my concern i my concern was there's one my welcome to the south burlington development review board for tuesday april third two thousand and eighteen first on the first item on the agenda is direction on emergency evacuation procedures and if there is an emergency you can all go out the way you came in or we've got these two doors here and we will meet in the south parking lot which is right behind me straight ahead for you and we want to make the same roof line twenty five foot refined to be consistent with the front of the office and so this is the existing shading on december twenty first we intend into the afternoon and so you can see there's all there is an impact on their home on their back so there's already a back there so if we go down a walk through a couple of the difference areas so that is obvious is the coast conditions now we've patio so no different that's december twenty percent august heat greatest appreciating that this property will see as a result of the new addition which is fairly similar to what the previous twenty first so this is indicative of you know spring solstice you know when when folks are generally starting to come outside more spend more time outside of your properties we can see the current shading no impact whatsoever so between you know sometime between before march twenty first the shooting impacts subside back to argue our property so i will march twenty first all the way through the summer months through much unless anyone has any questions on other items i'm going to go directly to staff comments you've seen stuff comments i have yes ok the first one is that stuff recommends the board choir the applicants revise their plans to show that removed partly over this must be seated so just to show all of the plans that you're going to do what you just said i'm going to do so i actually resubmitted the landscaping plan yesterday and providing the electronic copy  so it shows i had spoken with marlo earlier and she went over the comments with me and and there it is it is now updated to reflect that comment great vegetation within the stream buffer is prohibited so and so i discuss it as well and we have no intent on coming any trees actually prohibited to the trees and listen to see steam but we would worry that to happen there are none that were thinking of doing that  closing in the front porch and lowering the grate i'm aware of all of those pieces but we're really looking at a total here down to the concrete pad everything of share that i feel that the design of it is in this drawing and i'm hoping that for me and i talk the other day i am forming their windows color of science things that could we have no we start preservation binding regulation that affects the proper who are going to do bore samples to evaluate the stability on that area and i will follow their recommendations i welcome sharing their findings with you you and i are in the same boat that i would desirable aspect of lower in the great there are two main point is to have light and views in what is currently dark basement and  right now the grade is half way up in the basement while the other is when we are unfortunately and i have to put in a new foundation due to deterioration of the old one so there will we will have to do some excavation there but that could always be back filled once it's complete so to more precisely answer your question would be for light and for of use should we is not eliminating something that's approved is not an issue that requires coming back before the board if he was going from no return well two or ten well then that might trigger come before the board of the board retaining wall integrating and he doesn't do it i don't think that triggers coming back before you just leave it natural that making a change well i'm asking i get it it but well that's what puts a engineering information is you're not approving the engineering of the building of the soil it's basically because it's a reconstruction of a house with an hundred fifty feet of lake in the sensitive area so we've never had to board has never asked for that information just a quick skim of the a political standards that are in the stuff commons i don't see any standard which we could reasonably applies something  to long term stability so just as a hypothetical if we had a completely reckless homeowner who got imaginary report and said well there's a fifty fifty chance you know oh slope is going to slide into the lake we would have no power to the board would not there's other mechanisms that would ok good to know building thousand seats a twenty two thousand five hundred square foot restaurant medical office a thirty five hundred square foot restaurant with the service and a bank drive through service men and consists of constructing a four story forty seven unit residential building at one we're here to address two specific issues which one of which was left open and one of which was a little ambiguous at the last year and so to set the record straight on those two items and finalize the application  one item was i stated at the last hearing that the street lights in the parking area were to be fourteen feet in in an effort to get them more to human scale in that fifteen ok so we have there's also going to be a third light pole required because they're shorter than originally proposed and we'll have site plans and photo metrics for you we have hard staff asked us to address was the with of the entry drive into the departure here for the micro garments and divina and separating it from the adjacent parking structure  what what made i just don't understand why the fourteen foot comment was in there was your misunderstanding about what they were doing i simply made a statement we were talking about the height of polls at the last hearing and i said fourteen no comments questions for me on that want to just discuss that first if they're proposing one additional parking lot like fixture beyond what the board has reviewed do we yet i will add that the third fixture was necessary to notch the photo metrics required but know that's a level that you could walk and see and but point to  problem with that i just might it seems to me that the skunks on the back of the existing building could throw more light and fix this i don't know the specific numbers exactly but i think it's in the owner's best interest to provide a secure area in and out of that garage and i think not knowing the impact right now i think if they're if it's on acceptable they would shoot to approve it in order to have safety and security of that garage yet not on purpose my concern is much senate thing is you've got people coming out of that garage you get people merging from these apartments at the same time they've got to be able to see each other you've got walking traffic theoretically these are these are micro units right so many people probably won't drive so i'm a little concerned about people walking so if you if you just take a look at i think functionally a work much better for everybody in the community the residents the parking structure itself i think everybody was in we just didn't know how to accomplish it a lot there are nice things we're doing with the city and we're able to it on the western and the one fifteen for no reason that we were able to discern and it seems like there's additional impervious that doesn't need to be on the western side creates proposed right now for the medical center building is proposed to be leed certified and they're proposing a substantial a on the roof there will be just as you come in to the main drive and right hand side a series of electrical vehicle parking stations with logical vehicle charging stations as well  obviously we're here for sketch review and what i really was hoping to do is just i know it's not a formal approval but just to get the boards thoughts and consensus on the plan before we moved on to question they like to just move into stuff comments questions so first stuff come in is how the property isn't going to provide visual and physical access to open space so previously the building away so the buildings now kind of look at each other they have a nice connecting walk and the building also now connects to the with an extended sidewalk to the right path sugata interconnectivity between the buildings in addition to the sidewalk the parking lot as well have a connecting drive on the rear part of the site for  well could i was wonder if you could keep the picture of the parking lot here because i when i was going not so much the number of spaces but whatever breaks it up by those little white islands landscaping and barriers that would that is right there is a specific obviously there's a specific requirement for the landscape interior landscape islands and should be that is i mean this is again this is sketch disciplinary frank  in nature at this point time but we will make sure that we meet that requirement well yes that's all the requirement is my instinct or my we says i've read it right now it just doesn't look like a nuff to break it fifteen point zero seven acres but i'd say over half of it is well and and well and buffer to class two albums so we're doing our best to stay out of that i think ideally but we have to submit our soil findings to the state i'm not sure if you where the storm water regulations have really changed and they don't want these kinds of ponds any more they want filtration so by our attention area comes into play so if they deem that the soils could accommodate infiltration that's rich going to see us do if they deem that the in there that is being discussed through the lead certification process you know we might we might be concerned that tanks pumps expensive but we're looking at it lead the lead process has really changed recently went from a thirty point minimum to a forty point minimum to achieve certification and what once was maybe you'd consider in all four of what takes system now it's almost mandatory you know i realize that i'm gathering to the left of the park iraq the sort of the bill is great shape is the is the is it a rough representation of the zoning regulations changed where now we have to adhere to the current regulations which dictate that all the parking goes behind the building when one ninety two was developed the cards could be some of the parking to be put the front and that's ideally what i would have come to with was the building in the middle the site with the parking shared all around it but i can't do that no accordance with the current joining regs so all parking must be in the rear so that's why you look it looks like you've got that massive parking because we're trying to hide all parking behind the building that this plan was this i'm sorry marlo this plan was previously an alternate to this plan was previously approved by the development you board fully and which was identical to the building on the left just from the buildings twenty feet tall ok john you had a comment but i think you just made it you know my biggest cup is what about perking and the fact that planning is regulation of putting them all behind buildings doesn't make sense in many conditions and we should have the ability what is the front you know you know if you want to argue hard enough about it you've got the highway looking good at the other side of it is that the front you know i think i think there's this is a perfect example of something where mirror ed building would have looked great and and they're having to take a step back in order to fit the regulation that doesn't so that's might obviously we should hear mark bears comment as well is this something we should put on a list oh this is awkward because on this particular project i completely agree with john which is rare eno i mean but but i am hesitant to use that as a wage to have a general rule that gives us more latitude i mean i just it's so screaming what john's point is screamingly obvious  do we have some latitude in this case to can we collaborate on defining a front i mean are you open to changes you just want to get you know one side of it can have work whichever side is the front coming and and you know order to get close to what looking like what the other one does you would at least have to have a drive on the interpretive requirement one two three four specifically focus on if possible right well one says can be maybe be modified to penny the extent of share parking right now they got access to three sites so would that fit the definition of better internal circulation efficient general circulation i agree with you but look look great tell us what the exceptions are years very specific exceptions of the you have to he has to meet these in order to be it a fair amount of time working with ray model paul about this issue he actually brought the original plan and that was previously approved gone four years ago right there about something you remember this oh yes ninety two and this is one ninety four is that technically a public street still or could it be made what prime was what she referred to one that goes between the two buildings separate drive that comes in they would have a right two buildings i think we can certainly look to dress that up and i think that's kind of really the objective maybe with some rock walls some obviously we've got a healthy landscaping my discussion with with that with them about the creation of the park so it might be a different conversation you might be getting different answer because you have a different kind of project that has time to just totally reasonable of the was there would have been comments or questions on the minutes so i just i just have a question i see we're going from the narrative version to the legal minimum necessary i don't think it's bad to tell you the truth which you and i think you think we're actually called mr caught that  snarky remark that when we go illegal as in having to live close to liberation we go a little all the way raise response was well you know don't you like your clients to follow advice and that stopped me for a minute but here's here's here's my considered response which is that there was a different relationship between you and i understand staff feeling badly and that at least in their recommendations by what counsel recommends we are distinctly not bound by the council  recompense i wouldn't ignore it ever but not only do we have the right we have a duty to make our own determinations and that's what we should be doing questionable cases and whenever anybody  service she's been a long time to the city and a good friend to me and and she'll be missed and that should make it into the