good what welcome everyone to the town of wilson's development review board for tuesday august twenty eighth two thousand and eighteen we're going to bring the meeting to order at seven o six three items on the public hearing a public hearing agenda and there is a there's another some correspondence that we're going to go through later on but first up tonight is deep eleven dash twenty three point three the ice from family farm this property is currently developed as an operational farm with retail sales of farm and forest products and historic barn used as a banquet facility the project history this is the third amendment  to deep eleven bash twenty three in april twenty sixth seen the d r v approved an amendment to allow the barn to be used as a banquet facility in march twenty four teens the  approved the first amendment to allow for an expansion of a gravel parking area adjacent to the sugar house and dairy farm and then the original permit was in august twent eleven to establish an indoor farmer's market in the restored barn and the parking area adjacent to it for the use on the property the application is made maintaining the existing agricultural and bank facility uses they are allowed in the stunning district and the by law chapter thirty one point twelve point five allows that historic barns listed on the state or national register locations a new access drive from fieldstone drive widening the access road north of the park and removing the port access south of the farm the applicant is not proposing changes t to grass a culvert will be installed for the access point north of the barn the driveway will be widened to eight hundred feet for two way access the existing holder will be removed and new cover install line each side of the driveway an angle outward not just interfere with vision triangles visitors will not be prohibited from exit in directly on to ok road from this driveway for the access south of the barn the to curb cuts will be removed the gravel replaced with turf a roll of boulders will be used to close off the area to vehicles boulders and the public right of way will be moved onto the property some of the gravel driveway directly adjacent to the south eastern corner of the barn will remain as a walkway about five feet away and the application is also proposing changes to the parking area it will remain and paved and it's a grassy area it is located outside the fifty foot front yard setbacks from both killed road and fieldstone drive a large portion of the existing seventy six space parking area is located within the  buffer and about forty five spaces are located within the class to wetland itself the applicant proposes to relocate the parking area outside the welcome buffer and reduce the parking area to forty four spaces it is important for the board to consider the amount of parking provided chapter fourteen sets the requirements for off street parking the purpose forty four spaces would meet the parking requirement for a gathering place with one hundred seventy five seats based on table fourteen point three bicycle parking spaces would be required the board must decide on the bicycle parking requirements as allowed by the chapter fourteen th amount of bicycle parking where the location or nature of the proposed development makes the use of basic rules highly unlikely the applicant has not identified accessible parking with a forty four space parking lot a minimum of two spaces must be accessible by law also states that no accessible spaces are required where valet parking is provided however an accessible loading zone is required staff recommends that final plans identify accessible spaces and or a loading zone to the bar signage for excessive parking is for them or at the applicant has not provided a landscaping plan landscaping should be adequate quick so visitors can differentiate the grass driveway and grass parking area from the wetlands community garden and all other areas not designated for driving or parking wetland buffer should be physically delineated to keep vehicles out of the wetland staff recommends a combination of large boulders and landscaping on the access drive and wetland buffer from field soon drive to the existing greenhouse south of the parking area conditions are drafted below the applicant has identified a class two well and and they're proposing to move that parking area from the wetland their new changes to traffic intensity expected they are addressing storm arrived water by installing culvert the applicant is not proposing outdoor storage for new structures after lighting the police department and fire department did not respond to a request for comments the department of public works responded that they had no comments however the applicant had talked to bruce for prior to submitting the application to talk about the curb cuts the conservation commission reviewed the application i guess fifteen twenty eighteen and approved the recommendation that the whiteman buffer must be physically delineated to keep vehicles out of the wetland reiterating the staff recommendation staff recommends an approval of this discretionary permit but the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval listed as know the moment ok award questions all first question the gravel that is behind the barn is going away entirely good ok now that's we're handicapped parking and i will be ok that's on you know the other thing is that means that by rubber apparatus can get right in where the old gravel lot is right and that's all i need you have a business that's because the gravel behind the barn isn't even one so it's sort of so this is a master sign plan for the farm at thirty five fifteen oak hill road the applicator is proposing to add new and directional and free standing signage in addition to the existing signage  public works are which is only allowed all by the by i chopped a twenty five through the approval of a master same plan in this case a master sign plant is your fire because the applicant is proposing a greater number potential signage in this stunning district that is five percent of staff or trees with the applicants calculation two thousand one hundred twenty one square feet for the area of the building and street facing area of the building which would allow for a maximum potential area of a hundred and six where the the applicant is proposing forty six square feet scientists not propose the applicant is not the posing window  share the same stand in the ground share same mounting structure the board should consider if two free standing signs with the total combined area of above sixteen b are provable with special findings instructed below permits to ensure that it does not consist constitute a hazard to drivers cyclists or pedestrians the merrills are pastoral me and question against the building and meet the requirement special findings the applicants proposed to freestanding signs totaling twenty four square feet be permitted but only if the dear be as willing to make specific findings that these signs are consistent of willis comprehensive plan and the intent of w t v after twenty five we have drafted those findings thank you for your turn again yeah i just i just trying to figure out why we need to have a special program of another sign when there's one there already and we're not really changing the purpose of the site or the uses so why not just make do with the sign know i don't see the advantage of the second sign other than putting it another sign x number of feet away from the existing one almost the same size and very much saying the same thing time direction i think what you're doing makes sense thank people from driving into the private interest to the household and then put the city but private on that one paying it under there i do need to do something on that there's a after site seven twenty four have a financial interest in the area bascule with village associates a thirty two seymour street welcome mat i soon this was yours yes it is all right this is an application for a discretionary permit to construct a thirty one unit three story apartment building at fifty five to fifty nine de laine in the half corners zoning district this proposed residential development will add fifteen point five welling unit equivalents to the site listing developed by logic lines one well in unit given as any unit containing two or more bedrooms one bedroom or studio unit find is one half of a dwelling unit equivalent in this case the up into proposing fifteen point five total dwelling unit equivalents in the form zero apartments with two or more bedrooms and thirty one apartments with one or fewer bedrooms so these are all below the two bedroom limit to be counted as a hold well in unit the property is currently developed with a building containing office and serve retail commercial uses the subject personal hermine's field park which is a commercial development including several adjacent parcels and buildings developed in a fairly similar pattern as this parcel is today a sort of single storey multi purpose commercial buildings with adjacent surface parking lots with the r v did review this project as a pre application back on september twenty sixth of twenty seventeen made a few recommendations related to addressing public works comments and needing to obtain growth management allocation at that time growth management review did occur in march twenty eighth seen and in the staff report i have were cited the applicants representations and the score received by the project which was over thirty one points were thirty is the minimum necessary to gain allocation be awarded points to this project for energy efficiency for offering housing choice and or building some minor sidewalk connections and design for context there were no points awarded for affordable housing neighborhoods or open space in this case those are for offering those items above and beyond any case line requirements of the bylaw there is a there is a neighborhood space requirement in this district of the applicant  proposing to meet with an urban park and i'll go into that in a minute but the project did receive allocation so something we're doing a little different with this staff report when you turn the page is the recitation of all of the by lot requirements has been labeled findings of fact by the staff because that's what this really is this is the facts of what the outcome is proposing and so rather than go through all of this and then recite it again in a list form we're just calling this the findings of so you may notice that difference here so we're reviewing those findings the proposed use here is residential residential is an allowed use in the taft corner zoning district per the terms of the chapter forty one of them by a lot of which is the chapter that governs that district there is a new structure proposed it's essentially on the footprint spanning to existing foundations those foundations were for many years ago for the purpose of a arguably probably a single storey commercial building that is no longer planned to be constructed that the footprint would be roughly the same for this building it would not be realizing those foundations given there there's other new site work besides the envelope of the building required this is primarily to establish or reestablish sidewalk connections around the building to connect to the urban park area and outdoor picnic area and to address a few parking issues on the site as well as striping and formalizing the street parking along day lane to the west of the site there is no subdivision or boundary line adjustment no planning changes for this allocation in terms of residential density i went over prior to this the dwelling unit equivalent and have provided in the staff report a recitation of the maximum allowed no units were in the taft corner zoning district w minimum density for residential projects of five to zero units per acre is required where the typical net density allowed by right is seven point five while in units per acre and where an increase density of fifteen to own units per acre is permissible if there is a transfer of development rights and again those are all units meeting drilling into departments seven point five on two point zero seven acres comes out to a maximum allowed fifteen point five to dwell in unit equivalen if all of those dwelling equivalents are one bedroom or studios that means thirty one apartments which is what the outcome is proposing it's the maximum density allowed for this parcel when built in this form there is one dwelling unit equivalent understood  exist by right on this parcel because it doesn't currently have any residential use the other fourteen point five are what the applicant needed to approve obtain through growth management to go forward with the project in which the op did obtain threshold for this zoning district there is no light trespass off the parcel identified by the applicant and lighting is downward facing and fully shielded in bylaw there is no up lighting proposed that would be not allowed by the pile terms of setbacks in landscaping the applicant has provided a landscape plan sheep bell one hundred there are a number of public ways adjacent to the street day lane and night lane as well as some of the common land for the chelsea community association the chelsea commons condominiums adjacent and stormwater pond for them and i said bike path but i should have said gas easement and i'm not sure why bother saying anything because neither of those matter when it comes to determining your landscaping what does matter is the use so this is residential and next to a public way and residential next to other residential there's a number of potential buffers that are allowed by the byelaws when you are residential the residential when your residential to a street you are generally required to provide a street tree section as is already existing daily and as is proposed some low plantings along night late in the board may what want to look at just how tight the building is there too i'm sorry there are  large trees on nightline i'm looking at the access dried up all the g s so on residential to residential there is some existing plantings on the subject parcel there's a small amount of planting on the chelsea for planting in the berm but the byelaws is essentially blind to what's happening off property so staff recommends a type two or type three buffer sizes type two or type two but since a type two or type three adjacent to the chelsea common side of the project on the subject parcel to meet the byelaws requirements there we also do have a parking lot landscaping requirements primarily that there be landscape islands within the parking lot we do have those islands in the existing parking lot and they are true planted with deciduous trees providing shade of a minimum of five percent of the parking lot in compliance with the bylaws i already went over the street trees there is no outdoor storage proposed on this site there are no weapons on this site the access to the subject parcel is for vehicles not proposed to be changed there are some added sidewalks around the building for pedestrian and bicycle access as well as soon entry stairs into the building off of the de laine sidewalk to get in the lower level presumably where storage would happened and there was a comment from public works related to the stairway coming down from de laine bus that the applicant reorient that the applicant has prepared a draft plan showing that staircase reoriented which is at the back of the package that we mailed out to the board while i'm on that i'll just mention that in the course of the fire department review they wanted to see some of the surface on the other side of the building facing the parking lot hardened up to provide vehicle access with installation of grass paved and those added plans also address the addition of the grass paved on that side of the building in terms of traffic generation thirty one units in a multi use building are expected to generate nineteen pm peak hour trips that's ni at the driveway during the busiest hour between four and six pm monday through friday of the zoning ministry or meeting me for the time being will issue a traffic impact the assessment as part of the permit in process should the project move forward i actually get to make that decision sitting in the back office all by myself but the study justifies nineteen for a wind up where the id has come up with a number  this will increase over all trips on this site from thirty six to fifty five pm peak hour trips but in may remember there's a foundation here there was a proposed commercial building on the site that building was actually at the time of permitting of mantua park expected to generate a total yield on this site of fifty nine trips so the residential build out would actually represent a reduction in vehicle trips from what was originally anticipated when this was thought it was going to be all commercial so then we move on to parking parking in willesden chapter fourteen is generally expressed as both the minimum and a maximum and with that number that the applicant arrives at able to reduced through a couple of methods in this case possibly via shared parking study which the outfit was asked to submit as part of preallocation and has made part of their application so i will go through parking  we have thirty one multifamily residential units and are by a law in to space that those will generate one order parking spaces demand per unit so that comes out to fifty four and one quarter or rounded up to fifty five parking spaces demand generated by the new development on the site across all of mansfield park which is the calculation the o chosen to submit based on the idea of a shared parking study the commercial development on the site generates a demand of one hundred forty four point nine parking spaces that's assuming general office for the entire commercial development there is a variety of uses and there some generate a little more parking than office some generate a little bit less but that's the calculation we're we're working from so if you add the fifty four to one forty four rounding up you get a demand in total of two hundred spaces the applicant is proposing across this entire site a total of one hundred seventy seven spaces so it's less than two hundred the applicant has submitted a shared parking analysis which looks at the peak hours of demand of the various uses on the site and tries to assess whether some of those parking spaces conserve both uses because their peak hours of demand are different that study justifies meeting parking demand with one hundred ninety two spaces the applicant in addition to the hundred seventy seven on site spaces the opt in is proposing to stripe seventeen spaces on day lane essentially providing street parking that's a public street parking is allowed on public streets wherever it's not signed against it the proposed striping of those spaces has been run by public works as part of their review of the plans and are by a law does allow in chapter fourteen an applicant to offset onsite parking and with street parking as long as it's within six hundred feet of a major in terms of these parking spaces are on de lane all within six hundred feet there today fine and just legally but if you just sort of drove up on the street you wouldn't necessarily see the striping and know offhand so for us to count it in chapter fourteen i think at a minimum it has to be stripes so that it's identified in times of year when those street spaces would not be available so there is you know some time of year where what would be available would be those hundred seventy seven spaces where the shared parking study allows for one ninety two again the towns by law does allow for that offset and for the derby to review projects in that way so those spaces would would not be available during this no emergency only they're not available over night during the winter so williston's winter parking ban isn't like throwing tear when you see where the lights come on during the snow emergency it's it's on the nature i think it's december one day april one  midnight to seven am or something fairly similar to that so that's correct so there are some other things that come out of the parking demand calculation that includes the required eighty  spaces six required six proposed by the applicant required outdoor bicycle spaces sixteen required the applicants proposing ten on this site a decent bike parking on the rest of the site i'm not sure but we're fairly close to the site wide requirement for mansfield by putting ten next to this building the d r p should think about whether they want to see something on final plans related to bike parking in the remainder of mansfield park so that's a thought  long term bicycle space is seventy five percent of required again if we look at all the mansfield park that's eleven long term storage spaces required the applicants proposing six complies for the new residential but not the overall mansfield park so under the compliance summary discussion in the staff report i've just sort of stated mansfield park was approved under the preach to thousand nine sone ordinance which did not address bicycle parking the same way todays rules do that said this is an amendment to that overall site you know the overall sites being looked at for parking the d o b should discuss how it would like to apply those parking or harman's to the site of made some notes there about acceptable versus unacceptable types of bicycle rack based on the rules that the buy one has for safe locking of bicycles in terms of signage there's no new or changes to existing signage proposed as part of the occasion fire department always does ask for building entrance labeling and things like that storm water treatment will be provided by the existing detention basin on the site that was part of the original approval for mansfield park and did intice a paid a building it impervious surface in this location the op as stated that that would be sedition yappin is proposing to connect a municipal water service and has obtained sewer allocation from the town for wastewater treatment in the public works department fees when that comes through the outfit has shown all of the required realty s there are snow storage areas shown on the site off the side of the parking lot not in conflict with parking spaces not in conflict with dumpsters or anything else on the site that we could see there are trash and recycling containers shown on the site there's an existing concrete pad piers to be currently an enclosed in and not in use we would recommend that that concrete pad be screened in compliance with the bylaws for it to go into use and for that to be shown on the final plan it's projects also within the town's design review district and was reviewed for its compliance with the designer view requirements in particular the historic architectural advisory committee had some comments about the scale and coloring of the building and considered the building in relationship to both the chelsea project where all  the units are essentially the same color similar design and the hamlet project to the other side where the units are all fairly different colors the different houses are different colors and in looking at the coloring the recommendation made the applicant following the preamp coloring of the building which was fairly vivid was to tone it down a little bit but not have it be all one color like the chelsea building so the up and did submit a revised plan showing a different elevation that's showing a different coloring of the elevation so you see a reddish a bluish and sort of a gray green color as well as a light gray color proposed for the building at this time the roof line of the building is relatively flat but there is a little bit of articulation there and i'll go into roof line when i get into the taft corners requirements in a minute so in addition to being in the design review district in the requirements that come out of there this is also in the tough corners zoning district which comes with some of its own requirements pedestrian connections are required you'll see the building has sidewalk on four sides with hardened sidewalks leading to the building entrances the building is  new buildings are to be brought to the sidewalk when there are adjacent to a sidewalk or street in this district this buildings being pulled up to the corner of night and day lane there are no dead walls primitive walls have to have articulation and windows and doors in them all of the walls of this building to have those things and then it says apparent building mass must be broken up using clearly deployed to mark doors and windows including display windows variations in building footprint in architectural detailing so you can see some of that on the elevation and you can see some articulation in the proposed building footprint as well building facades misfeature a clearly defined foundation or basically really distinguish top which may be a parapet or chorus must be architectural not just paint and or preferably a sloping roof there really defined sign bend or other set locations for signs and that along with the display window discussion are really for commercial use of inferior materials for the of the building is not permitted i understand the same materials are proposed all and i should get into the sloping roof thing we have that we have a number of statements here in the bylaws sometimes in the design of the district talking about a preference for slope roofs  that said the practice of this board and the town in general has been to look at rick articulation and some of these more urban buildings having a flatter roof is being acceptable as long as the design supports it  rather than necessarily putting a pitched roof on everything this becomes more of an issue when a building is proposing to gain a height bonus to go above the thirty six foot limit this building's not proposing to go above thirty six foot limit fits within thirty six feet above average fish grade so then after the required elements in tough corners there's the into miss five of nine design requirements so that the bible has a list of a number of design elements five of which must be present on any new development in the district and i will say again you know this is an amendment to an existing site that was approved prior to the current zoning ordinance and the five of nine coming into effect that said staff is prepared findings that the building does address the five criteria that it needs to to be approved as a standalone so the first of the five night has multiple uses there are multiple uses on the property the the rez adding the residential use actually makes this a multi use property rap of retail shops no there's no retail proposed here structure parking no there's no structured parking proposed here multiple stories not just the appearance of multiple stories yes it's a three story building multiple stories are proposed wide sidewalks that may be used for outdoor dining interceding that encourages outdoor social interaction there are some white sidewalks around the side of the building that lead to an outdoor picnic area with some grills and also connect to the urban park so staff recommendation is that that criterion has been met public artwork the nature of which must be approved by the the advice of the hack public art must be proportionate size and scale to the buildings in the proposed development be incorporated into the design of an urban park the upton on the plan has identified an area reserved for public art if you were to go to the site today you would see a concrete fountain in that location i am recommending a condition of approval that the final design of the proposed public art piece of mid to the staff and d o b and hack as part of the review of final plans we have had a few projects where public art was sort of left to the very very last minute of review following this admission of final plans and staff had some challenges to that so we would we would want the board and under advice from the hack to actually see the proposed our work and finally site renewable energy generation that's not proposed at this time but an urban park is under forty one five three nine so is this credit for complies provided only where proposed park is visible accessible to the public complements other proposed uses a picnic table for employee lunch breaks is not an urban park so who are there's a there's a question of scale there you see that existing green proposed to be enhanced with some new benches and and landscaping other landscaping planned as well as the inclusion of the art and then that picnicking area that's a little more sort of will feel a little more like it comes with the residential building so staff is recommending that the urban park cormorants being met by that proposal we did it receive review from police fire and public works no comments were received from police and as i mentioned earlier on the applicant has made some revisions recently in response to public works and fire comments so in the derby packet you'll see just a couple cheats showing how the overall site can accommodate the police and fire comments in this between the back of your packet with an august stamp to receive what this amounts to is adding grass pave to the front of the building by the parking lot a truck can fall and in reorienting the staircase access to the lower level of the building off the day rain public works was concerned about the proximity of a staircase to the day when sidewalk in that you know somebody could fall into it essentially so it's been turned ninety degrees so that there can be a railing in and prevent that so those are my findings recommending approval with findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval as discussed below within these conditions of approval most of them are our standard conditions when you get down to the last page by the motion conditions twenty three twenty four and twenty five were drafted by staff specifically for this application and they address the landscape buffer enhancement location design specifications of bicycle racks and the public art element as i discussed before and with that said i will stop ok thank you matt first question is have you read the proposed conditions of approval and are you agree with all we are in agreement is great so walk us through if you would think this will probably be your you paul the parking for the project i think i think there's going to i think there's some interest in that from the that will be there will come up in the public input portion the fire is on the other side he's going to need those four spaces he may he may not think at the moment he does but he will because fire never seems to be where the parking is provided the other thing is question do we have any other developments that we do we'll while public parking a public street parking to be counted towards their totals yes any development will every every development will so we've done that the most recent practice of that would have been looking at the parking demand for both c v s and the lot thirty project and the street parking provided along merchant's road which was the new street constructed for those on and i don't remember that being i don't remember the the winter parking ban being mentioned when we went over those last thirty was approved in two thousand and ten that's why i didn't hear it i mean the second one merchant was was and i am for what you're so you're telling me that the building that we're building that jazzercise is doesn't have any parking command at night at the other on the other question is i know american heart buns stuff at night because they they have they always sending me demands for money and i know they run their programs at night and the audience just walk through a little bit of the methodology used in a shared parking  apartments or residential units we have retail uses we have a movie theater use we have office use and we have restaurants i built those are the little that typically uses if you look at the table the table basically says that six am in the morning that one hundred percent of the residential spaces are required the zero percent of the retail zero percent of the movie four percent of office presidential spaces you get ninety seven percent of the retail spaces you only need ten percent of movie theaters spaces you need ninety percent of office spaces which would make which would make sense and then you need fifty percent of any one part restaurant space as you move further in the day if we go to say six pm you need ninety two percent of residential spaces you need ninety percent of the retail spaces going eighty percent of the eighty percent  movie theater and the office space drops down to about twenty three percent so they still require office space for us on twenty three percent of the maximum and restaurant space i would imagine a ninety percent jump forward to at ninety nine percent of the residential spaces are required on the retail space at ten pm we're down to thirty two percent movie theater as you might expect this peaking out hundred percent office space is down to three percent at ten pm three percent tip of the office space is needed and a restaurant space is still hanging in there at about ninety percent at ten pm for all those hours late diners so basically it's a large eleven am and that is one hundred ninety spaces when you get to eight pm it's dropped all the down to eighty three spaces so it's gone from one hundred ninety two spaces needed midday down to eighty three spaces actually that's sixty three bases at eight pm by midnight we're basically down fifty five spaces just so i'm going to go a little out of a little bit of order here and open up public comment on the shared parking principle as because because i think it's appropriate after what you just what you just said paul so so if you would if you're asked to speak if i acknowledge you please stand give your name and address and address the board please union oriented here this is where this building is proposed this is where chelsea place runs i'm looking at a building where if i pull out of it and i'm looking for parking i can see it less than two hundred feet away chelsea pla eight village street or a town street i recognize that but if you look at the design of our units our apartment miles and the parking in front of our units is really quite limited it is townhouse park it was designed to be a white townhouse neighborhood i honestly believe that a person who cannot find curtain behind here is going to take the obvious first option and that is to turn right and part of the first part of the city we have one parking space per unit in front of our homes the way to bomb or her cats are driveways or his argument with one parking space in front of each human i am very concerned about losing our parking i am very concerned about changing that nature of our community and i also want to talk no signage changes and signage these are our mailboxes right here i would beg you to require no parking or some other protection of our of our meal boxes  saturday and sunday i was if you take a picture or this week past weekend if you go back to the morning saturday and sunday classes you'll see that this parking lot is full on chelsea please we typically have one trail so my concern is that people will definitely find the closest parking especially in the winter and when you can't park on the street you know use that extra space we don't have th that this is going to be considered too far for someone specially here apartments here the water when this is full at six forty five genocides or the really popular right after that there's a very auto regulation but i believe if i were to the spirit of the law that the fact that you have to go d c other market area and you have to pay in lines on the street now this deviate just a bit from the park but people are coming out on several days because there's a traffic light there have all this extra traffic and parking they're going to want to come out on i blame there's no proportion to the area please so the hamlet development i'm not sure but the applicant can refresh my memory as to whether sure parking was looked at there are a mix of uses there i am certain that there was shared parking assessed as we've looked at the finished crossing development is a way to reduce the amount of surface parking that gets created the broadening out into the rest of the  districted it probably feels pretty far away from this but we did do extensive shared parking element to our review of proposed additional parking at maple tree place essentially looking at reducing the amount of new parking that  parking for the kismet jim they built fifty six pieces instead of i think about eighty six that they would have been required without a share it wasn't just looked at it was implemented sorry that was built with fifty six days right so so if i if i met the the  principle is to try to trying to manage impervious services which lead to storm water runoff and the need to manage storm water runoff so that's what that's what the guiding principle is here to try to utilize parking spaces throughout the day in the fission way so that we don't have a sea of so any development can swap stumps available street parking within six hundred feet of an entrance for on site parking demand it's not required that that on street parking be solely reserved for that development so for example if c v s and aspen dental both are looking at the same parking space and saying that's within six hundred feet of my entrance under our by law today both of them are allowed to say that's one space that i don't have to build on my site so you know there are things that you can do regarding designated or assigned parking within a private development on those private watts none of that's proposed here right now once it's a street space it's it's available and it's available for any development with a major entrance within six hundred feet to offset one of their on site spaces for that street space so they're there and they're never own or controlled by anybody there they're available for time street parkers but yeah i know there are there are places in the town in the county where you will see a car you know park on the street for extended period of time like that opposing stripe one side of daylight so so what i just heard the applicant say is that there's only proposed striping on one side of de land associated with this project so there be no parking signs put on the other side of the road the m no so public worse controls the right of way of the public streets we can't we view the d r v can't require anybody to do anything on a public street they can propose something on a public street like parking as long as public works goes along with it that would be the same thing for saying you know for example with this board were to say well we're only ok with the parking striped on day lane if there's signage of no parking on the other side it would be a request to public works is that something they're interested in in pursuing and unhappy so there can be different parties with multiple interests at work here and they all need to align if there is going to be in effect of the other parking questions comments i just have a question just a safety question if we're expecting people to parks that way so far away from their potential homes i mean but is there for lighting approved lighting and such for the safety of tenants that are not building or really not expecting the residents to have to park the hard way if you look at when they need parking it's primarily from eight pm to six am and they should be plenty of spaces right there in that parking lot if you look at a parking study the other peak demand is midday eleven am to two pm and so if we would expect that someone would have to utilize one of the other lots i would expect it would be one of the office users maybe a jazzercise person who comes at a six pm class might find that they have to park on the street or they have to park across the street and lot to a lot of three you know generally the residential pokes when they go to work and they arrive home at at six pm that there will be spaces available what business can you get out of and get home at six o'clock in vermont i was just curious if you happen to have a list of those think i really believe that outside of the scope here because what what the applicants obligation is to to do a study bit and come up with a parking analysis based on approved standards and i believe there are any other any other parking questions one final comment from staff when parking so the offset of spaces by a shared parking study is something that the r v can decide on its at the d r b's discretion they may reduce the number of required parking spaces a result of a shared parking study you may consider any other evidence testimony or information you think you need in order to make that decision so one thing that we've heard a lot about tonight is that there's a particular commercial user jazzercise on the site that may generate additional demand and the numbers are talking about assessing all of these other buildings out as general office and assessing this new building  residential if the d o b does have any questions that they would like the applicant to come back and answer about that particular peak demand that might come with that type of use if it's not one that's captured in the by want chapter so we look at gems but we don't really look at other recreational uses in fact that the pilot table says is too diverse to mention individual study might be required so as the board proceeds to retrieve you collectively you may want to think about whether you wish to ask for any additional information about parking demand generation by that one particular or any other use on the site that maybe looks a little different than general office i thank you matt  came back and asked for a fence along the retaining wall we agreed to provide them with detail to show that france and unmatched table on the long term parking for the building  every every apartment in that building is probably going to have somewhere the neighborhood about a ten by fifteen foot storage locker in the basement so it's going to be pretty significant walkable and yes  shared parking but the handicapped spots for this residential building across the street behind another building i would agree is i mean those need to be very close to the i think you need to look at how many that residential building needs and make sure that number is there and he had two guys working on the diagram because i think those are the four species that you were counting for your and that's what in your table that's a matter as well for eighty eight spaces for residential multiple family dwellings twenty six to fifty years requirements for two spaces secondary entrance here and it should have shown up on the east and west elevation but it didn't but if you look at if you look at eight to a one where where it says one forty four night laying over the main entrance you can see above it you know that there's an overhang that's ho phone the building is the fourth you can see the supports you can see the supports and then actual just above it you can see there's actually rails that's actually a deck so that that that part of the building you can see the relief in the in the foot in the building the front of the building itself so that actually piece of the building actually it's obviously two d so it's very hard to see that there's a decorative area right i mean you don't have access to it no no there but certainly if it should show somewhere ok going to be somewhere between three to five feet stuff elevations right there is a there is an entrance on the if you look at the site plan we have an entrance on the west elevation that is at the one that goes down the basement is the direct ever saying it's a bubble for people to exit the building elevators are right here and so if you look at the architectural that that stairwell there is all glass all the way up through and so there is that there is a there there a light coming into the hallway which would you know for the elevator access coming up the second and third so the audience so we're now in an area that is kind of an open forum for all questions beyond park i like to open it up to the audience  building is a public building and under the code purview of the state farm marshall in their native occupancy when we did that we generally it would look at things like the parking impact the traffic impact things that you'll see numbers like we assume one point seven five parking spaces per unit so will there be two people in every unit no probably not in the by lawsuits that will there be more than one person in every unit yes probably  so we don't regulate the occupancy we don't but we do make some assumptions about the occupancy based on the way we think about parking traffic circulation adequate amount of outdoor space things like that we do not regulate who or how many or how people are related to one another when they choose to live together no town's noise ordinance which shuts things down at seven pm generally limits noise before seven am as well and i'm quoting that and they have the hours off one side or the other i can look it up for you the noise ordinance is actually not part of the by law but any sort of pounding driving digging heavy equipment operation will generally exceed the decibel limits in the noise ordinance at the property line just you know by its nature that limits construction activities to daytime hours the border in the past has also considered adding conditions of approval to sites i think it's usually more of an commercial sites where it's going to be a regular operational thing hours of trash pick up hours of delivery times in mixed use projects for example where you have a restaurant next to an apartment and you don't want to cisco truck showing up at five in the morning with the back up alarm on those things have very traditionally been within the dea or beast purview to address if they p it's probably one thing the board can consider under you know solid waste management is whether a typical stenson screen dumpster is adequate here if the board wants to ask the applicant to show a more access control screen door refined dumpster enclosure we've had those proposed in other projects in town where it's it's more of a three sided building with a door access and you know roof and ventilation that screw to prevent things from falling out so you know if that's a concern i'm just going to put it out there that the board has consider more of the hands to trash enclosures before depending on the site sure well we'll start with the waiting plan submitted by the applicant on this plan or around the sort of pick you can grill area at the corner of the access drive in the parking lot it shows some ball or lights so these are three four feet tall with downward shields and generating light levels around and you see i'm seeing nothing in excess of four and i believe that's it's either lumens or put candles and i always get them mixed up where our maximum is five star it is for foot candles so so we allow up to five we're getting four and those light levels are dropping to zero on the ground by the time they hit the grassed area or the sidewalk adjacent to the site so the williston's byelaw looks at a couple things we look for no brighter than a certain level which is what i was just talking about we look for even lighting of areas that are lit because you can actually a very bright light in a not so bright light and the effect is that the not so bright light feels dark so we look for a level of uniformity  and probably most importantly to the design we look for fully galleries facing and fully shielded lights that don't allow any light to escape horizontally or above from the light bulb itself so essentially you've got to be at some angle underneath the light before you see that element and experience any of that light in your eyes finally what i'm talking about when i say where the light levels drop to zero is what we call like trespass which is that when someone does outdoor lighting none of that why should be illuminating measurably anything off site so you know you used to see places in the middle of the parking lot light that might create a pool of light that extended over onto somebody else's property or into the public street willesden does not allow that and so we do require the applicants to show us a lighting plan in this case exteriors lighting is really limited to lighting that area and the walkway adjacent to the building we're just seeing proposed use of existing parking lot lighting and street lighting no proposed sort of accent lighting on the exteriors of the building the other question was about light trespass which would be like coming from inside of the building williston's had some challenges with like trespassing commercial and industrial buildings that have large banks of windows they're highly visible from a distance you can think about some of the buildings you can see into from interstate eighty nine that are up on the hill on hurricane lane in the ten years i've been here and in the records i've reviewed i've not seen an issue come up related to residential lighting typically the lighting levels used in a residential building combined with the types of glass and windows used at least that we've seen have not generated complaints  so it's not something i would anticipate being a problem it's not something that's come up yet doesn't mean it won't someday those buildings were all approved under the same standards there's been no no comment since they've adult occupied that's what i was that good typical lighting violations we deal with is a commercial user who has a light that says gee maybe i if i came to this light a little differently i could get a little more found out of it and then next thing you know it's glaring across the street or on to someone else's property we get a phone call every time we've got a complaint like that it was an operational thing where somebody really aimed the fixture in a way that we that wasn't allowed or  lot on both sides of that dumpster so that's exactly the spot where i'm saying in my staff report there's there's a lot of buffering on the chelsea property there's a little bit of buffering but probably needs to be enhanced with some more plantings to meet the town standard lighting plan i have does not show any light generated by the wall packs on the buildings i would assume there's lighting under the covered entryways as you know is it as high as that roof but i don't see any show one i don't know what gives disco dirt or state law say anything about separation between a public building and a smoking area lot of you know campuses and places have adopted something we don't we don't  actually when you turn it on it's an automatic timer and that way you can forget to turn it off automatically going to turn itself off after half an hour sixty minutes whatever the any other comments from the applicant oh ok last call i'm going to close d b eighteen dash zero four and  the industrial zoning district last the applicant is proposing to add new wall and awnings times to the site in addition to existing signage that is larger and more numerous than the what is allowed in the williston unified  land with the special findings for the comprehensive plan posted by law as they relate to also the application is proposing priest standing signs that are larger than the thirty two square foot maximum size  follows is a table of the proposed signs for an all window awning internal directory and ending signs one of the free standing signs is located near the street there is more internal on the applicant to provide some directional signage that was not included in the calculation because its structural in nature  the apple can provide an area of the street facing building elevation as twenty two thousand seven hundred and sixty three square feet at eight percent that allows for one thousand eight hundred twenty one square feet of maximum potential signage area the proposed line area is eight hundred fifty four square feet the staff is in agreement with the applicant's friendships calculation and signing area calculation  site due to the location of the stream utility boxes envision triangle stranded the access drive the applicant is not proposing temporary signs sandwich board signed suspended or protecting s no elimination is preparedness non conforming signs are existing or proposed the applicant has proposed an increase standing in law signs that require special findings to be approved this can be permitted but only if the d r p is willing to make the specific findings that allow these times and we have to draft at the recommended conditions and the only thing i doubt is the freestanding sign that's out on marshall have is located on the adjacent property per license agreement is emily noted it just can't be moved back because of an existing transformer and  corner site distances so if it is on the jews and property but is there per license agreement between the property owners you understand that lanes people will need to need to be added to the base of that sign in order comply with the bylaws so other than that nothing to add to the staff report of the proposed conditions you're good this is good yeah i'm go then you're good good evening thank you thank you  recommendations the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson unified to go by law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of august twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen accept the findings of fact conclusions of  as authorized by w d p six point six one three ip or cali move that the wills to development review board having reviewed the application material submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application  this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for future development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans of which disapprovals based great thank you wife a second authorized by w d p six sixty three i forty two already moved at the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required eighteen daschle are for and approve the discretionary permit subject to conditions about we are making amendments to number twenty four which shall read final plans must include locations design and specification showing bicycle racks that will allow the required number of bicycles for all buildings considered in the shared parking study to be locked securely in compliance with w d b fourteen two and fourteen three in addition will be adding condition number twenty six to read final plans shall show screening around and roof over dumpster pad to prevent blowing track and number twenty seven which will read final plans clearly indicate size and materials a proposed entrance canopy this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans obtain approval of these plans from the d r p and then seek an administrative permit from the proposed for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans calls for the minutes of july twenty fourth two thousand and eighteen to be approved but if you look at the minutes the top of the minutes indicate that the needy was held on july tenth i suspect that i suspect that the type of and i believe that if we just did a friendly amendment and change that dated july twenty fourth we would be ok his staff agree with that guy plans for burrowing to here the biggest site plan change the dear b was looking for was for them to settle on a dumpster consolidation plan and they they have we've not brought those to you tonight for signature because the final plans checklist need to be signed off by public works and burlington bere hasn't completed giving the public works the information necessary for them to understand wastewater treatment out there and signed off on that so there's a there's an x turtle issue we do we do require for complete final plans that they be reviewed and signed off on by public works that their comments have been addressed wanted to make you aware of that  could authorize staff to sign them once public works is ok i heard some indications in conversations with a couple board members before this meeting that the board would like to retain review of those at such time as the chair would like to retain review and signature authority of the plant stay the course and bring them to you when public works has said they're ready to go we had no applications for the september eleventh d or b