, connections through the lots to avoid traveling on the public streets. And that is a requirement of commercial districts. Haniford Drive is a bit of an odd duck because it's a public road that has, that there's an agreement with the city to not accept it unless it fails to be maintained. So I think that LDR requiring connections, cross-lot connections may apply to this. Security is a pre-concerned for the hospital. You can appreciate that. Security of people's cars in a parking. Yeah, this will be a controlled and secured satellite parking lot. So will there be a gate? Yes. There is a- Will they be, they'll like have parking stickers, they'll have parking stickers and things like that? Like, you're right, Delilah. There may not be a gate. There could be just parking stickers, but it's my understanding that it will be secured. Okay, so. No fencing around the site or anything like that, but I think the entry will probably have a gate, and it won't, I'm not really sure. We haven't gone to that detail yet with the hospital. Yeah, so yeah, whether it's a key card or, you know, a booth or whatever it is, we'll have to see that at Perlin, right, Platt? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I'm not putting my finger on it instantaneously, but I'm nearly certain that there is a requirement for cross-block connections in the commercial zoning district. So just to not blindside you at the next stage of review, you probably want to take a hard look at that. Okay, we can speak with Hannaford about that too. Yeah. Cross-block connections, okay. Yeah, and we can talk about it, you know, between now and your next application too, but I just want to make sure it's out there. Okay, no, I appreciate that. Okay. All right, so now's the time, if there's any one in the public that would like to comment on this proposal sketch plan, you can enter your name in the chat box or just say your name, checking the chat box, not seeing anyone at this time, not hearing anyone, then I have enough, I don't see any to continue this, if the board is in concurrence, then we'll just say goodbye to Robert and see you again sometime. Well, we'll see you at the preliminary. Yeah, thank you very much, appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks, Bob. Okay, next item on the agenda is agenda number eight is the minutes from October 20th and November 4th. I've reviewed the October 28th minutes and the November 4th minutes. I didn't see any changes. Does anyone have any suggestions or changes? Hearing none, I'd make a motion that we approve the minutes from October 20th and November 4th. Second. Seconded by John, we can do this by voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that's four, zero. And last item on the agenda is other business. Does anyone have any other business? Hearing none, that concludes the South Prolonging Development Review Board meeting for Tuesday, November 17th. You all in December. Thanks, happy Thanksgiving. This conference is no longer being recorded.