welcome to the south burlington development review board tuesday february sixth two thousand and eighteen first item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room if there is an emergency we will meet in the south parking lot which is right behind this wall and there are a couple of exits here these two doors and additional door that we all came in through and that's let's meet there and of course the sign in sheet will be important to make sure that everyone who's safely out in the parking lot additions deletions changes in the order of agenda items two things  two single family dwellings for two family dwellings to three unit multifamily drawings and two twelve year of multifamily growing to reconsider the reconsideration is to amend condition number five pertaining to waivers of land developer regulation standards and to amend condition twenty five containing pertaining to the number of affordable housing units in phase three b eight hundred forty  of the application is for an amendment of two conditions the first one is to allow my foot setbacks tempered which had been on a list that we had worked through with staff from the beginning it was accepted it's been accepted in phase one and phase two and we believe it was just here that no one caught that it wasn't on this particular list so looking to have that added to the list it is in conformance with the way all of these one  to have been built in the way phase three was designed and then the second request is for condition twenty five to be amended to add a sentence at the beginning that says you have it here but in the event that the applicant builds more than two hundred sixty nine units and then the rest is the existing condition and we believe the way that it's worded it's asking for six units in regardless of meeting the two hundred sixty nine or the requirement that's already in place so our request is that it says in the event that the applicant kills more than two hundred sixty nine units it's added at the preface of the condition the project was approved for three hundred thirty four units that includes a certain number of affordable and some of the bonus units so i think on that basis the board does have the authority if the applicant were to choose to not build more than two sixty nine they could apply to amend their approval to reduce the number from three thirty four down to two sixty nine and then there would be no obligation to build the ne for them but at this stage the affordable units are part of the approval the regional approval so i think i would agree with mark most of the board will i have my inclination is to be exact as to end up in future projects exactly where mark is talking about and but i i do think that throughout this throughout the hearings for this we constantly said these will occur after two hundred sixty nine and we were we were we openly talked about it i think that was what we it's what i came away understanding we were we were looking and so while i agree that i wouldn't do another project like this i know i wasn't here the beginning of this but i wouldn't do another project like this that didn't spread the affordable units throughout the three thirty whatever it is three thirty two evenly and as the prior to hitting the two sixty time i do believe that the that after two hundred sixty nine units additions and that any additional adds to that trigger the affordable and i just to add to that point i agree with that i don't think we said jennifer i i'm i'm agreeing with john and mark and matt but i'm also following the logic of ray's argument about it was approved for that and that this was originally part of the application and i would like to see i don't know if we can do anything about reworded or you know if they decide not to do the three giving up the opportunity and how many rather how many total affordable units with if there was three thirty two is it was about eighteen because thirty three and thirty four something like that you know you know so that so you're giving up something something like thirty units of market housing if you don't do the affordable that's right  i think there's a financial imperative here that they probably will move along but i you know i just bring that up as a problem that i that i sympathize  way to accomplish that and not build an affordable housing complex until you get to seven four we have not submitted time to say so i am very they would go for a balls plan that we submitted for the three hundred thirty four which was conceptual only contained the thirty and the thirty three in the thirty four were all in that plan but it was consensual it is conceptual and it was spent presented to staff with clouds drawn around the areas which was how we were directed to identify the  affordable we're not ready to present a formal plan and come in for that we are working on it we're doing our due diligence we're talking to the builders about building and the costs are building and all those steps but we need to iron out all the steps before we can bring in a plan question for staff say this sprinkling as robin suggested is not as easy as say it doesn't happen as easily as previously thought would we have the authority to demand retroactive sprinkling in other words housing that you created at market but it would then have to become affordable housing in order to comply with the mandates that they that they not be all segregated in one area if the board is reviewing an application has it as it was reviewing an application for phase three it was able to add phase three sprinkle of the six units in that  phase so it's up to the applicant to come before the board for phrases one and two for the board to have the authority to to ask for that information if the op could were to come in the future let's say for a new member to the master plan that could be a topic of discussion at that time but if they were to come if they weren't if they decide to not come back to the board for any changes in her development i think they're going to be not going to get a choice of a chance to review their next on the condition the next condition which i believe that we're not warm so i don't know if we can talk about it but condition twenty six does already warrant that none of the undeveloped land of which there is quite a bit can be further developed until there is an affordable plan presented to you i believe section twenty six covers the board and the development for phase one example there's over twenty six units that are not yet perm is for three thirty four we do want to see what you are working on plans for the affordable housing units and to not include the sentence because we do not because we're not thinking at this point that it's anything other than a three hundred thirty four you know development so if it that's my inclination board yes no yes or no mark is this going for a bit we not tonight at least i'd be more comfortable with the original language involved rather than adding her original sentence earlier since it was in the original language actually consistent it's a rational application of the rule any further comments can we consider condition five and condition twenty five separately for sure i mean that to me yes you could  conditions twenty five they have nothing to say correct the other comments from the public eight nasty drive on shelving road and then the third goal of our application is eventually create access to sixty eight nestea drive by sheldon road bike to doing that access lane we have the pool in property under contract for interest and you know we have under contract for sale and the folks that are interested in buying it are interested in buying it and fee simple so we're trying to structure a way that we subdivide or do a property line adjustment here that provides ownership and fee simple property and and not a beauty which we could have come construction or additional parking on seven hundred ninety five shelburne road we are interested in increasing a with of our right of way on the access road we're not looking to do any additional construction at all at seventeen eighty five shelburne road so we're not looking to develop any more of that green space launch shelburne road so if we were granted the permission to do what we want you know the you would you know the this now average citizen traveling up road when really notice anything different with the pool and building the parking lot you know the green space to the north with with the exception of increased with access to the life of me i couldn't figure out where the access is that you're proposing from the three maps that we had sort of you could walk us through and i can show you on the screen there are great so seven hundred eighty five was joined some point in time in the past in order to feud further develop the two parcels together so that by merge them they can't be separated or else it would be a violation on seventeen and seventeen ninety five days so they're essentially merge those two loss together maybe they were purchasing separate times and separate deeds but the fact that they have been merged for development purposes from our standpoint they're very sickly one lotto so are you saying really that you  making it smaller and adding the frontage that two hundred feet of frontage that it has an add it to the sixty eight nested drive property in the back so rave may be correct but on all your tax maps and everything we see we see two lots but you know if you look at all the plans and everything else i don't have to really matters but doesn't really matter just i'm just i'm just representing what we're seeing on the tax maps and what we're seeing on our plans we see two lots for the purposes of the subdivision it doesn't matter whether you're adjusting the property line on three lots and you know the net result in time the frankly i can't see why we would object but it's looks a little weird and i'm wondering why for example when you do your regular luck you make a point of bringing the diagonal line so to speak across the face of the of the right of way the other words you're putting a piece of the right of way one or the other side of the new boundary and it's really why is that it's because of your signage byelaws reflect a certain amount of road frontage for certain size getting is not enough to give you the sign that you need yes that's correct if we brought the property line to the north side of the access road we would not get this the size sign that we need for these two large buildings in the back  larger than forty could go up to eighty square feet for have enough frontage and or building square footage you might be able to have an eighty square foot sign that's what you do that's that's what i understand so you know again we've got a fifty thousand square foot building existing where you know where you build another forty thousand square foot building so got two large businesses that would like to have some signage for shelbourne road an eighty square foot sign is both sides right i mean that's that's not one hundred sixty so it's really forty square feet or so no what is ok so it's a ten by eight side and one possible configuration and likely would have to be different businesses sharing that sign so each sign would have  proposal as submitted the board does not have the authority to approve because the front yard covered this proposal reduces the amount of front yard green space is existing mostly on the seven hundred eighty five resulting in what's left with mostly a lot of pavement up along the street as a result they exceed the front yard coverage and i have the nest i'm at about fifty four percent the all right so it sounds like we've already started to touch on stuff common number one which it sounds like prevents our approval of this application well something else if we said no to mathematically to take something that already the allowable coverage divide it either in half or quarters or whatever and still without making it worse unless you were to somehow balance it half and half and comes out exactly the same but there's no way to improve mathematically it's impossible to improve the nonconformance without removing from pavement and well what we know it i don't this makes any sense but on the block towards the north no were happy to put in some development restrictions green space open whatever we're not looking to do any more development along either one of these lots and i know it's not conforming currently but it looks like you've got a black and white problem here that we don't have authority to mess around decreased from thirty six percent so if it's thirty six percent today and you subsidise the lot so that the area of the law is smaller it would still have to be thirty six or less it c lot by moving the property line and then go back down then six thirty is the maximum so thirty percent coverage is the maximum we would ask to think that the app can be bringing it down to thirty percent down to thirty percent bring it i think that it increased from thirty to thirty six when the road has widened and took up some of the green space so i'd have to do a little research to find out the effect of rising from thirty to thirty required parking spaces for customers and employees the rest of the spaces are for a car display so this property currently meets the minimum requirement for providing spaces for customers and employees and has probably you know that's almost all of luck is you going to have to remove the paving for like seventy percent seventy percent of what's inside the the front setback marlise that correct sorry you have to remove about seventy percent of the paving that's in the front set  you know where i thought the thirty six versus thirty is an unanswered question again i was going to look into it we're going to look into that so i mean the difference between thirty and thirty six you and i could probably take it out with a shovel you like this or this never had any and you know it's a pallet a habit issue of how it follows a stream or ravine or anything so this i don't know how to respond to this never seen it before you could follow the stream but we need to get it over towards our access road at some point because that's where we want our side but you could solve this pretty easily could be by just coming across the road and then coming along the side of the stream it's it's all hillside i'm not going to be a perfect you know square rectangle no matter what there's always going to be a jog or something and it's not out of us ship shape but think if you look at that john this idea where you can go up the road closer in the they could they could go all the way down to the stream bed right and i mean you could take take it and run when we go up to that actual visual impact going to anybody that we care that if we look at a schematic it's weird i think that our concern was that it didn't make any sense with the  if that reason is following it and if that cohesive thing is the center line of the stream that would satisfy well it's still going to remain an unusual flag because they're trying to get frontage and i think that i think one perfectly reasonable answer for this is that we we need to keep businesses in south burlington if they need signage that's it that's an important reason so i don't have a problem with that but but i think this will remain a flag like the matter how you look at it i think what you might ask for and he's already offered is that this is stays green that this that this is an undeveloped a lot i mean frankly it's done developed space this is this is bottom of the park brooke but but you know having a perpetual  green space on children road it's a very positive thing whether the sign relationship to frontage is a flexible matter here whether this is the only way it can be done if if they were willing to live with a forty square foot sign then they could reduce the frontage and there be less of an issue so what you're telling me is the relationship between sign size and front is an absolute that's right only if only between forty and eighty square feet forty square foot sign there's no requirement for any minimum amount of frontage you just have to have some not says to go more than forty you have to the least two hundred feet of frontage on a public street so this is their proposal to obtain two hundred feet of frontage on a public street and so that they can take advantage of that provision i understand that what you're saying is that as far as the sign ordinances stuff goes there's no flags there's another issue here too if this was all that simple if they could if they could have tons more space you know if more more fun it would give them even more sign you'd think they could put two sides on the old one a lot but they can't do that either they can't put aside for the back building on a property that's not owned by them so it has to be they they need ownership  plan for this parcel we just got our permit sixty days ago and prior to submitting that permit we had to do update our flatlands i don't have the date of it but i know it was somewhat recent so i would say within the last in order to allow the project proceed one option would be to reduce the driver with and retain a single life for each of entrance and exit suggestion from staff where we know we contacted  that's correct yes again it's only serving two buildings well i think for the moment but you have all undeveloped theory of power i'm suggesting in the future the neck is going to serve one existing building and one new building is pretty adequate actually we have it we have entrance at one of our buildings at sixteen and trucks get in and it's not fun but it can happen