 one minute for Don. Can you hear me, Dave Crawford? I haven't seen you in ages. Now I'll turn myself over again, I said hi. Oh, so Marla, this is what being a part of an organizer is. I can like mute everyone. You can. Cool. Should we text Don? What do you think? Mark, if you do well tonight, there's a presidential debate in a couple days and you can work on that. I just saw Don joined, so. There she is. So I never mind that annoying text you just got from me. Well actually, I called up an agenda inadvertently for January 1st and I thought, why is there no link? And then I realized what I had done and I thought, that's because we were in a normal world back then. Right. Okay. Oops, I think you've already hit record. That's great. So everyone gets that little bit before. But let's begin it now. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for October 20th, 2020. My name is Matt Kota, chair of the Development Review Board. With me on the Development Review Board is Alyssa Portman, Don Filibur, Jim Langen, John Wilking, Mark Baer. Brian Sullivan is absent today. Also the tenants from the city of South Burlington is Marla Keene, our Development Review planner. First item on the agenda is addition, solutions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Does anyone on the board or staff have any changes in the order of agenda items? Hearing none. We'll go straight to the announcements. The announcement I make before every online meeting is thank you to those in attendance, those on the phone, those watching online. Anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign a virtual sign-in sheet in the chat box. Also helps if you can mute yourself. That way we don't hear the background noise or a barking dog in the distance or a phone call. That's helpful. Thank you very much. You should participate. If you do participate, you should sign the virtual sign-in sheet. You can do that by putting your name in the chat box. If you're on the phone and you're not on your tablet or your computer, you can sign in as well by sending an email to Marla Keene at mkeene.com and provide your contact information. It's important to sign in this virtual sign-in sheet because in order to be considered a participant, you need to do so should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal the decision made by the sport. And similar to when we meet in person, the public does have an opportunity to comment either on the phone or through this go-to-meeting application using the chat box or the audio-video function. And of course you can also submit comments and writing at any time. Email them to mkeene at sbro.com. Okay, any other announcements from the board or from staff? Hearing none, go to agenda item number three, which is comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. If you do have a comment you'd like to address to the development review board not related to any of the agenda items that we have tonight, you could either enter your name into the chat box or just say it. And I'll give you an opportunity to speak. Checking the chat box, I don't see anyone that has a comment not related to the agenda. So we'll jump right into item number four, which is continuing preliminary and final plan application SD 2002 of CEA properties LLC to construct a two-story building of 7,200 square feet each on an existing 3.1 acre lot currently developed with a 7,200 square foot office building and 1,000 square foot storage building at 10 Mainfield view lane. I see that Dave Marshall is here with CEA. Dave, do you have anything to say about this project? I understand that it's withdrawn at this time. Is that correct? Yes, we have made a request to withdraw the application from the board's review. Okay, so maybe we'll see you on this at another time. Thank you very much. And so a lot of withdrawal. Carla, if I'm correct, we still vote or no decision, we just move on to the next agenda item. Is that correct? That's correct. Yep, no reason. Great. It's gone. Great. Thank you very much and thank you, Dave. So we move on to agenda item number five, agenda item number five, which is sketch plan application SD 2036 of LARC INS LP to amend an existing plan unit development on 13.26 acres consisting of 121 room hotel and 84 room hotel, a 60 room hotel, a restaurant, and a three unit multi-family building. The amendment consists of converting the 84 unit hotel to a 78 unit multi-family building at 1720 Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? That would be me. I'm Skip McClellan with Kremsen Lansing representing the LARC INS. Hi, Skip. Is there anyone else here with you? I think Joe's here and I think Deb's here. Deb Sherman and Joe Larkin. Hi, Joe and Deb. Thank you, Skip. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Deb. I just remind everyone that's watching tonight what a sketch plan is. A sketch plan is a high-level review and discussion where the applicant receives feedback from us, the board, on major elements of the project before it is fully designed. During this meeting, the board may provide guidance to the applicant, which constitutes our determination that the application does meet the purpose of land development regulations. Our comments tonight are really to guide the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of our comprehensive plan. This is not a formal hearing. It does not result in a binding decision. The board may choose to continue this meeting on the sketch plan at a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined and the future date will be announced prior to concluding this meeting. After the conclusion of the sketch plan, the applicant wishes to move forward with the project. We'll have to submit a complete application. The next level review includes additional public notices and a formal public hearing. Okay, that's what a sketch plan is. Skip, tell us, as I do, before every sketch plan is introduced. I invite the applicant to talk a little bit about what you'd like to do. Well, you did very well with the project description there. That's pretty much the story. There are hotel units that are currently under use and could could be turned into a multi family residential, mostly single single one bedroom studios and eight two bedrooms. And the it'll take the addition of a yeah, right there. It'll take the addition of an elevator inside and some reconfiguration to allow for new bike storage to allow for some sort of a community room and so forth. The exterior, there's no improvements proposed for the exterior other than a bike rack. There's a smaller bike rack existing today. And when we go to do the bike rack calculations, yeah, right there, do the bike rack calculations, it'll have to be enlarged and so we'll we'll improve it and enlarge it. But that is the the site work completely. So there won't be much site work that won't add to the cost of the units a whole lot. You know, keep them affordable and so forth. And in the interest of the affordability component of the of the regs, there'll be 12 units put aside for the inclusionary zoning, I think it's the term these days, there would be six units in each one of those phases, each one of those wings being a phase. The the center where you see the word comfort suite is one story a single story structure right now and that's where the elevators going so that will be raised. There'll be more floor put on that to allow the elevator to access both of those two ways. And other than that, that's that's that's the project. Okay, have you get to look at the the staff comment? Yes, yes, I have got right here in front of me. I got four screens going right now. I have a question, John. Sure, go ahead, Don. So I should know this having read this, but I just can't recall. Are these going to be rental units or for purchase like kind of they're going to be rental. Thank you. Okay, so Joe, is there anything else you want to add? Yeah, can I ask for a little more description of the phasing and of the statement that the center portion will be raised? Well, the phasing will be in two phases, each one of those wings. Okay, the center portion is a lobby that connects the two wings together right now. In order to get an elevator that goes up a couple of floors for each of those wings. Obviously the roof will have to be raised. I don't believe the whole structure is going to be raised. I think just enough to allow for the elevator and room around it and then access to the two wings. And one way when you say raised, do you mean R A I S E D as in the room? demolished and large, made taller. Okay, yeah, this is Joe here. We want to do as minimal demo as possible. So we were we need to add an elevator that's large enough to handle journeys and that's sort of at the direction of the fire chief. In order to make that work for both wings, there will have to be some connectivity to buildings added, but we do not want to demolish and we will be it's quite a nice lobby. We do not want to demolish that. Sorry. Only a portion of the center area will be made taller. So is there no elevator now for the hotel? Hi, this is Joe Larkin again. There's currently two operating elevators for the hotel. There is there was a bit of discussion going back and forth, but in order to accommodate a larger format elevator, we need to add a third elevator. Okay, thank you. And Joe, this, I got this right. It's John. Well, if I've got this right, the Western building has the sunset ball room in it. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So actually, in order to make connectivity, you're making connectivity to the sunset ballroom and to the upper floor of the Western building as well, right? So you need to you need to raise the whole, I'm looking at a Google shot of this, but it looks to me like you need to raise that whole pitched roof to up to pretty much the same heights as the current roofs are now in order to get there. Or some in some way, in some way and for the end, when we come back the next time, we will show you it's been a many iterative design process to get it to a point that we think works. You know, when we submitted this, we weren't quite we weren't quite there candidly. We believe we've got a solution. We think it looks elegant as can be. But it is adding a you know, it's adding a chimney elevator to the middle of this building. I will say this is not something that we advocated for. We fought pretty hard to use the current existing elevators, but we were it was pretty clear that we needed to add a third. Yeah, that I only know the sunset elevator, but that's a that's a fairly small elevator. See that. It's going to be. Go ahead. So the ballroom is going to remain. Yeah, but but we're unsure of how it's going to be used at this point in the game. It's not part of this proposal. Let's put it that way. It'll remain, you know, stuck to the building, but it's not part of our proposal. Thank you. Okay. Great. Is there any other questions before I go into the staff comment? Yes, Matt. So phasing south first, you said. No, you didn't say. No, I can handle phasing, Marla. We are as you look at the screen here on I think everybody's right hand side would be the east of the uphill side, if you will, and then the downhill side would be the west. We are looking to do it in blocks. So we would go east first, west second. There really is no logic to that other than that just seems like that's where we've gotten started and you know, just put up. So we're going to go ahead and you know, just but so we're going to work in one wing at a time and the elevator will we will we've ordered an elevator, you know, we want to do that as soon as possible. It's but you know, that's probably that's probably the last thing to get completed with the lead time. So it's phase one is east phase what two is west and tying it all together would be the improvements in the middle. What kind of duration are you thinking what you I guess the default that you need to get a zoning permit within a one year of your approval but you can get a zoning permit you can get a phased approval so you could ask for the board to approve three phases so you could actually do three zoning permits as opposed to doing all at once if you wanted to. What are you thinking in terms of timeline? You know, we want to do this as soon as possible. We have an empty hotel and we think there's demand for apartments. So, you know, I would say that if I wasn't concerned about the elevator being a bottleneck to open this thing and we need the elevator to we think we need the elevator functional to open at all. We would open at all you know, March but you know, there may there might be a chance that we can find a way to phase in you know, the east wing and you know, January, February and get the elevator functional and then work on the west but I would say that we would love to get this all buttoned up by early next year. Okay, well, when you come back for your next phase or your next application, you know, think about if you want to ask for a multi-phase project. It doesn't really add anything. It just gives you the ability to get more than one zoning permit rather than having to do all of your bonding and whatever for all the impact fees for the whole thing all at once. Thank you. Okay, if there's nothing else, go into the staff comments on page two. Based on a rough initial calculation using the I.T. trip generation, staff estimates the number of trips generated will increase by a small number over existing conditions. Since the project is located in the traffic overlay district, staff considers the board staff the applicant to provide a calculation of the total number of trips generated by the PUD at the next stage of review and plenary platform. Staff considers it unlikely that the total number of trips exceeds the allowable and also unlikely that the increase in trips is significant enough to warrant traffic management improvements. The conversion from a hotel to residential will impact the demand of the property for open space. If this proposal were for a new building, the board would likely require the functional open spaces for enjoying the residents as well as improvements to pedestrian connectivity. With the recognition that this is a conversion of an existing building, staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant enhancing the lawn area east of the building with the patio and seating for the use of residents and providing regular mowing of that area. Staff further recommends the board ask the applicant to describe what entrances will be available to residents and to ask them to make more than one entrance available to accommodate pedestrian access and circulation. So, Skip or Joe, you want to talk about the what's happening on outside of the building? The traffic we'll address with we'll engage a traffic person probably Roger Dickinson's name came up to provide a letter to provide a quick analysis of the difference in the hotel to the residential, but just the difference. And as far as enhancing that the area to the east, which I think is what Marla was requesting, I think that we think that's a great idea. That's a beautiful spot. And we recently cleaned out a lot of the underbrush in there and left it back to just the bigger trees. So yeah, it'll be a real amenity to the project. It's definitely part of that. Great. I'd like to see that in the next stage of your review. And then the final question was access. We have current, you know, when it was a hotel we had functioning access in the lobby space then at the terminus of the east and west wings and also exiting the backs out of the lobby. We believe the one on the west and the east and in the lobby, they'll remain. The one on the back of the lobby, we've got to figure that out now. The elevator is coming in so that's yet to be determined, but we will have there will certainly be a proper amount of entrances and pedestrian entrances. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions to the board regarding access and exterior? Joe, no other amenities. No swimming pool. I don't know. Just here. There is a pool in the Holiday Express, which is the building you see to the left of this building. And we'll find a way to see if that makes sense for the residents to use. There'll be fitness. There are multiple rooms in this building that we don't have a real great solution for or an answer for, so we could add more amenity space. And that includes the rooftop. You know, certainly that's a beautiful space up there. It won't become units, so we will find something to do with it. We just don't have the answer for that yet, but we're thinking certainly resident amenities is what we're talking through and thinking through. Okay. Thank you, Joe. Staff coming number two, roadway sidewalks and parking dimensional standards. Staff asked the board to provide directions. Staff is asking us to provide them direction on whether they would like them to provide an analysis of existing unmodified site features for the next stage of review. This is talking about roadway or parking lot standards, which are not really affected by this application. Right, Matt. I don't know if that was here. My question is, do you want us to look at whether it meets the LDRs in the parts of the project that aren't changing or because they're not changing? Do we just let them lie? Are you talking about like non-conforming uses or? Non-conforming dimensions mostly, but I genuinely don't know. At a glance it looks like it's probably found, but we haven't done that analysis and I'm asking to do that analysis. What year was this was this PUD developed? The 2000 and then with minor modifications since then. The piece between the two wings was permitted in 92. I recently noticed. Yeah, well I mean my initial thought is we we not you know had to increase the non-conformity, which I don't I assume we're all on the same page here, but I don't know. John, Mark, Alyssa, Jim, what do you think? I think it's unlikely that that we'll actually make a problem here, but it's fine with me if Marla wants to take a look at it. I you know when you consider how many hotel rooms there were and you add to that the fact that there was a ball room and I've never been there and not been able to get a parking space. I don't think there's a parking problem and then it's then it's just a question of landscaping and so forth and I don't it's well landscaped now, so I don't think there's a problem, but I'll leave it to you all. Yeah, I concur with John on that. I mean I'm just wondering what Marla would find that we would sort of hold the applicant's feet to the fire and not provide a waiver for when it's been operating for decades functionally, you know, and if we're talking about dimensional standards and parking counts. Marla, I think if you're looking for more work to do, you know, go at it. I'm not sure what you're going to discover that we're not going to be amicable to a waiver or you know. Okay, anyone else? Okay, number three, which is waste disposal staff recommends the board ask the applicant how solid waste is proposed to be handled for the proposed unit. If you look to the left to the west of the building, you'll see the dumpster area right there that we'll use that area and if it requires more stock per week, you know, to get rid of it then we'll do that, but that'll be the same dumpster that we're using today will be used in the future. But the individual property owners will be emptying their their refuse in that dumpster. That's right, yes. Well that's it for staff comments, right? Are there any other questions from the board for the applicant? Yes, this is this is Jim. I just have a question about just what this change of use likely to be would be more pedestrians just because people are going to be living there and the closest park is to the east and just have different thoughts about sort of the pedestrian connection. I think it's called Collins Boulevard to, you know, sort of connect with Baycrest Park or that area. Right now there's a drive through there. You can see right there. So I guess I'll just be clear with my question. So there is a driveway there. I don't believe there's a sidewalk and especially if there's going to be people living there, there might be more cars on that street and there's not a, I don't believe there's a sidewalk there and that would be the sort of shortest way to get to to get to the closest park. Right. So what Jim's saying is the closest park is kind of off to the right-hand side of the page in the Baycrest neighborhood. So you go a Harborview Road and then it's past the end of the page. So what you're asking about is how the safety of people walking out to the Harborview Road sidewalk. So right now that's a very little used piece of roadway. It could be smoothed out. So of course I think there's plenty of room for cars and pedestrians on that and it's not completely paved so we couldn't strike it. But I think it's adequate for both cars and pedestrians. Is it part of this PUD? Is that road? It's not, no. No, okay. Is it a public road? No, it's actually a driveway. And it has an easement over it to to the bulk parcel and bulk parcels are controlled by the Larkin. Joe, I don't know if you have any interest in doing this but you've got you've got that ravine to the north. I know that Pitzagale did some work to get you know sort of a walking path along the side of that ravine in order to create a recreational area and it looks like you've got the ability certainly with the eastern northern hotel. I don't know which one name that's under to do something into the into the riverbed there area where you could just have a walking path. Yeah, I kind of trace where that I think that's where that path is. I walked it a couple weeks ago. Who do we get permits for for something like that? I like the idea. I just don't know how to who approves that. It's very steep there you know from that hotel down to the Bartlett Brook that's a tributary or could be the main of Bartlett Brook if there's a steep bank right there so it may not be a great access point to get from this parking lot down to that that green area. Right, so this is the brook, right? That's good. There you go right through there exactly and there's a fairly steep bank between us the project and that brook. So if there were a path it wouldn't probably be all the way down to the brook. It would be maybe along the top or something but it would be very it would be limited. And that kind of hearish is that right? The big culvert to cross the brook? No, that's right. There is a big culvert there. Oh, I know what it is. Wait, wait, wait. I got this. The brook actually goes like this and there's a big culvert somewhere in this vicinity to get the path across it. Yeah. But you know, so Jim's question and comment was that the park's up to the east. I wonder if we could do a walking path. Can you scroll back down more or less so we can see the bottom of the yeah. I'm hesitant to want to add pavement or concrete to this project at this point. There's a lot of pavement and concrete in this project. I'd like to actually get rid of some over time. But what if we thought about a walking path that came out of the east end of the building and traversed towards the road, you know, sort of tracing Collins or on the land that we own or are we thinking the path has to be paved or what's the standard I guess we're looking for here. So this is Jim. I wasn't necessarily looking for sort of add an LDR and saying provide this. I'm just thinking of just the practical and so I mean it wouldn't need to be paved. It's just you know a safe way for people to walk to that sidewalk and if there's a different route besides Collins full of our this safer that that sounds like it could work. Okay. I would suggest we explore some walking paths then skip on on that land coming out of the east of of our building and I know there's a river bank we need to avoid and all that but I think that we could probably we could explore that and think about a path that goes through there. Right. With a little hand in there that's that's an obvious path through there. The other place is the topography kind of restricts how much you can do in those areas. It really does. You might connect Joe and skip to the bike and pad committee and hear their thoughts. They might have good suggestions. Great. Okay. Is there any other questions from the board or for the applicant of staff before I ask people if they have any public comments? Hearing none if you would like to make a comment if you're a member of the public. You can either enter your name into the chat box or just say your name and I'll call on you. Checking the chat box not seeing any requests for public comment not hearing anyone speak up at this time. So that's it. Thank you for your for this and we'll next see you at preliminary plot. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you very much. See you. So we now move to agenda item number six. Agenda item number six is a sketch plan application SD 2034 of Easter Development Corporation for a planned unit development. An existing 8.66 acre lot developed with a single family home and 7,000 square foot storage building. The planned unit development consists of one 6.6 acre lot containing 36 dwelling units and three family buildings a 1.38 acre lot containing the existing single family home and a storage building and a third lot containing proposed city streets at 600 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? I'm here. My name is Frank Von Turgovich. Hi Frank. Hi. Anyone here with you? Lucy there with Trudel Consulting Engineers and Abby Derry as well with Trudel Consulting. Hi Lucy. Hi Abby. Similar to what I did the last time around but for anyone who's just tuned in. I just wanted to do a brief introduction of what a sketch plan is and what it's not. Here in South Burlington a sketch plan is a high level review and discussion where the applicant receives feedback from the development review board on major elements of this project before it is fully designed. During this meeting we may provide oral guidance to the applicant which constitutes our determination that the application meets the purposes of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Our comments are to help guide you the applicant to a later application that meets the LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of South Burlington's comprehensive plan. This is not a formal hearing. It does not result in a binding decision. The board may choose to continue the meeting at a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined upon the conclusion of the sketch plan meeting. The applicant wishes to move forward with the project. We'll have to submit a complete application and the next level of review includes additional public notices and a formal public hearing. So with that Frank or Lucy or Abby if you'd like to describe this project more. Matt real quick just so that everybody knows years ago Frank and I did a fair amount of business at the National Life together and and I don't think I need to recuse myself but I bring it up. Thank you John. Thank you Matt. Thank you John. Years ago as well I did some work from Frank as under as an architect but it's been a couple decades Frank but I don't think I need to recuse myself either. No I don't I don't think so either more. Good to see you and good to see you John. Well thank you. Okay again Matt tonight we have with us as part of our team Abby Derry who's the project manager for this from Trudell Consulting Engineers and Lucy Thayer her colleague who's a professional landscape architect. Our what we're presenting tonight for a sketch plan review is a plan for a parcel of land located on Spear Street at 600 Spear Street and on the screen in front of us is a in the green box there is the land parcel that we're talking about. It's an 8.6 acre parcel with Spear Street on the left going north and south and then the interstate to the right to the east and in between two UVM parcels of land that I'm sure most of the people on this call tonight are quite familiar with. It's essentially a private land parcel that's zoned R4 in the middle of the UVM farmland on Spear Street. This parcel currently has a large two-story colonial house at the south end of the parcel of right along Spear Street and a large large ish 7,000 square foot approximately steel building located behind it. The two other homes that you see on Spear Street are both private dwellings owned and occupied by the residents who have been there for quite some time. The building and the house were the homestead and the business space for a cool yard construction company that is winding up now after being in business for many years. Mr. Cool Yard was in the underground utility construction business and I think his focus was mostly on underground piping and lighting systems and things of that sort. So today the land has the building is still being used for storage and equipment but that will all be emptied out once we take over and there are still some construction a few pieces of construction equipment on the land and a small shed that's still located on the property. The other thing to for the board to know at this point is that the property was filled in the we believe it was in the 1980s when most of the fill was done and the grade was raised in some places by as much as six, seven, eight feet in deeper in a few places with material that originated for the most part from buildings and sites on the UVM campus. One of the first things we did and just recently completed was a whole series of environmental investigations into the land including a recently completed phase two study that has shown that there are not any hazardous substances that would prevent the site from being used for housing. There are a few precautions that we'll have to take in areas where there was some fill and you know maybe cap some areas and and do some things that the consultants will recommend but for the most part there wasn't any groundwater contamination. I say for the most part there was no groundwater contamination and we even investigated around the the house on Spear Street to make sure that the original fuel tanks were removed properly and everything has checked out. There is a wetland located in the southeast corner of the property that will be avoided. It'll be clearly avoided by the housing project that we're proposing and then later when we are interested in installing some photovoltaic solar panels for the project that area will also be avoided. Other than that the land is is is buildable. It's flat and we can work with the contours that we have for drainage and we're very excited that it's a very buildable site. So our plan is to do residential housing to do rental housing and maybe we should go ahead and put up the site plan. Marla are you controlling that? I am. I have a question. Sure. This is Dawn. So I appreciate the fact that you've done you've looked at environmental contaminants. Are the materials that were put there from UVM building at UVM did any of the any that happened prior to 1978? I'm wondering about lead. But yeah I don't know the answer to the to the question in terms of what years Phil may have been brought in. There are some old vestigial farm kind of dump areas that we found. There's some you know plows and tractors and things that are sort of stuck in the ground out there. So there are clearly some things that go way back but it doesn't to my knowledge actually I don't have direct knowledge about that so I won't try to answer. So you don't know if there's any lead in the soil that's been detected? No. But the phase two study certainly tested for metals and we can provide more detail about that. Okay. Thank you. So our plan let's go ahead and take a look at the site plan if you folks are ready for that. Yeah go ahead Frank. Do you want this one or do you want the color one? The color one I think would would be good. You got it. Frank and I got to practice this at city council last night. We did. Oh sorry I have my screen posted showing on my screen. Okay great. So actually Lucy do you want to walk us through the layout? You did such a great job with that last night and then we'll go from there you know from there. I'd be happy to. So like has been described we're proposing a series of four plexes eight total in this orientation so what we've done here is we are proposing a new city street which is at the south end of the property off of Spear Street that's to replace the existing driveway so that would become our access to the site. If we are proposing a 50-foot right-of-way with our street that comes in then the city street once you get into the parcel and you're past the existing storage shed the street then goes north south so that's a north south connection and you can see we're showing connections to both UVM parcels if there is an opportunity in the future where those would be developed there's connectivity built into the project. So our as you can tell from this layout we have sited all of our houses the development is sited towards the west end of the parcel so we're really trying to in this PUD create a clustered small footprint you can we're trying to reduce impervious surface reduce any sort of sprawl maintain a contiguous piece of land on the west end of the parcel and also buffer away from the I-89 corridor. There is an existing tree buffer that is present on our parcel at the east end between the parcel and I-89 that is an effective buffer that will remain but we did try to site everything as far east as possible for a couple of reasons also to avoid any impacts to natural resources we're avoiding all of the impacts to the class 2 any class 2 wetlands that are present so as you can tell from our our sketch plan here we're really trying to focus on creating a strong streetscape element the city street comes in east west and then turns north south so the remainder of the circulation is a private way but we wanted to maintain that strong street presence in street feel even if it is not an actual part of part of the city street so to maintain a continuous vibrant streetscape we have added in a central green area to the project so that we've been careful to make sure that there is enough public and private outdoor space within the development so each unit has got its unique outdoor space that's private either in a patio or a porch and then we've also created this interior space that's communal it's not currently articulated because we're still in this preliminary stage but that would be further developed at the next round so we have on-street parking we have tried to do a lot of parallel parking here to maintain that streetscape and let's see what what else what am i missing guys no i think you've um you've lit it up pretty well lucy the the thing i think we can talk more about the buildings as soon as we put up our other slide but at this point we can either move into that and explain to that board how we're approaching the building marla marla i can see marla hinting at what i missed and it is the straw it's so um one element i forgot to mention is that in our effort to reduce impervious surface and limit parking to just what's necessary kind of finding that sweet spot we really want to connect to the bike path because we have an opportunity where the bike path does run along spear street so what we've done is we've extended the bike path into our parcel to create a safe circulation pattern and really one thing we're trying to do with this development is because we're about a mile south of the uvm campus so we have a really great location we're close it's walkable it's bikeable and we're really trying to encourage that sort of use where folks are getting on their bike they're using this bike path in and around um and hopefully reducing you know car transportation so thanks lucy yeah there's there's more for us to say about uh those kind of features those amenities bike and pedestrian access being something that we really think makes the project stronger so um we will definitely focus on that whenever the board wants us to or we can continue with that now um no i yeah go ahead go into the building if you could frank uh you've got 36 units planned here right the buildings are all that's a great show okay we could uh blow that up a little bit um okay so all the buildings are four plexus each building has each half of the building has two units in it one up and one down sorry uh they are connected by a stairway in the middle which will be a breezeway kind of stairway in a few minutes we can show you another slide that'll highlight that aspect of it but the idea was to keep the buildings small in other words present enough light coming through the buildings in between the buildings so that somebody walking down the sidewalk would be able to look into the backyards and really have a feeling that there is some open space in the project but again four unit buildings eight buildings on the plan so that brings us to 32 units the existing colonial house that's on beer street would be uh divided into probably two units that would make the most sense it's a big house and probably isn't going to work really well for a family situation so we're thinking about dividing that into two rental units possibly three and uh if that happens then it brings us up to the 35 units that were allowed under current density there was a there is a reference in our materials to 36 units but the total unit count frankly has been a bit of a moving target and we will try to nail that down when we come back to the to the board with with more detail um and so that is and you crank you're keeping the steel building I say yes the steel building is something we really should spend some time talking about the it's it is a typical steel building I'm not sure right I can't remember the brand right now but it is actually in really good condition as as you as you might imagine it's a what makes it so good is that it's got a really heavy duty foundation that the cool yard's built for it so there's a big slab inside the building it was used for all of their equipment we looked at it and realized that to actually to demolish the building which was something we were thinking about initially would cost a lot of money and really seemed to be kind of wasteful because we have some ideas for how to repurpose the building and uh one of the uses the ball court well it's not I don't know if it's tall enough for that it might be but one idea is to use a a a chunk of it probably 1500 square feet or so as storage space for the for the units so it would be heated storage available to the tenants everybody needs storage and to try to keep some of the things out of people's apartments that normally end up in there because there isn't convenient storage would be a a great solution uh we also envision a a shop space inside the building where tenants could use the shop to work on equipment gear bicycles and that would be available on a year-round basis the rest of the space in the building some of it would be ours to use for maintenance and other needs that we have for the for the project and then there's there's room left over inside there that we'd like to talk to the to the board about that maybe look at an idea to have some maker space or some office space that would be available for people who are working at home and and this day of living through the pandemic where a lot of people are working out of their living rooms having a place to go to where you know they might be able to work within walking distance of their house or maybe the company or the person the company that they work for would be willing to rent some space for them these are all things that that we could contemplate doing inside that building refitting it with a new hvac system making it a pretty interesting space possibly and that's that's an idea that we're talking to the planning staff about so no changes right now to the exterior of the building well we're not showing anything but clearly there would have to be we would have to add windows we are planning to look at the feasibility of doing solar on the roof if the ridge runs north and south so we could certainly do solar facing west but it's a fairly flat pitch on the roof so we could probably do east and west solar and make that work so yeah we'd like to we would we would plan on making a pretty substantial investment in the building to make it functional and useful and i believe this is dawn here i believe it's now orange or yellow on the outside yes it is not an appealing color i would hope that there would be an attempt to provide a more muted exterior absolutely yep and none of the site has any paving on it now so the paving that you see on this plan would would be in front of the building so here's a here's a street view giving you some more feeling for how this would feel from the neighborhood context and if you can look inside that space between the two buildings you can see the stairs that right there yeah oops sorry that's okay it's probably not going to show up very well but you can kind of see the angle of the stairs coming up to the second second floor so that one set of stairs goes up to a platform and right and left accessed into the two second floor apartments um the next slide will give us a look at the back of the building yeah and on this slide and again this architecture is really early and there are a lot of things that we would probably want to express differently but you can see the the idea that each second floor unit will have a covered porch and underneath that porch is a ground floor patio for the down for the downstairs units and those would all face into these backyard green areas that would once their landscape would give people some privacy and some autonomy to do things around their own apartment and then if there's more of a group thing that's happening the commons area or the green space that we talked about earlier would be used for that occupied third floor frank no it's uh our designer has shown shown a window up there probably trying to we're trying to keep the scale of this close to what you see on that big colonial house that's on spear street so that we're not doing something that's radically different and and the the board should probably know that we did look at a lot of different ideas and we've looked at uh flat roof three-story modern buildings and things and and some of those thoughts um they were interesting but I think sticking to something that's more traditional that kind of plays off the uh agricultural uses that are going on at the uvm farm uh the the steel building that would remain and uh this this all would start to maybe pull in some of those um some of those uh agricultural ideas and you don't see a lot of that on these drawings yet but we are thinking of some some design elements that might pull some of that together I I think it looks fantastic frank and uh and this is a high level of detail for sketch plan uh thank you so well we wanted the board to see the idea I mean the concept at least and uh as it's expressed here and if if if you like what you see then we'd like to continue to work on this and try to get something more detailed in front of you as soon as we can frank uh stuff through stuff comments can I just ask about uh parcel parcel b because I know that won't come up in the staff comments what's what what happens to the uh to the east of the property well john to the east uh you can see there's a um there's a berm that the um that this design has placed on the site and we probably will want to build some type of berm that we can put some new vegetation on some new trees to help give those trees a boost and a start uh there is concern on our part um about noise from the highway but um so on on days when the winds are prevailing which they normally do out of the west uh it's it's no it's not that bad I mean up even where I live on swift street I can hear the noise from the interstate and I'm pretty far away when when the winds belong in the right direction or for the most part I don't think noise will be a big issue but we're still we're going to do everything we can to uh to try to buffer against that we're pretty sure we can get a good visual buffer on a year-round basis so that people will be able to see the fields around the project but they're not going to see the cars moving by that uh you know continuously on the interstate as far as the rest of the land is concerned though it's it's the thought was to keep the project tight to the west as possible and then to the east of this area is where we would in the future propose to install some uh some solar because as we as we talk to the city council about last night um we think we can make this almost fully net zero and go all electric with this project we're planning to do uh air to air heat pumps um on demand hot water heaters near the fixtures um where our goal is to make it completely uh self-sufficient in that sense energy-wise terrific thank you okay any other comments before I step through the the staff note some of this we've already discussed but uh for the purposes of making sure we cover everything on the first comment go go ahead for a comment no I just wanted to say you know I know that the staff comments we're going to go through them predominantly seem to focus mainly on like circulation and parking and streets and stuff like that um I do just want to you know again think her like with john and what you've said Matt is I like this layout um I normally don't really like the the sort of traditional grid layout but I think that it really works here it's small enough but big enough that it sort of creates its own little neighborhood set back from the street um I think that you know the one area where you have the common green space where you have the three buildings really does create like a common area and I like the connection up to the bike path so you know I see that the architecture is still early but I do like that you didn't go with the flat top modern you know siding buildings um you know the sort of has that sort of Vermont's farmhouse vernacular look to it and um I think as it gets developed further it's just going to improve it so I like this project thanks mark thank you it's uh we do too we really feel like we after looking a lot of different ideas this one really seemed really strong to us and I have to credit Lucy and Abby with this I'd like to take all the credit myself but I can't no it's a good little compact project okay um step government number one the maximum lock coverage is 40 percent which the applicant is proposing to very slightly exceed on the front lot parcel a the lock coverage of 40.3 percent as a PUD the board has the authority to waive overall lock coverage on a lot-by-lot basis as long as the overall zoning district coverage is not exceeded staff supports this waiver recommends the board discuss whether they would approve a slightly higher waiver say 45 percent in order to facilitate mitre modification without the board review in the future is that something Lucy or Frank you think you need we're asking for um I I think that we would be amenable to the request of that um so that there is a little bit of flexibility so uh the total lock coverage the other thing I would add go ahead Frank okay I was also going to add that um we're working closely and Marla can tell you this that we're working closely with staff on this we wanted to um as you know we did go to the city council last night and asked for permission to proceed with this out of interim zoning and uh the council is going to we think make a decision on that on November 2nd um the council seemed if I can offer this uh interested in that in that possibility and but it's because we're working closely with staff to make sure that the PUD concepts that you see here meet the current regulations but also regulations that might come out of the interim zoning um changes so to have a little bit of flexibility on on those kinds of issues or those kinds of parameters would be helpful oh this is this is part of the southeast quadrant so we're under interim zoning here we are part of the transit overlay which is the what interim zoning covers I say I say because it's okay right sorry not part of transit overlay though it's under interim zoning um in city council hasn't ruled on this yet not yet but uh last night's meeting was uh I thought uh productive and very positive and what Frank what you alluded to what was the the part of this that would comply with the changes to interim zoning well I think the concept uh one of the things that's going to come through for all of us out of interim zoning when it comes to PUDs is the typology and and sort of conformance with some of these design ideas that that the city is going to want to see expressed in future PUDs and Marla may be able to speak to this more accurately than I can certainly Paul when when when he's available will um but we think that the project really does address today's PUD uh concepts and the um the ones that we anticipate the city adopting in the future so we're we're pretty sure we're going to be in good shape even as a future project yeah so um I can talk a little bit about it obviously Paul is much closer to this but um there the future PUDs will as Frank mentioned require certain typologies um which refers to um building types that are allowed in each area fourplexes will be allowed in the r4 district um it's going to strong it's very likely to require buildings to face on streets um with an emphasis on compact development centered around a common space or central feature um and uh other things are to include a mix of uses so those are really things that this application has hit on but the the changes to the PUD requirements and the land development regulations are not tied to um the the lifting of interim zoning correct no we're we're asking uh for permission to proceed the no no i'm sorry Frank that was that was more of a question of Marla that we can have changes presented to the PUDs uh without the interim zoning is going to last another year uh but the the PUD changes could happen sooner than that is that correct Marla um the PUDs changes are one of the purposes one of the goals of interim zoning so once that's gotten taken care of um then the same council is more likely to lift interim zoning right but there are other things in interim zoning purposes well we don't need to go into it okay thank you i'm clear in my mind um next item number two road width at this time the north south roadways are proposed to have a 24-foot drive width with a eight-foot parallel parking at some locations and the east west private roadways are proposed to have 20 to 22 foot drive width standard neighborhood street width is 26 feet including parking on one side though in the case of the 26 foot width parallel parking is generally informal well staff is generally supportive of the more formalized north south roadways with parallel parking on one side divided by bump out staff considers that a standard drive width of 20 feet is more likely to result in neighborhood feel and reduce potential future cut through traffic recommend the board direct the applicant to reduce the drive width 20 feet retain the eight-foot parking the state of gold the developer is strong bicycle pedestrian connectivity which staff considers is more supported by a narrow width so lucy or frank what what what what say you regarding um 20 feet versus 24 feet we're okay with that um we we actually uh like the idea of minimizing the traveling widths so sure okay do you want the board have a have a comment we're on 24 versus 20 no i'm always a pain of reducing pavement width yeah i think as long as i think as long as the uh parking the nose-in parking still works i have no problem with it yeah i'm fine with it okay number three um staff considers in order to create a right-of-way with either no jug excuse me staff considers in order to create a right-of-way with either no jog or less of a jog the board should require the applicant to shift the right-of-way slightly south no more than 40 feet on the subject property this would have solved the front setback issue on the existing hall to remain the consequence would be that the parcel to the south would be required to provide additional right-of-way at this such time it's developed which could potentially be used for street trees and a sidewalk or parking as appropriate um my love maybe you could i'm a little confused uh what we're talking about here um sure can you show us the right-of-way or highlight it right so the proposed right-of-way is here and the property line um as it's shown today that results in a five foot front setback for the existing building the board's authority to waive front setbacks is only to 10 feet they can't act we can actually waive it down to five um so that proposed right-of-way doesn't really work um for that reason um and then i guess the rest of the comment is i'm gonna have to pause my screen and go back to the comment because i've forgotten the rest of it um i guess the if for whatever reason in the future the whole roadway becomes public um then the right-of-way i'm gonna do this a little bit differently um the extension of the right-of-way couldn't be just straight because it would then go through the homes um and i apologize i have a funny line type on right now it's coming out of this double line um so it would go right through the homes if in order to have a functional right-of-way this way in the future if for whatever reason this became a public road then there would be sort of a jog in the right-of-way here where it goes from you know up high um so there's really no need for the entire right-of-way to be on this parcel um you know it could be if it didn't present these other problems but one potential solution would be to provide you know a 40-foot right-of-way or whatever is necessary on this parcel and then at such time as UVM wishes to develop they would be obligated to provide it you know the remaining 10 up to a normal right-of-way right got it i see what you're getting at frank or lucy do you have a comment about that suggestion uh we're we don't have a i don't know that we have any particular issue with it we haven't had a chance to think it through thoroughly we are in conversations with the university and i don't think that they'll be ready to commit to a future plan for this but we'll certainly bring it up i do have a question for marla maybe can or the board can we um can we propose a 40-foot right-of-way along this location rather than a 50-foot right now and then um you know in the future should we be able to work with UVM and get more right-of-way on the south side increase it to 50 feet yeah i don't it's been done before obviously this would be a question for the board but um let me reframe it a little bit in more of the context of the board is used to hearing it if you were to propose to dedicate 40 of 50 feet at this time then the board's decision would have to say at such time as the southern parcel is developed the additional 10 feet would need to be um provided but that's fairly normal where a proposed right-of-way is split between the applicant and the adjoining landowner it sort of becomes the cost of doing business for the adjoining landowner to have this ability for some of the access to their own parcel marla it's john i mean the the jog word occurs also occurs at a private road so does it really matter i mean you know i guess we're sort of thinking that this private road may decide it wants to become public at such time as there's connectivity but at such time this the university or whoever their developer is would be coming back to somebody to to get that ability to do that so uh you know at that time there's not i just i mean they're developing all of this at the moment um so i don't see the problem one one question i have is i see on the you can see it underneath the line of street trees um running east west on the southern portion of that new city street it says new maintenance easement is that uvm granting you that easement to put in those street trees we we have uh mark we've talked to uvm about that we've shown them this plan and we believe that that is going to be acceptable to them that we can install street trees and maintain that landscaping there okay so that we're looking specifically for the permission to do that from them yeah and and now that we're talking about these staff comments we will have a conversation with uvm about this so if this can all be resolved before we have to put put our project forward we will but but i think that the idea of dealing with it on a joint landowner basis and splitting it sounds like a say a fair way to do it yeah i mean if you can get it cleared up during this project approval so much cleaner but as a board member i'm fine with putting a condition that in the future if in the future uvm develops it they have to take on the rest of the right of it right and that land that's farther to the east uh that we're talking we talked about a few minutes ago when john asked um it is possible that uh that that would become more intensely developed in the future but um i think that that that how that would be used is really something that we can't we certainly aren't thinking about right now and don't see it as being a likely thing with the uh traffic is in the proximity to the interstate and probably the city would want people to leave a big buffer there in the future i would think yeah we have a hundred uh 200 foot interstate buffer 150 foot interstate buffer either way you're well out of it um there is still the issue of the front setback on this building that can't be less than 10 feet um so all other things aside the front setback can't be made in a non-conforming way this would need to come in at least five feet so it's 10 feet away around so marlowe if if we could uh our we'll regroup on this after tonight's meeting and talk about the idea of a of a two part setback a two part right-of-way concept keeping all of our improvements built on a valid right-of-way today but if it's going to be more developed in the future the other landowner would have to contribute some additional right-of-way hey frank i think i think you gained it in the street you went from a 26 foot street to a 20 foot street i think uh on the private lane that's in between house number one and house number two and you probably have gained enough land to be able to make it work right yeah yeah have you looking at this yeah good catch uh um item number four road layout impacts the setbacks the application is proposing distributed parking in lieu of one central parking area proposal which staff supports added parking is not allowed on the streets staff therefore recommend before discussed with the applicant strategies for making the north northern east west connection have the appearance and function of a driveway leading to a parking areas rather than a road potentially to include narrow entries bicycle parking or benches in site distance appropriate landscaped areas um so the northern east west connection have the appearance and function of a driveway you highlight specifically are you talking about okay i don't have any ideas do they have any ideas for strategies boy i think they did it i think frank i think they did it pretty well honestly so i would say that's definitely a goal that we're trying to communicate is that it is um what marla's asking or what staff is requesting here and if there are additional elements we could include benches or other strategies we are certainly open to that we we look forward to more more discussion with staff about that point okay great thank you frank let's see um okay at number five if the board generally supports the idea of this connection talking about the connection to the existing north south recreation path on spear street um if the board supports this connection staff considers the applicant should prepare a detail proposal how to improve the safety of this crossing taking into consideration the city's proposed improvements and the timeline there of along this corridor yes i would support the connection what are the improvements maybe marla you can tell me the city's improvements to this like that this is a 35 mile an hour roadway um but i think that people tend to drive a little bit faster than that because it is pretty far to the next control it's you know either way far north or on the other side of the interstate so the concern is that you're screaming along in a car and then all of a sudden someone's someone's crossing on bike around foot here so you know perhaps someone who's a little better better at this kind of stuff could say whether it can be adequate or maybe you know some signs farther up that say head crossing ahead or what have you to make sure that this is a safe pedestrian crossing the one next to my house here on dorset street we we're at 40 miles an hour and i can assure you people go faster than that and it's very effectively lit um flashing signals so signalizing it um seems to work very fairly effectively people do pay pay attention to it and do stop great yeah and i think that's something that we would definitely look at in the next the next step of the project um are there cities are there proposed improvements at this time on along spear street in this corridor for traffic calming or speed calming uh there are a couple improvements proposed at the far end but not in the center okay we can show you this take myself a note when you say far end marlore are you talking about closer to uvm or further away uh both actually okay so yeah i would i would you're looking at it on google maps and seeing how you're going across there and i understand marlore's comment much better now i know that i see that we're the stuff going through rec practice and uh and yes i'm very familiar with the the lights near john pass on dorset street and i think that would be um a great idea of how to do do that um in terms of slow down traffic for people crossing walking or biking i think it works at least i think it works i'm not sure anyone has a better idea there is there is a swale on the far side of it uh that you've got a cross right there is yeah we would envision uh filling that in filling a pathway across that swale it's about it's about it's more of a slope john that kind of goes down to the to the path so yeah yeah in the old days when i actually could run i used to know about that but anyway good okay item number six regarding the storage building now we did talk about this frank but staff recommends the board invite the applicant describe their conceptual uses for the building discuss with the applicant how it might be integrated into their development using visual cues such as pathways and landscaping i think you heard from don that a different color would be nice i certainly heard from you frank that you have a variety of different proposals for the inside that all makes sense to me does the board have any other comments about what what use should have whether the building should stay what what what what i think of the proposed uses for it frank this is it's john again this is such an opportunity i know you see it but a small industrial building has so many possible uses um i i mean i assume you'll core some windows in it maybe even do a mural on the outside of it it's it's got great opportunity and i i think you should take it if you don't want to take advantage of it sell it to me and i'll take advantage of it now i i john we totally see that and we really like the idea and we're we haven't had a chance to to do anything yet with any detail but we will come back to the board with some some good ideas for that we're excited about it any other board member have comment about possible uses potential uses for the the building existing building yes that the stuff they were hard to be was really about really about getting to the building yeah that's actually i was just gonna jump in on that marla so uh we're still in a really preliminary stage of the design but once we do figure out more of the interior use and where those connections need to be it will will definitely provide those in terms of visual compatibility it will have the same treatment as the rest of the project so visually it will be compatible similar and we will be sure to provide the adequate and appropriate access to that facility thank you let's do um i remember seven regarding one one one one quick one quick thing that uh frank abbey when when you're talking to uvm you might want to talk to them about opportunities as well they have their engineering group their athletic group there's all sorts of opportunities for that building that may tie to tie to uvm be very positive for you right thank you yep okay open space number seven the applicant is proposing an interior commons area for which no design has yet been proposed staff considers that in order to avoid this area being perceived as an extension of adjacent backyards that some delineation is necessary staff recommends the board discuss the design of this area with the applicant what marlowe can you highlight this commons area you're referring to yep um it's the dark green square um that kind of forms that interior quad of between two three and five right and you could delineate it with uh landscaping there's a lot of right there's a lot of different ways we could delineate it either with landscape elements um there could be if like maybe the we want to use a similar vernacular so maybe it's a split rail fence maybe it's large boulders um maybe it's shrubs and trees and plants it could be soft or hard we haven't gotten into that level of detail but uh point taken and we will certainly take that into consideration and incorporate it into the next round excellent thank you very much that was okay that is oh no number eight uh parking staff regards the board discuss these parking spaces of the applicant and consider whether they consider acceptable as noted above staff considers both north south roadways have the potential to become public streets and headed parking is generally not allowed on these streets staff notes that the diagonal parking may be allowed on public streets parking is prohibitive between the buildings and streets with the purpose of the parking locations being activated street presence the applicant has brought seven head in parking spaces along the road adjacent to the community common area the ldr does provide an exception for parking in the front of the case of public recreation uses the board should discuss whether this common area could be considered as public recreation now we're so okay that's to the right of the common space right marla right parking is prohibited between buildings and streets with the purpose of parking locations being activated streets so this is if this road this is if this road becomes a public road as a private road those parking spaces would be allowed under the ldr's but if it became public it would not that correct so the lbr's actually don't speak to head in parking on streets it's just that the city would never accept a street with head in parking oh i say so so the question is i mean if they if they wanted to the city to say go over the street they would have to change the parking configuration and then subsequently apply i think if this road were to connect to the north and south the city would want to take it over because it would then be well landowners and we wouldn't want a private street yeah well you get so either fix it now to prepare for it to be a public street or accept that you have to change your configuration in order for it to become a public street um so one thing one potential idea is that public streets can um accept diagonal parking i know that does kind of make it a little scary for you guys because then you only can get at it from one direction um but that's one potential and i we genuinely wanted the board's feedback on this because i think it's a bit of us to heal again i think it's uh i think it's a non-issue the these are private streets and if the city wants it to become public at some point in the future the city has the ability to negotiate for the for the public street what is the frank what do you what do you say about this i i uh i i guess i'll say a few things please one is that i we really like the way the parking is working inside the project as as shown it gets enough parking close enough to the uh to the apartment doors that we believe are going to be necessary for people that just have to have it to be conveniently uh accessible um so to the extent possible everything you see on the private side of the project we think the layout works well and it and it still pays um it still respects some of these design features that we talked about earlier in terms of the streetscape and the typology even though the these streets do have some head-in parking on them or i call them streets these driveways have head-in parking on them it still feels like more of a neighborhood street arrangement in the future the dedicated city street that's already designed to run north and south we think that those two interconnect those two intersections would give adjoining landowners plenty of access to our entrance road and and the road going north and south there should be more than sufficient future access if things change and the city envisions this property to the east of this being developed closer to the interstate and and the city street is required um probably the one that's furthest south that runs east and west would be the way to get there i think additionally i was just going to say additionally to point out if it did if um diagonal parking is permitted a simple change in striping could change this from um you know i don't know that there's a lot of dimensional change so i think that this is not prohibitive of a city street coming there in the future that that would be my response which is i think the parking works here is a private street if it becomes a public street you're gonna have to change your striping but i don't think that that the design would have to be changed other than you might lose a couple spots with a with a bird and you'd have to drive around in order to get there it's my point i don't know i don't know that doesn't that doesn't bother me anybody else on the board have a comment no i'm fine with that no i'm fine with it as is okay um and that's it for staff comments uh there any other questions that the applicant has for the board or for staff we're i think we're we're good uh we really like the fact that you like it it's it's great any any comments from the public regarding this project if so say your name or enter your name into the chat box checking the chat box not hearing anyone so um that's it we'll next see you at preliminary class thanks frank thanks abby thanks lucy okay moving on to agenda item number seven agenda member seven continued preliminary plot application sd 2016 of will brian farm road llc for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 458 dwelling units up to 45 000 square feet of office space phase consists of six multifamily residential units with a total of 342 dwelling units of which 48 are proposed exclusionary units and an additional offset of 48 market rate units for a total of 390 dwelling units in an underground parking and 35 square feet of commercial office space at 255 kennedy drive who was here for the applicant hey evin evin and andrew thank you now i did read that um but i might have memorized that because this is the fifth time you folks have been before us for a preliminary plat i think we saw you at least twice sketch plan for this project um and we are still at preliminary plat so i will remind anyone watching that preliminary final preliminary plat um within the last six months the board of review to sketch plan provided oral guidance to the applicant this is the first formal stage of review and this hearing the applicant the applicant will describe the project and the applicant the board will step through the staff comments and thereby considering the proposal conformance to the applicable land development standard thanks the chair will invite public comments and questions the board may choose to continue this meeting at a later date if there are any questions to be remained examined the future date will be announced prior to concluding this item for the evening at the end of the stage the board will vote on whether to close the hearing and once closed will issue a decision on the application um but this is the next the next stage would be the final plat application which would include all the final project details this is just preliminary plat for those that are watching at home okay so we are getting to the end of this project excuse me getting to the end of the preliminary plat review um and we have about six staff comments um in the project packet anything you want to say evan or andrew before i go through this i just that we appreciate everybody's patience it's a big project and we know there's a lot of materials that the that staff has sorted through and uh just appreciate everybody's perseverance on getting to this point okay great thank you um so number one as noted on 915 the applicant has provided staff considers an acceptable level of detail for preliminary plat however this detail is somewhat less from the board is accustomed to seeing a preliminary plat i'll read the comment here staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant that the decision will find a number of criteria a decision which has not been rendered of course but the decision on preliminary plat will find a number of criteria preliminary met and will provide some guidance but not necessarily specific instructions on how to achieve the final plat compliant for those criteria staff has discussed this concept with the applicant anticipates they'll find it acceptable but feels it's important to stay explicitly in order to prevent misunderstanding at the final plat i read this as saying yeah you know you have final plat you have preliminary plat and final plat and in some cases we'll defer decisions to final plat or the applicant will defer final decisions and that's fine there's other times where we see preliminary plat where all of it's flushed out and final plat moves fairly fairly fairly quickly but of course this is a significant large project so i imagine we'll be doing that as well but i understand why you want to leave things to final plat any any comments about that understanding haven't yeah i think that you know we we certainly understand and and agree with the fact that we're not going to work out every last minute detail preliminary plat and you know i probably sound like a little bit of a broken record but there are you know a few big ticket items that we think that we provided adequate information and materials on that the board can weigh on and weigh in on and provide a little bit more certainty as we move forward because the step from preliminary to final you know there's a pretty significant investment and some of these the whole the whole viability the project relies on you know the one that goes way back to five years ago when we were first in the sketch plan hearings for this is really the height which everything is basically contingent upon receiving and we think that you know we we provided quite a bit of architectural detail at this point certainly not a final plat level of architectural detail but we believe we we've provided architecture that's consistent with what we've committed to all along the way and we think that justifies the increased height the other one would be the the the setbacks the building setbacks which really you know constitutes kind of the finality of the the layout of the roads and sidewalks pedestrian thoroughfares etc and how the buildings relate to them and then the third one would be the location of the inclusionary housing component which we've talked at length about over a couple different meetings now and and consolidating those those units into one building with a couple marker rate units as well so I don't know Andrew did you have any other points that you just want to bring up kind of preliminary right now well we had submitted a letter earlier today just a it was a brief letter in response to the comments but the three evan listed were in the letter as well as just the general road width and building locations I think just sort of the kind of the same as setbacks but you know obviously if the you know if the road widths were changing dramatically or the buildings you know needed to be reoriented in some way that would that would also be important to solidify at this point okay thank you Andrew thank you evan any any comments from the board staff comment number two the applicant is posing a small common space roughly the size of one and a half parking spaces on the building decorative screening of the garage openings as provided schematic illustrations of street side landscape architecture staff comment is the staff recommends the board revisit these concepts to determine if the applicant has conceptually proposed enough improvements to overcome the concerns expressed by the board on 519 board this is our invitation to revisit these improvements is there something that we can look at Marla yeah I think I'm going to pull up a plan um from their PowerPoint presentation because I think that really covered it and the reason I wrote the staff comment the way I did is one plan that really shows these things um so here's one that I have on my screen so let me just hit say here um so this was particular to I think building 10 but the general idea of there's trees and maybe some seating and maybe some decorative inserts and some vegetation and then there's a door in the middle because we don't have real plans for this we just have these sort of schematic drawings I wanted to make sure that um this is sort of representative of what the board's expectation is and we can put that into sort of a general form um and say as long as you follow through on this proposal that final plot you're good to go yeah Mark uh does that sound right to you yeah no I think that that's certainly there's plenty of design intent and content to be able to implement it in a final review Mark's good with it I'm good with it anyone else I'm good with it I'm fine okay comment number three west of the plan entry to two brothers drive Kennedy Drive is principally characterized by mature wooded areas in more visible two-story multi-family buildings the proposed four-story building three residential floors above a garage supposed to be placed 60 feet from Kennedy Drive with a gravel outlander front on July 7th the applicant testified that they believe the tree area would provide adequate transition staff no support did not respond to that testimony at the time it recommends the board consider the proposal prior to closing the hearing um we're talking about Marla is that comment specifically referring to the whether we said that the tree area would provide adequate transition some ambiguity there that was your reference right um and I'm not sure that this is the absolute best plan um but the idea is off the left of the page um it's sort of some those condo developments two stories um some multi-family some detached um and then the trees and through here and then we get into four-story building um with a fifth-story garage this actually sits higher than the road so um the purpose is you know are we doing an appropriate amount of transition through here or is um anything more needed and maybe a rendering would be the better way to do it I'm not really sure what the best thing to show right now would be I think we have provided a rendering of of that streetscape um you know it's granted the the entire lot 14 is not shown but it does show the entrance to two brothers drive with uh lot 15 and lot 14 shown so I don't know if you have that available in the packet Marla when so my files are organized by when you submitted them or for what hearing you submitted them do you know when it's a good question uh Andrew do you want a five chance yeah I can go one second uh do we by any chance have the ability to share our screens or no um if you have it up on your screen I can temporarily kick the presentation over to you that would take me a little while to load the uh that power point that we presented off of the network I have those power points which one is it the 21st or the 7th trying to figure that out do you know what hearing you provided the comment for it must have been I think we talked about well it's 14 and 15 on the 7th so let me flip through that one really try that hang on I just got it open so no that's building 15 yeah that's a that's a good there you go which that's uh the one you were just on was specifically a response to this comment uh that one okay uh so so that was that's basically showing sort of what's up uh up Kennedy Drive from this specific structure and you can see there's those those trees are existing and they're remaining in place there's a wetland in there uh that stormwater pond has some walking trails and stuff around it uh the sort of lighter white triangle in the middle is the Windridge condo association so that's a two story you know sort of older 1970s condominium building and then actually just up the page a little bit what you can't see in the photo as the Lancaster condos which are three story buildings I think over parking as well we had actually this particular building on lot 14 is only three stories it's the shortest building in the project so it's three stories over a podium parking and so that was sort of intentional as well this kind of transition into the site from the smaller buildings uh along Kennedy in that area and we felt like the tree buffer was sort of a good transition uh and you know backing up five years you know the whole hillside neighborhood was actually in a way planned as the transition to get to this higher density housing you know the entire site was zoned as R12 but we had back then you know we discussed that we didn't really think that it was appropriate to be putting taller apartment buildings sort of over near stonington circle or over near some of the smaller you know more residential style development and so we had shifted that density north into this area sort of always envisioning it as being transitional sort of a project transitioning into itself yeah I think it's also a comment is really to get the board's feedback on your presentation I appreciate you iterating it because it's gone from some of our minds including my own um but this is the decision representing what the board's reaction is yeah so I just I'll just kick it off and then by others board members to comment I like that transition and I just want to make sure that have we determined Evan and Andrew in the preliminary plot the filings what trees are going to be kept and what or not or is that something you're going to do with final plot the trees that are within that that are in this rendering like I guess I don't know what direction is on the top of the page like to the top of the building kind of where the red arrows pointed are all protected currently so they're within a protected area that's not getting developed it's not getting touched okay so that's that's clearly delineated in the packet yeah it's it's inside a well and so it's all I'm really happy this is dawn I'm really happy to hear that because as you guys know a lot of trees came down and a lot of people were unhappy about that so maintaining as many trees as possible I think it's very important anyone else on the board okay moving on to roadway geometry cross-section and sidewalk on 915 the board the applicant agreed to engage a streetscape design professionals develop a roadway cross-section that balances the following goals a an appropriately urban setting including an activated street be non-vehicle connectivity throughout the project area including for people who live between two brothers drive and elderly street people who live on the far side of kennedy drive and those who may live in the future phase of the o'brien development see slow speeds be roadway maintenance staff around the board confirm that above reflects their expectations and confirm that they would accept a configuration that involves a different combination of on-road lanes separated tasks sidewalks that is currently proposed as long as the above objectives are met speaking for myself and by the other board members to comment uh yeah that's that is my expectation I don't know if you need a design professional but I do know that when we come back for final plat we'll want to know what that configuration looks like we want to make sure that our friends at parks and rec committee are excuse me by competitively are you know are you know had a chance to review and provide comments um to make sure that that works and those four um those four goals seem to uh whether you get a professional design it or whether kathy frank designs it or whether you design it as long as it meets those goals I'm comfortable with it but done Jim elissa uh mark what do you think john yeah matt I think you pretty much summed it up you know I think we we've stated the goals we're looking for and whether it's you know a third party or in-house I think we need to see more detail and that's our our expectations and and I I think we all agree that we can that it can be accomplished within the uh easement area that's that's been identified so uh you know that we're looking for the best best solution that's great we've we've been working on finding somebody to help with that so I think we're getting pretty close okay great um lot 17 staff comment number five staff are going to the board discuss whether they would prefer to see a temporary access drive on lot 17 to exclude sidewalks and curbing in order to facilitate redevelopment of lot 17 the future will the board refer the applicant to emit parking on the access drive altogether um so we had some discussions about lot 17 last time around lot 17 is not part of um we're still at a point Evan and Andrew where lot 17 you're you're viewing that as a conditional use permit not part of this application to be done separately is that correct yeah yes yeah yeah we had um something uh with regard to this this morning as well I don't know if that um sketch is uh handy but our sort of recollection the last time we talked was that um folks were more comfortable with the spaces on the 20 the the sort of access aisle in a temporary configuration uh then they were comfortable with the spaces that are sort of still on lot 17 but in the lot that is sort of a permanent lot associated with a lot 13 building um you know we had talked about a wall of some sort that might be a structure that would be enough to sort of shield that um yeah so this is an alternate plan that we submitted this morning um which sort of shows a reconfiguration in the parking lot where we're able to keep the parking spaces that we had had previously we moved the door to the the the sort of driveway access to the trash building and that gained a few parking spaces um and and we had also penciled in a sort of wall that would be a privacy wall that you can see sort of up against the the main part of the road it's like a little bit of an L shape kind of a dark line you can see a staircase and stuff in it um so the wall you know is an idea it could be you know that wall if it's considered you know to provide that sort of screening is in front of even the parking spaces in the access aisle which was our thought process there um I think we're open to the aisle being temporary or you know non-permanent the the sort of entry way where the it says 20 parking spaces um you know I guess our our thought was to get feedback on this reconfiguration and and so the idea then would be to propose you know this screening wall um and the parking you know access aisle coming in where it says 20 parking spaces and then this reconfiguration of the parking lot that moves the spaces behind the plane of the building um in that lower lot I also think it's worth pointing out that there is a pretty decent grade change there too so you not only have this kind of screening wall which would also be landscape but there there's a grade change so the passerby either pedestrian passerby or vehicular is not looking at the parking because below them just process wise what you're what you're asking for is is is the wall would be part of this um or part of your final plot for this project but yet 17 would be a conditional use permit uh or they run concurrently or would you apply for them concurrently at the next stage of review I think we would apply for them concurrently at the next stage of review I think that makes sense um question so but we still don't have sort of proposed development on revised last 17 uh we so we've not sort of drawn anything in um you know we could we could guess at that I felt like last time we landed on last 17's access being done in a temporary fashion so that that was how we sort of handled that that unknown I guess my only my only question or concern and maybe if I'm recalling the conversation and my my feedback at the last meeting I might be contradicting myself but you know now that I see the corrected um what is it 68 parking spaces I can't quite read that you know with the little circular cul-de-sac at the end of the parking lot and then the access driveway parking to the right of it those parking spaces on that access drive that's proud or front of the you know the to the front of the building really stick out and they're going to stick out even more because you know as you can see with the grade that lower parking lot but the that that access drive is sitting up higher so the front of those cars are going to be sort of like kind of budding out over that embankment going down and I just think that do you need all of those parking spaces to make this project work because I think if you draw a line parallel with the road to the edge of the building you're only you would only have to lose like three possibly four spaces to make that parking lot actually compliant with front of the building no parking in the front of the building yeah I mean I see the that wouldn't have been how I thought the line got drawn so we Marla you're thinking about it we were drawing the line that would eliminate 10 or 15 spaces Marla can you confirm that on like an angled road that bends away from the front of the building yeah that's how we interpret it yeah so you if you just yep so to me if you did that I'd be more comfortable with the conditional approval of that access because then it would be in compliance and you don't have to worry about well you would have to worry about you know the what would happen Marla on lot 17 if the building was behind that area would those parking spaces have to become in compliance right so these parking spaces on lot 17 aren't allowed as part of this PUD so it's really you know we're in this weird area where this blue line doesn't have a ton of meaning for this project it's not actually on that lot but you know say you put a building let's see how quickly I can draw a polygon here the front of your lot would be the front of your parking could be no farther than that right so it seems as though if you could lose those three or four spaces on the entrance in a it's going to feel a more like an entrance drive into a parking lot rather than like parking starting almost right off the road you'd be able to get a little more landscaping and it would be in compliance yeah I think that's a reasonable request I mean we will hopefully be able to find three more parking spaces you know every parking space is needed but you know we we can work around that comment okay yeah can you can you draw the blue line again I mean just so would a would a parking space uh just you know behind the blue line then would be compliant so like maybe a couple of the ones we eliminated where that new you is so that's what I was saying it's it's really dependent on the building that's on the lot so if this orange thing is your building it's parallel to the road and touching the front of the building so if this line is parallel to the road ish and then I move it to touch the building that's your line so you could relative to the building on the hot third relative to the building on lot 13 then we might be able to fit one or two more spaces where that you is where it says where your mouse is right now yeah right so what you would have to do is with your conditional use application and I think somebody earlier in a deliberative session called this a sketch plan for your conditional use um you'd have to demonstrate in your conditional use that um this sort of orange building was a reasonable expectation for this for that parking to be allowed relative to the face of the building that we don't have figured out yet but that it was something that was within the realm of possibility I mean that's that's why it's a conditional use I think that that's a reasonable uh goal I think that we were drawing the line basically parallel to the face of the building on lot 13 which was eliminating a substantial amount more parking I don't see why we can't figure that out three spaces is not a lot right okay number six uh the applicant testified that compact parking spaces are proposed to be 18 by 8 standard parking are 18 by 9 or 24 foot drive aisle staff supports a waiver of one foot width if the drive aisles are standard width staff recommends the board have the applicant to confirm that the drive aisles widths will be a standard 24 feet at this stage of review staff recommends the board determine whether to accept the requested parking dimensional waiver at this time so uh are the drive aisle width standard 24 feet yes exactly 24 feet yeah there exactly four feet yeah the staff's fine with the waiver of the one of 18 eight rather than 18 nine I don't drive a truck so I'm fine with it but um as the board want to sound off on the on the one foot waiver I'm fine with it yeah yeah I'm fine with it too yeah that's that's all we have for staff comments uh is there anyone in the public that would like to make a comment regarding this preliminary plot application yeah go ahead um so this is something that came up as I was working on the decision um the applicant had presented this plan um this I'm going to flip back to the overall plan this plan shows kind of this area at the very north end um and in their original application they had said um that they were proposing to retain the trees in this area you know obviously some of them are impacted by grading some of them are impacted by um the parking lot some of them are impacted by or by the sidewalks are impacted by the building um what is the plan are you going to retain as many trees as appear to not be impacted on this I just want to make sure I get the decision right yeah so we had originally um well I think we talked about this at one of the hearings uh if not then you know what I thought about talking about it but the no you did but my memory is super busy on it the uh what happened was that in looking at the next uh master plan for the remaining lands we sort of figured out that that this area where is the most logical place for stormwater treatment for the the future development so like that building they're just talking about on lot 17 um and so rather than sort of say that we're going to keep these trees at this point and then have a basically a simultaneous application I mean it's submitted at this point um for review be proposing to remove them and plant a storm and build a stormwater pond so uh we felt like that was a little bit you know it just was complicating this and saying we were going to do something that we already knew that we weren't going to be able to do so uh the intent at this point is to not represent that we're going to be keeping them I presume that we'll keep them if you know we're not constructing it uh or maybe they'll need to get removed in order to sort of facilitate the construction of lot 15 I think we sort of have to figure that out still I would hate to have to be like right in front of a brand building up trees so you know we might look at sort of roughing in that grading to to sort of generally be where we think the stormwater pond for the future phase is going to be as part of this project and that way we would sort of have that structure in place um you know so that we weren't digging up right in front of what we just built if that makes sense uh and I would I would say we're certainly going to address that with our landscaping plan uh the investment for the landscaping for this project is fairly extensive I think the tune of six hundred or seven hundred thousand dollars of landscaping um and so I think we'll be able to to get some new trees in there around that stormwater pond to address that removal thanks um is there anyone in the public that would like to make a comment regarding this plurinary plot application please say your name or answer your name in the chat box all right hearing none and seeing none is there any other questions that the applicant has for staff or the board or the board has for the applicant hearing none that I would move that we close continued preliminary plot application SD 2016 of a brian farm road LLC I will second that seconded by don roll call elissa hi don jim john hi mark hi in matt both's eye brian solovan is absent and this plurinary plot is closed by vote of 601 thank you very much gentlemen but don't go anywhere you guys because agenda item number eight is continued master plan application mp 20 oh one of o brian farm road LLC to amend their previously approved master plan for a planned unit development developed 39.16 acres of the maximum 458 dwelling units and 45 000 square feet of office space the amendment is to add 0.6 acres to zone 2a without changing the approvals or use for that zone or remove the 0.6 acres from zone 7 to 255 kennedy drive the applicant has been yes this application has been continued because of its ties to sd 2016 no materials are included this packet for this item is this something we marla that we close tonight or we we continue until the final plot for the project proceeded no which one i would recommend closing it tonight um and i'll make sure that any updates to that draft decision reflect or and i'll make sure that draft decision reflects um any changes made in the preliminary plot prior to your deliberation is that is the anvil and andrew does that sound right yeah i think i think what that application is doing is expanding the area of the master plan to accommodate these buildings uh so as long as the decision is structured so that we can amend the plan or something if there's something that changed since we filed it to accommodate that rift marla is going to review it that's that seems that seems fine i don't think anything needs to change in it i think everything's still where where it was i think so too but i want to double check because it's been drafted for a while um i can show that plan let's see this one i think this is the end of the day we can always file another one too so um okay then plan sheet pl one that's it so this one shows what that application is for um so that application is to add this area here to the project you have the you don't have the other plan that shows it overlaid on the the apartment project in that yeah it's probably but it'll take me i'm pretty sure it hasn't changed so that that would be the only concern but if we if you can just take a look at that and if you need something we can we can change it or as a condition change it or whatever that would be great okay yeah there's the option to uh do a reconsideration too if if for whatever reason we don't have all the information we need but i think we do yeah we can open it so with that i would move that we close contingent master plan application mp 20 or one of o bryan farm road lfd five a second i will second that seconded by don roll call elissa hi john hi jim hi john hi mark hi bryan is absent and matt votes i and this matters closed by voter 601 okay thank you evan thank you andrew thank you all thank you everyone now moving on to agenda item number nine which is the minutes of september 15th and october 6th i've read the minutes i did not see any edits or changes additions anyone else can we comment there's none that i would move that we approve the minutes from september 15th and october 6 second second seconded by john and we can do minutes by voice vote all in favor of approving the minutes from september 15th and october 5th say aye aye aye opposed those abstaining okay great so that concludes the south brooklyn development review board meeting for october 20th in november right good meeting on wednesday meetings on wednesday yeah the meeting is not on election night meeting is the day after election on november 4th hopefully we'll all be happy people for various reasons one of us will be a very exhausted people good luck this conference has no