 Okay. Good. Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, March 15th, 2022. It's the Ides of March. My name is Dawn Filibert and I'm the chair of this DRB. And with us tonight are other board members, Mark Baer, Frank Cokman, Jim Langen, Stephanie Wyman, Dan Aubrecht, and Quinn Mann. And also with us from the city of South Burlington are Marla Keane, our development review planner, and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. There are a number of ways to participate in this meeting. Are there any people in the auditorium, Marla? There are not. Okay. So a lot of people are joining virtually. And that's fine. We did make a decision tonight that the board will be meeting in person from now on. So at our next meeting, which is April 5th, we will, board members will be at City Hall in person holding the meeting. People can still participate virtually if they want to. If you do participate virtually, we ask a couple of things. Please mute your microphone and turn your camera off until you're recognized and you're going to speak and then you can both unmute your mic and participate, turn your camera on. And if you want to participate, just raise your hand during the public comment section and we'll acknowledge you when it's your turn to speak. And please avoid having conversations in the chat box because it can be distracting to us and also it's not part of the public record. So we ask that you avoid doing that. So thank you. So first, let me talk about agenda item number one, emergency evacuation procedures. It sounds like it's a moot point since no one's in the auditorium. So we'll move on to number two, which are additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Are there any? No. Okay. So announcements and reminders. Thank you for attending. Just to let you know, this meeting is being recorded and can be viewed at any time. And let's see, comments. I've already covered that information. Let me look at the agenda announcements. Are there any comments or questions from the public that aren't related to the agenda tonight? Hearing none, we will go ahead and move on to agenda item number five, and I will read what that is. It's preliminary plat application SD2203 of rivers edge building development LLC for the 3.6 acre park road area phase of the previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in two family homes on two private roads at 1170 and 1180 Dorset Street. Before we move on, are there any recusals or does anyone have anything to announce in terms of conflicts of interest? Disclosures. Okay. Hearing none, who is here for the applicant, please? I am Dan Heil with the Larry Burke civil associates. Hi, Dan. Hi. Anyone else? Anyone? Are you the only person? I believe Paul Brogna or Peter Shepard were going to log on, but I didn't see if they were on, but they were planning on it. Okay. Let's square you in and then when they join, if they join, we'll square them in. Would you please raise your right hand and do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you, Dan. Okay. Why don't you give us a brief overview of this project? We saw you at Sketch, but give us a little update on the proposal and then we'll start to move through the staff comments. Sure. First of all, I have to apologize in advance. I'm working my way through a cold, so you'll have to bear with me tonight. But yeah, the project is located at 1170 1180 Dorset Street. It's at the southeast corner of the Park Road in Dorset Street intersection. It's made up of three existing parcels, all within the southeast quadrant neighborhood residential zoning district. It's also part of the Vermont National Country Club Golf Course PUD. The project's a little unique in that it is subject to a settlement agreement between the City of South Burlington and the owner of the golf course, which approved a 2015 master plan for the overall golf course PUD. And under that master plan, the subject area that we're developing is referred to as the Park Road Development Area and allows for a maximum of 15 units. And it's also subject to the 2003 land development regulations. So while a maximum of 15 units are allowed, we are proposing 14 units as we feel this is what works best for the site given the size of the units and the site constraints. These units will consist of seven duplex units, which will be accessed by one of two private drives off Park Road. All units will be served by municipal water and sewer. Stormwater will be handled via infiltration basin, gravel wetland, and dry pond. And that's located infiltration basins kind of located in the center of the site at the end of private road B and the gravel wetland and dry pond are located in the northeastern portion of the site. There is a class 2 wetland that was delineated on the parcel. It's on the eastern side and there is a 50-foot buffer associated with that. And we are not proposing any impacts to the wetland or the buffer as part of this proposal. As you mentioned, we did have sketch back in August of 2021. And due to feedback we received from the board and staff at sketch, we revised the plans to maximize the distance between private road A and B. Private road A is on the western portion of the site. Private road B is on the eastern portion. We shifted private road B 20 feet to the east. And we've included correspondence in our submittal from the Department of Public Works confirming that the entrance locations are acceptable. We've also included a traffic impact assessment prepared by Roger Dickinson of Waymerrow and Dickinson, who stated that the relatively small volume of additional traffic will not create an unsafe traffic condition. So we shifted that entrance and sketch. We also revised private road B due to feedback from the board and staff to 26 feet. That was previously 20 feet with some parallel parking spaces. But now it's 26 feet, which allows for on-street parking on the western side. We added a five-foot sidewalk adjacent to private road B and in between the two entrances for pedestrian connectivity. And we added a crosswalk just to the east of private road A, connecting to the city recreational path on the north side of Park Road. We also included a landscape plan for their preliminary submittal by Mike Lawrence. This consists of firms along Dorset Street, which the DRB was in favor of that sketch. And street trees will be provided along Park Road, private road A and private road B. We're also proposing foundation plantings around all units. We also updated the building and lot coverage computations to include the overall Vermont National Parcel. And we included the Wheeler Parcel or Zoey Circle just to the north of our site on the other side of Park Road in those computations. So they're up to date. And lastly, we included elevations and pictures of the proposed duplex units. And we also included renderings from Nate Collins of digital medium solutions depicting the proposed development in relation to the surrounding area, Park Road and Dorset Street. So that's really an overview of the project. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Have your partners joined us yet? Let me check participants. I think they have. Okay. And what are their names again, please? I see Peter Shepard on there and Paul Brogna is on there as well. Okay. Peter and Paul, if you're going to, are you planning to testify? I wasn't planning on it, but if I if there's a question that needs an answer that I have the answer to, I certainly will. Okay. Let's go ahead and swear the two of you in. Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Okay. So let's go ahead and start working our way through the staff comments. So the first comment, I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate the height maximum is not exceeded prior to closing the preliminary plat since the units are built into the hillside and are required and the required maximum height may be greater than 40 feet as designed. So how do you demonstrate that and what can you say about that? Yep. So first of all, all units will be less than the 40 feet maximum height requirement. While we understand this is typically reviewed at building permit, we have forwarded an updated sheet three to staff depicting the proposed building height in relation to the pre-construction grade. So we sent that to staff and based on, you know, the proposed building height, and that's measured from the average pre-construction grade around the unit to the peak of the proposed unit, we've included a table and revised sheet three demonstrating that all units will be below 40 feet. I have that open now. It's in the supplemental. The board wants to see it, but there's a table in the top right of the supplemental drawing and it appears they did the calculation correctly. It's a little bit different than what we're used to because in the 2003 regulations, building height is measured to the apex of the roof, not the midpoint, but appears they've done that calculation correctly. Okay, so we're good. Okay, thank you. Staff comment number two, this is regarding the wetland buffer. I won't read it, but what can you tell us about that applicant? Yeah, so as depicted on the plan, we are not proposing any impacts to the wetland or its associated 50-foot buffer. While some of the units may be as close as 15 feet to that buffer, there isn't a buffer from the buffer and that 15 feet will allow for adequate room for construction. At the beginning with construction, silt fence will go up along that wetland buffer. That'll be one of the first things that goes in prior to any earthwork to ensure that there are no impacts during construction and there's regular erosion control inspections and that'll be inspected during construction. After construction, we are proposing a split rail fence along the buffer area on the eastern portion of the site. This is called out on sheet three of the plan. On the eastern portion of the site, we mentioned start of split rail fence extend the southerly property line, so there will be a permanent demarcation there. Typically, when we see unauthorized impacts to wetlands or their buffer, a lot of times they're on single family lots. It's hard to police a single family lot, especially if you're adjacent neighbors far away. The way this project is set up, it will be governed by the homeowners association and there'll be legal documents in place to protect that too. For whatever chance there was a buffer impact, it would be a lot easier to spot and the association would be responsible for enforcing that. If not, the state would be notified and they would get in touch with the association. We are not proposing any impacts to the wetland buffer. We are proposing temporary and permanent demarcation of that buffer area. Thank you, Dan. Board members, does anyone have any questions? Concerns? Marla, do you have any? I think that while everything Dan has said is very factual and I don't dispute any of it, I do sort of recall the board in a similar instance on another project that I believe O'Leary Burke was actually involved in. Being concerned about the quality of folks' experience that live in the homes that have the backyard is non-existent because there's a fence right there and I don't know to what degree the board continues to have that concern with this project. This project has a master plan approval for 15 units if such units can be fit onto the site and meet all the regulations but it has to have 15 units. In fact, they've gone down to 14 here. I just want to bring it back to that thought. What is the quality of life when your back door is right on top of a wetland fence? Board members, thoughts? I had sort of a concern on the other side of that based on what I thought the board had discussed on another project which is is a split rail fence kind of adequate to protect the buffer when you're within 15 feet of the house? Well, Frank, I think that the one thing we have is that there's going to be a homeowner's association that's going to be, you know, tasked with maintaining it as opposed to if there's a split rail on a single-family-owned property where you would have very little control over it. I also, people will know what they're buying and not everybody wants a lot of backyard. So am I correct in assuming that anybody who buys one of these units is going to be aware of how narrow it is out back? Yes, you know, in the past we've seen the mistake of the split rail fence go in after the homeowner spent in the unit. Here the split rail fence will go in prior to, so the homeowner knows exactly what they are buying. They'll be shown the plans, they'll be shown where the split rail fence is. If they walk the site, they will see the approximate location of their unit and where that split rail fence is. So they will be aware of what they are buying and, you know, where that split rail fence is located. Okay. Is there any signage that can say wetland buffer? Is that a practice? I don't think it's a requirement, but we can certainly include that just so the homeowner station, the homeowners association and the future homeowners are aware what the intended demarcation of that split rail fence is for. I think it would be great because it is so close and I just, you know how it is. We've definitely required that on previous projects, like every third post or every other post, if something gets a sign tacked to it saying, you know, wetland buffer beyond no pesticides, no clerken, whatever it is, the standard language sign, we've definitely done it in the past. Are people allowed to walk in the wetland buffer? Does their property line go, does the property line extend into the wetland buffer? Or is it all common land? It's all common land. You know, I believe that's a good question. I'd have to check with the state on that. I believe they'd be able to walk in there, but you can't maintain it. You can't mow it. You really can't impact it, but I don't know that a passive recreational use would be excluded, but we can certainly verify that with the state. I mean, I guess whatever is consistent and make sure it's not really your problem as an engineer, but the HOA, don't they usually have to file their documents for approval? Yeah, we will. Yeah, so there would be documents that say that there's no mowing in the buffer. One thing I would note is that this is preliminary by itself, not combined preliminary and final. So if the board is inclined to have them propose some signage, that can be a pretty open-ended condition, unlike when we're looking at final, where we have to nail it down. You could just say the applicant shall propose some signage, and then we can talk about it at a final plot. Yeah, and I think also prior to final the applicant should look into what uses are allowed within the wetland buffer and make sure that whatever the use that they want and are allowed are included in the final decision and somehow delineate or shown or however they do it. Yeah, I would agree. And I don't know if there's some sort of the HOA draft, HOA language and all that. So I have a question that in back of Homes 13 and 14, before the wetland buffer begins or the fence before where the fence is, is that considered common land too? Everything outside of the building footprints is common land. Okay, all right, thank you for clarifying. So there are no limited common elements? No, there are not any limited common elements at this point. We weren't proposing any limited common elements on here. So no patios, nothing like that? No patios. There'll be decks on the rear of the units or perhaps they would be a patio, depending on what the future homeowner wants, but that would all be included in their footprint lot. Okay, are we ready to move on? Okay. Comment number three, I'm going to read this as well. Staff anticipates the project might proceed to final plat before the Zoey Circle Project receives Act 250 approval and therefore recommends the board require the project to include the needed water line on Park Road to supply this project prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing. Staff considers the remaining comments of the South Burlington Water District can be addressed as conditions of preliminary plat approval. Thoughts about that, Dan? Yeah, so we have no issue with that. Right now we are showing the water line along Park Road as approved because that was approved under the Zoey Circle Development, but we can certainly show that as proposed and that we start construction prior to Zoey Circle. Great. Any comments from the board or questions? Okay, let's move on to page seven. There's a number of comments and number four is requiring a ledge plan. Can I provide a little background on this section? Sure. Sure. This is where sketch the board kind of discussed whether to require the homes and the eastern road to be swapped. There are a bunch of reasons given for that and then the applicant had a lot of discussion. The applicant made a lot of points of their own and the board had a really great discussion and my notes literally right. The board had a really great discussion and ultimately felt that the incremental, this is what I wrote and basically what I'm going to say at the end here is that I'd want, would like you to confirm that you still feel the same way because now it's like a written decision. The board ultimately concluded that the incremental improvement in safety by swapping the homes was not, didn't warrant the reductions in quality of neighborhood that it would require to swap those things. So there's a lot of discussion here and we did make these specific points four through seven because at the time the applicant said it'd be a detriment to the project because of Ludge and because these other things and so these are basically like, okay you said it now it's time to have a written decision so substantiate it and board are you still in the same place as you were before? And do those comments apply to four through seven? Yes. Okay so let's take them one at a time. What are, board what are our thoughts about a Ledge plan? Well, hold on so, so when it says a Ledge plan now I saw in the comments the applicant also stated that by swapping them they would need a, there would be far more substantial Ledge removal, correct? So I think given, especially given the project directly across the street, we definitely want a Ledge removal plan and the same conditions that we were imposing on the project across the street in terms of, you know, Ledge removal plan and timing and frequency. Yeah exactly, exactly so I mean I'm more inclined if there is substantial Ledge removal to swap the houses you know to and they've proven through the site line study and the traffic study and all that which it seems as though they've also included that the proposed layout as shown in this current submission while not ideal is better given the changes that would have to occur with the other layout I guess is a very unallocate way of saying it. So are you saying leave it as it's proposed but still come up with a Ledge plan for any? Oh yeah, definitely still need, still need the Ledge removal plan but given their testimony that by swapping the houses 9 to 14 and the road to split it out would increase the Ledge removal substantially but regardless they need a Ledge removal plan. Okay and any other comments on the board before I ask the applicant if Dan, Ledge plan is that you know something you can tell us you'll have? Yeah absolutely, we completely agree that a Ledge plan will be provided as part of our final class middle. Can I say one more thing too? Sure, sure. While we did mention that swapping the road with 9 through 14 may result in more blasting as we believe the majority of the Ledge is kind of in between that upper area and lower area kind of drops off steeply so we think that there's more Ledge there. I want to reiterate that the main reason we didn't want to swap those units and we discussed this with the board was privacy and aesthetics. If you swap those units 9 through 14 the back of those units would be facing at least 8 through 6 and so you'd have 8 through 6 facing the back of 9 through 14 and vice versa so rather than looking out on this pristine wetland for units 9 through 14 you'd be looking at a neighbor's wall or even worse in a neighbor's window there just wouldn't be much privacy there and also driving down Park Road you would see you know the back of those units so while there may be more blasting by swapping the road we feel this layout as shown provides and maximizes privacy and aesthetics for the parcel. That was the main reason that we wanted to keep that this way. Okay, thank you. Any comments or questions from the board? All right. I would agree. Yeah, I would agree. Okay, yeah. All right, number five which addresses the distance between roads. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to clarify why this change which is contrary to the LDR cited above. Yeah, so what this is saying is that their cover letter said they shifted the road to the east 20 feet but then when we measured it it looks like they actually shifted it to the west 20 feet. So, okay. Yeah, I am confused by this comment. We shifted it 20 private road beef the eastern road we shifted it 20 feet to the east. Previously we had around 113 feet between entrances measured from centerline to centerline we are now proposing around 133 feet so we tried to maximize separation as best we can given the site constraints and wetlands and driveways and all that and so that sketch the board asked us to go back and look to maximize that separation and you know that's what we did. Yeah, I guess I would ask staff to clarify what they're looking at perhaps when they measure you know 20 feet in the other direction. Yeah, I came up with the same initial number 113 and then I came up with 90 when I measured the new plan from center to center from center to center the new plan is 133. I mean I can do it again. Is this something that can be addressed offline between now and final plat? I mean ultimately let me go back to the comment itself because ultimately it's not the it's the effect of the change right. I know on Marla do you have this sketch plan available with the ortho on because I think it's kind of clear on the ortho you can see the shadow of a tree by that eastern road you can kind of use that as reference to see. Marla I just measured it and I got about 133. Okay okay well I mean I think this is a situation where we take their word for it and if and if they're wrong then you know they they know just as well as we do that they have a problem so that's. Wait a minute we have a plan to scale that shows the two roads right? Yeah so maybe I mismeasured it it's not something I can do on the fly right now. What was the date of our oh when was the sketch plan? Oh August 3rd okay I just wanted to pull that. Yeah if you go to sheet one of our current set you can has the ortho photo on and you can see along the eastern road there is you can see the shadow of a tree like right at the center line we can kind of use that as a reference point when comparing the two plans but we are providing 133 feet so I was thinking if we had the sketch plan side by side with that you'd be able to see the shift. All right can we move on? I got a quick question. Sure. Is there something later in the staff comment where we talk about the alignment of that crosswalk? Yes. Okay I'll wait for your question. I don't remember it. Maybe not we talk about the lighting for the crosswalk but not the alignment of it. And the alignment of the roads but what is your question Dan? I have a comment about the crosswalk but I want to ask it at the appropriate time. I think now Marla I just think. Yeah if it's not in a red comment it's not going to come up so go ahead Dan. So why is the crosswalk proposed where it is as opposed to closer to the intersection? Closer to the intersection of Dorset Street and Park Road? No west westerly by 10 20 feet to be closer to the two streets. I know. We were just trying to keep it out of the pavement out of the asphalt the the radii you know I suppose it could be shifted a little bit closer to the intersection. I mean it's crossing Park Road anyway. I'm not a pedestrian engineer but you obviously wanted to be in a location where it's easy to see whether you're coming from Dorset Street or you're coming from east and moving west but my other thing is more of a mental thing of like I mean this is by the time both this development is built out and I want to cross the street it's fairly dense and so mentally when I'm in a city and I'm in a car although very few people will be turning right okay. But mentally you you glance to your right and you expect the pedestrian next next to the button to press for the crosswalk this is not a mid-block crossing and also by having those large radii maybe it's for the keep the fire chief happy but mentally speaking I think of somebody crossing the street within five feet of the corner so when I look at the crosswalk I'm like why isn't it you know a scooch to the west just mentally so when you're coming when you're getting ready to turn on the Park Road you take a quick glance you're expecting if you're looking for a pedestrian they're within 10 feet of you not 20 feet away or whatever that just means. It kind of goes back to timing too like Zoe circle on our project depending on which one goes in first and if we need to extend the crosswalk to the sidewalk on the Park Road you know we we didn't want to impact that future asphalt going on Zoe circle so we were just trying to keep it outside of their proposed improvements but you know if it is a concern we can look at shifting it. Right it just you know I've been maybe it's something we can flag for DPW to look at or whatever I'm not an expert in this but it just looks off that's all but just fly get and move on unless somebody else is wait where's Stephanie weigh in on this you're the engineer. Yeah I'm on the fence about this too because I see what you're saying Dan like it does make sense you you you expect them to be a lot closer to you but also do you want someone walking through driveway run. Can we can we require because it's not you know state road and things like that you know it's an offshoot can we require the you know the the push button with the flashing LED lights for the crosswalk. We are proposing pedestrian warning signs with arrows I don't think we currently we're not proposing a solar actuated rapid flashing beacon but if you know that is something the board thinks is necessary we can look into that and work with public works too moving forward prior to final. Dan is there a warrant for that or is that Dan H is that something that like there's a metric for or is that more like a art than a science. Yeah a lot of times you know it's would be a requirement from public works the majority of the time that's where we've seen that you know I'm unsure if there is a warrant for that and if there is I haven't gone through that but you know we can certainly work with public works on that. Okay are we ready to move on. So I guess I was just going to say the summary is work on fine-tuning the crosswalk location and work with public works on recommendations for safety. Yeah okay. Can I add one more thing I'm sorry to belabor the point but I'm just I'm looking at this density why are why are there such facilitation of cars swooping in off of Park Road into the private drives why aren't these more 90 degree intersections as opposed to I must maintain 40 miles an hour swooping into my private road. So we were we are intersecting Park Road at 90 I mean there is you know a a smoke at the beginning of that but you know the the intersection itself is at 90 you know Park Road is kind of on a bend there you know we're ending up bending the other way too but the intersection itself is at a 90 degree with Park Road. No no I get that that's almost yeah by definition I just you know whatever it's I'll defer to DPW on it but it just seems odd okay anything else before we move on all right number six deals with site distance recommendation is that the board require the applicant to demonstrate that site distance standards are met prior to closing the hearing. Dan thoughts about that yep so we are showing site distance on sheet three of our plan posted speed limit for Park Roads 25 miles an hour which requires 280 feet so we are showing that on the plan we also did have correspondence with Department of Public Works and they asked us to look into site distance we responded to them we didn't hear back so we assumed we were fine but also in Roger Dickinson's traffic impact assessment he did state that the project has adequate site distance and BFJ also backed that up in the third party review so site distance is not an issue on this project okay okay Marla is that does that work for you yeah I see it on the plans that they have now so that that'll be something that we just look at now that they've seen it in them right it was on the original submission set too I believe okay well we have we haven't looked at it so maybe we missed it but it's not something that I asked the DPW director to look at because the last correspondence I had from him was that you should substantiate site distance requirements and that's I just took his word for it and we responded to him on that as well okay I don't think okay number seven um it's a it's regarding access for service vehicles and the the staff comment says the applicant should address how this concern will be addressed so Dan I'm wondering what your thoughts are yep so um we went back and looked at turning movements turning movements weren't provided with our preliminary submission but when we followed up with building height we also followed up with a turning movement exhibit for service vehicle we're showing a 30-foot vehicle which is you know much bigger than a mail truck you know on par maybe a little bit bigger than a large FedEx or UPS truck garbage truck which I don't know if Marla could bring that up or Delilah but service vehicles are um able to pull down to the end of the road back up and to turn around and and proceed out of the development so there is adequate circulation for turning vehicles or service vehicles uh does that work for you Marla and board I'd like to see the plan that Dan's referring to Delilah's pulling it up right now okay yep so so on here you can see we have a vehicle entering private road a on the west um coming down to the end pulling into that hammerhead or wide turn around at the end backing up into the other side and pulling out then private road b same thing they come all the way down to the end back up into that hammerhead and they're able to pull out there too um okay Marla yeah bfj's comment was about that this is a pain in the neck for trucks that drive there every day you know it's not it's not like a emergency situation where it's only once every once in a while um but if we feel like this pain in the neck is worth all worth it then that's what it is board what what are your thoughts about the the degree to which we should be concerned about pin the neck for service vehicles that's a mouthful question uh just curiosity I mean is it a matter of space you know if you had a circular uh endpoint so the cul-de-sac wouldn't that work a little better for people turning around circular is typically a lot bigger than that to get the turning radius for a cul-de-sac as opposed to hammerhead yeah I think the alternative that bfj was suggesting is connecting the roads and having you know one road one loop road as opposed to two dead end roads yeah and this one's brought up at sketch two and you just have one access point beer off there we agree with bfj that a u-shaped road provides better circulation you know I don't think this is a pain in the neck cars come in back out all the time there's dead end roads you know all over the place so while it may be a little more inconvenient it's certainly doable to pull in back out and leave the development at sketch when we talked about it you know there is a pretty steep grade drop on site like in the vicinity of unit five the existing contours 428 down by the end of private road b you have a 410 so that's like 18 feet so even if you could connect the roads and due to that great job there would probably be a good amount of cut through there to do that you know you just wouldn't have um or the developer wouldn't have the desired density to make this project feasible because that connection would also eat up a lot of space so while it isn't ideal to have that hammerhead you know and not as easy as a u-shaped road it happens all the time and we don't really feel it's a pain in the neck for service vehicles to have to do that and when they use shape where if I understand what is meant by u-shaped road wouldn't that result in more impervious surface also depending on the that's hard to say you know depending on the layout you know I don't think you'd be able to fit as many units in so maybe yeah it's hard to say that it would result in more impervious surface just looking at the roads now you know they're approximately 300 feet long between 250 and 300 feet long I'm not sure that your your road would be you know 500 to 600 feet it was a u-shape so maybe comparable but it's kind of hard to say okay um can we all live with this yeah I mean we talked about a pain in the butt for service vehicles but you know they do have to kind of do this every day in a lot of circumstances I think as long as fire chief is okay with the emergency access vehicles which won't be used hopefully as often as often but it's functions firm I'm okay with the layout anyone have a problem with it okay let's move on speaking fire chief to number eight so the suggestion from Marla was because the fire chief has not had the opportunity to review the plans we should probably continue this hearing hopefully we can get through the staff comments and then continue it Dan have you brought this project to the fire chief because I've tried no we we have not we assumed it was going to be reviewed as part of our preliminary preliminary submittal yeah so it's sometimes I only bring it I only bring it up because sometimes they're more responsive to you guys than they are to us yeah yeah I mean we would hate to hold up our final plat submittal on this I mean we will certainly work with the fire chief prior to final plat I guess the concern is that if they have a really big problem and your final plot would have to differ substantially from what you have that's not a final that's redoing preliminary you know yeah and then we would have to if he had a major concern you know we would have to go back to preliminary anyway we would resubmit preliminary right but we wouldn't wouldn't have to re-worn it or anything so we could get you finished faster if we kept it open I mean this is really for your protection we can get you finished faster if you and I both make an effort to make the fire chief get eyes on this well I think if we proceeded with final that that would be faster as you know we would work with the fire chief prior to and then we wouldn't have to wait for you know the continued meeting yeah but keep in mind that a re-worn meeting you need to get it in four weeks before the meeting and then we have to warn it and whereas if we just continued you tonight we could set that date for you know the second April meeting and hopefully it's kind of a not short conversation and if it doesn't it is not a short conversation and we should just save you four weeks sure I mean we're comfortable with the layout you know I think we prefer to go to final but whatever the board feels best you know we are proposing two hydrants along each road there's adequate fire coverage you know the fire vehicles will be able to access the site we don't foresee any issues so it sounds like you're willing to take that risk yeah um and board members is is shall we let them do that is that okay well it's their risk right right right anyone have a problem with that I had a question not a problem because you know if they want to think the risk is okay with me but the question is this is just trying to anticipate what the fire chief might say about rear access to these buildings what is the quality of the rear access and you gotta just get between these two buildings here is that the idea and then what is the surface on which you're going to put a fire you got a fire behind this building well at the end can you see my arrow I guess you can't no what number building Frank 13 and 13 and 14 okay you have a fire in right right at the juncture right at the party wall right big fire how do you get how do you get to it yeah I would assume they would be running a fire hose from the street back to the rear of the building um you're not going to get a service vehicle behind there but I don't believe that's a requirement that they need to get a service vehicle behind there but I would defer to the fire chief on that but I imagine if there was a fire behind those units they would tap on to the hydrant in the roadway and run the hose behind those units through the separation between the buildings yes yeah or around the other end I mean there's a you know there's a building in the middle so if there was a fire in that one they would have to go between the separation between the buildings but on the end units they could go around the end depending on the length of their fire hose or if they have a water truck there too that they could utilize just a question as I said I don't yeah no no that's that that's a good question fire chief definitely would have more insight and that's what we'd be looking to work through within as well okay so are we ready to move on uh number nine um and this is the path onto the rec path um staff recommends that we require the path to be eight feet wide and asphalt is that something you're prepared to do Dan yep yeah we have no issue with that we'll add that to our final plat make that eight feet wide and asphalt um I would say that we prefer that the sidewalk within the park road right of way be maintained by uh the city not the HOA as it is within the park road right of way but I didn't see the letter from the deputy director of operations so I'm not exactly sure what his comment was but we would prefer that sidewalk within the city right of way be maintained by the city uh his comments were the applicant is going to maintain the sidewalk on the south side of park road comma right question mark so that's why I didn't put it in because it wasn't like much of anything this but um but his position is that the that's a weird disconnected piece of sidewalk for the city to have to maintain because they're already taking one pass on the other side and they'd have to come back and take like this weird little short pass I understand why you know you know because it's in the right of way yeah it's our preference I would leave it up to the board what they feel is I wonder if how the city would feel how the DPW would feel about like maintenance in terms of like you know repairs and that kind of thing being the cities but snow plowing maintenance be the HOA's yeah we'd be we'd be open to something like that um you know they'll be maintaining the internal sidewalks anyway so we'd be open to that um you know the city taking responsibility for repairs and maintenance and snow plowing beyond the HOA um board how would you feel if I had that as a applicant to talk to the operations director before final plot about that that's a great idea yeah and okay um let's move on to number 10 this is about additional parking on the western roadway what are your comments about that yeah so right now we are proposing four spaces per unit that's two driveway spaces two garage spaces um we're also proposing two parallel spaces on that western road private road a and private road b will have on street parking so in total excluding the on street parking and private road b we're proposing 58 spaces under the 2003 lbr's you need uh one space or you need two spaces per dwelling unit in one space for every four dwelling units so that the total required parking would be 29 spaces so we're essentially double what's required out there but more importantly there really just isn't room for additional parking on private road a um you know if it was an easy fix that we could add some additional spaces up there you know we we may but I don't think it's needed as we are proposing um you know access parking with our project and it would be increasing that pervious area too if we were to add additional uh parking um thoughts board personally I'm fine with it sort of the way it is um in terms of pure parking quantities right they're over parked in terms of what they need by code and each unit has four spaces so okay anyone else from the board looks good to me and I don't know all that payment would be good for a game of kickball so so one one question have you're saying that on private road b you're proposing on street parking for it yep so originally at sketch we had parallel spaces and the road was 20 feet we increased that road to 26 feet which allows for on street parking just on the western side so just be on one side and if we don't have signage we will include signage with our final plat no parking on this side of street on the other side yep okay great okay moving on um this is about the wire served utilities my reading glasses for this um they're not shown on the provided plans can they be added for final plat Dan yeah so we typically when we deal with green mountain power and vermont gas we want to have our layout pretty close to being done um that way if there were changes vermont gas and green mountain powered don't need to go back and revise their layouts so after preliminary we'll certainly coordinate with uh green mountain power vermont gas um and uh get that on the plan for final what is your what's your game plan are they going to come down the street yep so you know i expect that they're going to come down the street you'd have electric on one side gas on the other um it'll be underground all utilities will be underground um but uh i expect that they would come down um one side or the other side of the street um but it is tight so you know we may have to may have to get creative when we're going through that with gmp and vermont gas okay have you worked out locations for transformer pads no we haven't that would be part of our uh our uh work with green mountain power on coming up with those transformer pad locations okay um and the next comment is related to uh lighting fixtures and a request that you comply with these yep we have no issue on comment 12 um okay complying with that okay good uh comment number 13 um so this is a comment from the city stormwater section uh requesting a more detailed site plan the submitted plan does not have enough detail to verify feasibility um if the stormwater treatment system is not feasible staff considers preliminary plaid should not be closed and that in addition to that that we it needs to be addressed before um closing the preliminary plan so what what do you have to offer in terms of that yep so um the i believe stormwater section was asked if the sub basin does the western sub basin allow flow to the gravel wetland on the east side of the property uh i believe they're referring to the basin at the end of private road b because that's the only basin we're proposing um we have some catch basins up top but either way the basin all the catch basins flow to the gravel wetland so that was shown on the plan um and then stormwater does ask how we'll run off from the roofs of units 13 and 14 be conveyed to the gravel wetland that's a good question um on preliminary we didn't show uh the roof drains leading there but on final we will show um downspouts connecting to a roof drain system which will convey the water down to the gravel wetland so the runoff from those roofs will be conveyed to the gravel gravel wetland via downspouts and a roof drain network okay is that um is that acceptable to everyone i i have a question about roof drains and downspouts that arises because i'm sorry relative from connecticut who's a very experienced estimator and builder who looked at my lousy uh frank you're breaking up frank always break well can you hear me now we can okay um i'm getting a message saying your meaning my internet connection is unstable so if i freeze up just just ignore this and move on without me um my question is do your uh roof drains extend out as the edge of the building or to the end of the corner and go straight straight down into a downspout as a matter of design if uh paul or peter are on i would defer to them i assume that it's i would think that i would stop at the corner of the building and not extend past but it's a point of curiosity because my relative by marriage who's very good at this this approves of that design and when you look at my house you can see why you're always have dealing with a broken end of the downspout and you're pouring water down uh i don't know i'm just curious whether there's a comment on that from the developer the design comment well i think the downspout would discharge a little bit past the building i don't think the downspout would stop right at the corner i think it would be if that's what you're asking i think that would be conveyed out into the lawn but but here it would be conveyed into um an underground storm sewer basically which would um transport that runoff down to the gravel wetland at least on units probably 11 12 13 and 14 but we'll we'll include that with final and we do they do come down to the corners and then branch out at least two feet a foot and a half to two feet away from the foundation and if it's not a good uh place to discharge then we usually will divert it into like a little mini 12 by 12 catch dry well catch basin that we put further in down the lawn but in this case like Dan was just saying we'll be able to divert it and put it into that wet that stone wetland area all right well what i'm concerned with is that little l shape at the bottom of the downspout you know winds up getting it's a hook on piece or it's a piece that fits in it's not a single piece right because correct yeah it's a female yeah well they don't they haven't they have a tendency to get the mangled and and and disconnected they do i've seen i see exactly what you're talking about the hoa the way we set it up and the hoas are typically managed pretty well tend to maintain them and make sure that they keep keep an eye on them but that that's something that we can look at with uh with the grading in the elevation what makes the most sense good question comment thank you frank and dan um number 14 um we need a rendering from the south of the project yeah i guess i would um ask staff if they really mean uh driving north along dorset because above that there are four they're referring to units nine through fourteen and kind of the what i believe is the back of those units i think they may mean i don't want to put words into staff's mouth but i think they may mean driving west along park road so just seek clarification from staff on that no we meant what we said sorry it was intended to be two separate thoughts okay so so so what so what are you looking for the appearance of this development as you approach it from the south on dorset street yeah so we do well we have a rendering from uh we did include a rendering in our submittal kind of looking south um but looking north along dorset street uh it's i believe it's pretty wooded or there's some vegetation right to the south of the development as you approach the development you're going to have those urban berms with uh shrubs um so that will be providing um some screening uh for the development uh and we have a rendering that we included in our submission that depicts the that's it right there yet we have the rendering of those urban berms there so it looks similar to that um as you're coming north along dorset street too what is the surface of the berm in that render that looks unusual i thought the same thing um you know i i believe it's going to be grass i i i think the surface they're showing there is mulch um but it would be it would be grassed um so that's not completely accurate that rendering right there so um are we marla what are your thoughts about um the rendering from the south facing as you're driving north the purpose of this question was to respond to the board's um interest in how these things are well integrated on other similar projects so you know right now we're looking at it from the north and we're looking at the front of the first building there um but in the coming from the south we'll be looking at the back of the building so will that building from the south present just a big blank wall you know you're coming up a hill i believe though i'm not 100 sure on that um are you able to pull up google earth marla there there's a pretty good view and there's a good amount of vegetation um along that rec path there that will be blocking um the south side of of that uh that unit um in the in the southwest corner um so it's going to be pretty well screened as you're driving north along dorset street and you know as a driver your direction is going to be looking forward um you know once you get past that southern property line it is going to open up but there's going to be those berms with vegetation there too so is that vegetation that you're referring to dan on this property or on an adjoining property um an adjoining property and so why do we why would we have any assurance that that would remain in the future um you you wouldn't you wouldn't right because that's a private home so they could just cut down the hedge mm-hmm yeah that that hedge row is more or less on the property line um so they they could certainly cut down that hedge uh you know right now we can propose a little more vegetation tied up against that hedge in the event that it's going to be cut down in the future possibly um well is a is vegetation going to grow when it's being screened by existing vegetation uh you know that's a question for a landscape architect i i don't think so yeah i mean and the reason we brought this up as staff is because the board has asked this question on other similar projects right the board has been very interested in seeing what the project looks like as you approach it from the road mm-hmm yeah i mean in existing condition you're not going to see much um in the future that could change if that homeowner decides to take down that hedge um well dan we can also make the back of this building look like the backs of the units on the metal is dry project that uh those are the backs of those homes facing dorset street so we can make this duplex even though it's a duplex make the back of it mimic what you see on dorset street right across from the clubhouse which have the fake dormers over the one side so it gives it more of a front a frontage aesthetic of the house mm-hmm okay of course the the neighbor who's got the hedgerow has little incentive to take it down because he's going to be looking at the ugly back of the house right okay very good point yeah yeah all right any other um thoughts about this issue before we move on so don we're talking about units three and four they're going to do similar treatment to the backs of them that they did on another part another property to give it more of a frontage feel to it so that in the event that that existing hedgerow is removed when you're coming up from the south it's going to present more of a front of the house aesthetic look then sort of like your typical rear because i'm seeing these great renderings and great front elevations but none of it is what the rear of the buildings look like so i see where marla's coming from and she's right we have often said what are you presenting to the public you know i understand what the back of the building within a development but when it's coming up a public way what's the back of that going to look like so is that what you're talking about you have three and four you're going to be applying the aesthetic detailing and massing changes that you've done previously that's what i was referring to on that one building it's not a whole lot all it is is they have we have to do it over at south village when the backs are facing the the common street areas okay so i would just like to say for as part of final can we get an additional rendering like you've included a whole bunch of nice ones from the south as if that hedgerow isn't there showing what that view is going to be like if that hedgerow is gone with these nice decorative elements on added on to it i think we can do that that would be great that thanks mark for any other questions or comments about that issue so that takes us to the end of the comments um the staff comments so um marla are we given that the applicant is willing to take the risk around the fire department's approval of this are we okay to close and see them back at final this is difficult to frame politely um this feels a little so i'm just going to say it the way it is framed in my mind and i apologize um for that it feels a little rushed and i'm a little concerned that um you know there's a lot of yeah yeah we'll do that yeah we'll do that yeah we'll do that um but if i mean it's 14 homes um you know we should definitely take public comment i just want to make sure that this project gets the scrutiny that it needs but if the board feels like that scrutiny can occur at final then that's that's ultimately the board's decision i guess one question i would have you marla is do you have enough information from the information provided and the testimony provided and i guess the board's you know waffling on what we can accept at final what we sometimes normally want to see it preliminary to write a decision that would uphold what we're looking for at final in other words another way to put it is for all the yeah we'll do that do you have enough concreteness to make the yeah we'll do that into a condition of right a plot approval exactly i think there's no harm no foul right so let's let's take a public comment and then we'll come back to debating whether we'll close it okay um are there any members of the public who have comments to offer um and and delilah do you by any chance see any online i i don't see any online okay i would give it a second i mean yeah okay um we get raised in zoom right i don't see any raised hands and i don't see no chats laura i see we can't hear you you're muted okay now that was your name thank you thank you um my question um has to tell us your name laura oh i'm sorry laura de moroni and i live south of the proposed development on dorset street okay um the talk about the property owner to the south of this development and the hedgerow and all of that stuff it isn't it seems to ignore the fact that the house is abandoned the the barn is in the process of falling down nobody lives in the house it was owned by paul hill who has died there's no way of knowing from what i've heard tonight how anything concrete can be said about that property it looks as if it's in limbo um marlo what are your thoughts about that i think that's an excellent point and i think that the board's direction to um not rely on the property to make the project um attractive is consistent with laura's point okay yeah that was my comment about wanting to see the back of three and four which are the ones that are directly adjacent to it spruced up so that in the event that whole hedgerow is clear cut the project still is presented aesthetically pleasing to dorset for people driving up from the south okay makes sense to me thank you anything else laura no thank you okay thank you i'll mute myself now are there any other public comments going once i guess i have one more okay that's okay all right it has i wasn't here at the very beginning of the of the meeting but i did attend the meetings about the proposed development across the street of park road and there's been a lot of discussion there about traffic on park road and the potential on that curve and a sloppy hill of traffic coming in and out onto park road if you have a minute could you tell me how that was addressed in terms of this proposed development we spent a lot of time talking about that okay and hearing about that in public comments marlar can you take this one so generally the board looked at the alignment of the driveways and considered both tonight and its sketch probably more so it sketched some different ideas for ways this could be better and ultimately concluded that while other ideas exist this is probably as as good or as close to the best that it's going to get okay the the information indicated that the address of this development is two two places on dorset street which led me to think that the the development would be accessed via dorset street so just because of how they it's been referred to as i think 11 16 11 80 dorset street is there a reason for that um so the parcels in question are older parcels that used to be considered on dorset street but the city policy is to have access off smaller roads rather than off main arterials more or possible okay thank you thank you laura any other public comments okay so board what are your thoughts can we close so we continue well i i guess i have a question for marlowe which is are there any hanging issues that you speak in by making then conditions of the preliminary platter crew no i think my discomfort is that that some of them feel like big conditions but if the board's comfortable it's okay hey frank i think sometimes when i have trouble with connection when i'm at home if i turn off the video it gets better we just lost you for a minute but i got the gist of what you were saying i i would i would i would agree with frank and i guess with you marlowe in that you know if if it's something that we can you feel comfortable that you have the information based on the board's direction and comment back from the client the applicant that you can craft the conditions to cover everything we've talked about i'm comfortable closing but as you point out some of them are pretty big conditions and big items that are still kind of loose and i don't want to feel as though we have to quote unquote rush final and typically we do it the opposite where at preliminary we continue the application to nail down everything so final is just dotting our eyes and crossing our teeth and is typically a single meeting i don't want us to feel that sort of obligation if we're leaving all these things open for final thanks mark other other opinions yeah i kind of agree with mark and i i do kind of want to see what comes back from the ledge exploration because i think that that could really help give us a better idea on how all this could play out with the grading and and the road and the buildings and i would have to say i think i i agree with both of you that um you know let's get some of these things resolved and then it'll be easier moving into final yeah i'd like to see the the rendering from the south and the changes to the architectural of the building i'd like to hopefully get you to meet with the fire chief and get that signed off at preliminary and i'd like to see at least a preliminary is definitely put a preliminary ledge for you know removal protection plan um that can be finalized at final but i'd like to see some information given um for us at this time and i think that you know those are sort of the the big ticket items i'd like to get resolved before we close preliminary okay so does anyone disagree with that no that's kind of what i was asking okay so um i would entertain a motion to continue the hearing to when though i mean marla when marla when would be a good time to like what puts us based on availability and scheduling because we need a motion at to a future meeting um i could put them on april 19th but that would bump some other stuff and would mean they'd have to get all those things to me um in two weeks so what about the first may meeting i think that would be a little bit more comfortable for everybody um i just need to get the date really quickly because i don't i think the first may meeting might be a wednesday may third or may fourth it's may fourth it's Wednesday yeah yeah yes i don't remember why all right then are we ready for a motion we are and then i make a motion that we continue fd 2203 to may fourth i'll second that is there any discussion okay all in favor of continuing the hearing to may fourth say aye aye all aye opposed okay um the motion is carried um dan we'll see you back here on may fourth great yeah thank you guys yeah thanks and i am going to duck out for one two minutes and then i'll be back and we'll we'll move up on the agenda and do you want to swear in the applicants for the next one yep sure uh so the next one is final plot application sd dash 22 dash 05 and will brand farm road llc the next phase of plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowable in the zoning district the phase consists of two five-story multifamily residential buildings on lots 13 and 15 with a total 251 251 dwelling units 1,0219 square feet of commercial space and associated site improvements 255 drive who is here for the applicants Evan Langfield from o'brien brothers andrew gill with o'brien brothers this is scott home said for ekrebs and lansing consulting engineers civil engineer for the output okay who else uh jeff hodson wagner hodson landscape architecture roger dickinson lambrown dickinson engineers okay caroline orban wagner hodson landscape architecture all right i'll pass the baton back to you don since you're so good at swearing them in thanks dan um would you please all raise your right hands i think we have one other person our architect okay i'm sorry go ahead sorry tim smith with uh bsb design we're the architect of design for this project thanks tim okay all of you raise your right hand please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury i do i do okay thank you let's see are there any disclosures or conflicts of interest i will disclose that i own um a condo a town home on in the hillside development but i've participated in all of these hearings so far i don't believe that i am biased i think i can render an unbiased opinion unless anyone has feels otherwise um and are there any others okay um let's go ahead and um can you provide us a very brief overview of where you are with this um evan and andrew and um then we'll start working our way through the staff comments sure uh well thank you first of all and i just want to say we're excited to finally be before you tonight for the first final plat hearing of our two multifamily properties located on lots 13 and 15 at o brian farm thought i'd start off with a brief introduction to provide a little of the background on this project much time has gone by since we followed our preliminary plat application on march 12 2020 and much has changed in the world since then at o brian brothers we shut down our offices the following day and the following one day we put all of our tools down on our job sites the only employees that remain in the field were essential workers that are affordable housing senior living facilities and multifamily and commercial properties i'd say most if not all of our collective lives changed in some way shape or form that week in the times that we have lived through since two years later we have adapted and wanted to live with covid but the world around us has irreparably changed professionally has changed many aspects of the way we used to do business and certainly the way and where our employees work and live i wouldn't have imagined two years ago i'd be speaking in front of the development of u-board from my base but here we are this is all to say that while 24 months have passed it feels like a much bigger chasm has occurred from that original submission but here we are today to present our two buildings proposed at final plat both of which in large part have remained consistent with what we proposed two very long years ago there have certainly been changes as almost always occurs in the project particularly a large one like this proceeds through permitting as drawings progress as time elapses as market conditions change as ideas that weren't previously contemplated are now included changes have undoubtedly been made but by and large these buildings are consistent with what was originally proposed and in most cases have improved over time as we've fleshed out the spaces changed our unit mix and added residences a very positive change in the market that is historically tight and one that was encouraged by this board during master plan and we've added new amenities that will make these buildings more attractive and vibrant places for our residents to live we would ask that where changes have taken place that they be reviewed in the context of whether the change is consequential when looking at the entirety of the project particularly when other changes have taken place which have clearly improved and also added considerable costs to the project we believe our project has gotten better over time and also added amenities and design elements that have arisen in response to current market conditions in demand but most of all we believe our project is consistent with the design and intent that was first presented by o'brien brothers in march 2020 and then conditioned by the development review board at preliminary plan yes there are changes but that is also the nature of the permanent process from sketch plan to preliminary plan until all the details have been ironed out and conditioned at final plan we believe our project has gotten better over time and we look forward to discussing with you at this hearing in future ones thank you thank you evan any other kind of opening comments or shall we start working our way through staff comments you ready to go probably just start forward yeah okay okay good so on page three of the staff report and maybe this is this question is directed to you marla there are three items listed where you called up things they failed to address but it's not in red are though i've of course i've read all this but are do you believe those three things are covered in your red comments um let me reopen that because it's too small for me to see on the screen okay um so yeah it's those three and then if you scroll down a little bit that other that other one um they are not addressed elsewhere in the staff comments okay so should we walk through them i think that they're all of well i think that there's not much for the board to say yet about them until the plans are changed to address them unless the applicant wanted to talk about them but i think these largely fall in the we'll sort them out okay thank you so let's go ahead just i mean we would you know there are a few times in the packet where you know some of black text is relevant um but i think for this one you know one question that i had was with regard to the two parking spaces um that are in front of lot 15 uh if you went back to the site plan that you were at they're also behind like a fairly large retaining wall and a you know a seat wall and stone patio area um so i guess i just wasn't aware what the parking in the front yard limitation was if it was behind a structure or if it's behind the building or you know is that wall uh you know a sufficient screen to enable those two parking spaces to stay uh or not uh and then i guess the follow-up is if it's not um you know i think there's an exception for handicap spaces and so we might move one of those down there uh in order to keep the parking count the same um it is specifically to the side of rear of buildings not to structures so like a like a wall or something doesn't like a if we were to make that somehow assault like a like a four-foot wall or fence of some sort it doesn't matter without going through a lot of convolutions and having it become like a major portion of your time tonight i would say you're better off just putting your handicap parking up there okay um i'd be happy to talk about it with you i don't think i think it's a rabbit hole if you want to go down it with the board you're eating up a lot of time that could be spent on more productive stuff no i think i mean i think we can probably flip one of those handicap spaces on the end down there we'll have to ask tim about it but let's table that for now okay thanks all right comment number one staff recommends the board require the applicant to fully address the conditions of the preliminary plat approval before closing the hearing yeah to that to that point i mean i think uh you know some of them are self-explanatory potentially uh i think the third point regarding the parking garage screening i'm sure that we'll discuss that more uh in the in the bulk of the comments as well as the landscaping in front of the building 15 on kennedy drive um the lighting plan is easy the parking spaces are easy the other two i think hopefully we can discuss a bit more as we go through and sort of get more of an understanding in terms of what you'd like to see okay let's just comment there move ahead thanks andrew number two this is related to increasing the side setback to 10 feet tell us what your thoughts are about this please sure well so this is sort of a um you know it seems like a minor thing uh but we aren't currently proposing to move the property lines off the project since final plat um i think that the waiver is something that the board technically is allowed to grant and so i think our inclination is to request that the the waiver be issued for the seven and a half foot setback uh you know we control the lot 17 land it's hosting parking for this project uh so i think you know between owning both sides of the lot line and sort of having parking for this project permitted on the adjacent lot that there's sort of a a decent amount of information there to understand that the waiver isn't going to cause an undue impact to the neighboring property um and so you know just to sort of avoid the movement of the lot line and all of the sort of undulations that would be required by that uh whether it be expanding the master plan via a different application or just you know it's going to subtract land from other puds that you've reviewed previously like the east view pud it's going to add land to this it's going to alter all the coverage for the development and that's not to say that we can't do all of that um it's just to say that with us controlling both sides of the lot uh you know we felt that it would make sense to just ask the board to consider issue and waiver and i think just to add to that um you know we've also spent a fair bit of time with the board going over the conceptual plan for the balance of the property and so there is some concept of what is going to the north of that on the next lot okay board members what what are your thoughts about that and marla do you have any anything to add i did look back at the east view plans in writing this and i thought that the east view plans were um this was an area where there was not a concept provided it was just a blank unless i was looking at the wrong sheet so and actually i i see how you read it the way you're reading it because i didn't write it very clearly but what i wrote this i was thinking not to move the lot line but to reduce the building a little bit in that location so to actually move the building away not move the lot line away from the building shrink the building right but i i didn't write it that way i wrote it in a neutral way shrinking the building obviously has a lot of consequences to go along with that so you know we would definitely request that we not really consider that and it's certainly moving the lot line would be our preferred alternative over altering the the length of the building board members what are your thoughts where where is the side yard where is the impact that we're talking about a marker would be helpful yeah sure yeah if you guys wanted to zoom in so on the right side of the screen just below where it says future gravel wetland there is a corner of the building and you can see the the lot line just below it i don't have control of the screen but if you zoom in on that basically it's on building 15 it's the front right corner and what is the issue with it andrew so the setback is there you go so there you go you can see the bike parking in the basement level there shown in the upper right corner and it's the setback right there so that's a seven and a half feet from the property line instead of the minimum 10 okay so it's a two and a half foot discrepancy and is that okay is that purple line the seven and a half feet or is it right at the corner is that whole length of the building seven and a half feet i believe that it jogs in where that purple line is now so i think the issue is in the back corner not the front it's it's less than 10 for that whole length though it's like it varies you're right but it's less than okay whole length okay so do we do we have the authority to waive this marla i forget what you do yeah okay what is the practical argument against not waiving it yes that there's no development plan for the adjoining parcel so it may create a unpleasant situation on the adjoining parcel because we just don't know what they want it i mean we know they want to do some sort of commercial development and that's all we know so here's here's here's something could we say that can we condition that since since since they're they're in control the whole development can we condition it that whatever goes on the adjacent parcel that's to maintain 20 feet between buildings no it's a separate master plan okay i see that sidewalk is there though i guess sidewalks are certainly i don't know we have been we have been working more on that parcel now and there's really no building anywhere near that property line i can say that i mean we could we could as a supplement here we could provide you guys with the updated conceptual plan for that area going to be submitting our east view final plat in the next couple of weeks anyway so you're going to have it i mean i'm i'm more comfortable with if if there's some way to condition or see something which shows that there's not good there's going to be minimum 20 feet between the buildings um because if there's clearly from a setback standpoint there's no reason to you know need 10 feet there given you know the site conditions other than what might go on in the future and so you know i guess i'm i'm reasonably comfortable with it but i'd like to i'd like some assurance that we're not going to see another building you know right at 10 feet i think i think marla makes a good point about the sidewalk being there i mean that that's a permanent sidewalk there's nothing temporary about it that is true we cannot approve a site plan modification if a site plan would change came in asking for that sidewalk to be moved to allow for a building to go in right at 10 feet isn't that correct marla yep so i'm fine with that then we just we're not we wouldn't approve a sidewalk change the sidewalk location okay so i need to make a note to myself to in that decision really like make it clear that that sidewalk shall remain as a yep okay yeah i can look at that yeah if they wanted to move the sidewalk it has to make sure that it keeps the building 20 feet away you know what i mean but i'd prefer just leave the sidewalk and not to be you know adjusted we do have a you know i think that's a good point though because we do have a separate conditional use application for lot 17 in currently right so and i think that those are going to issue simultaneous with this permit so you could probably include all those conditions on the lot 17 permit yep is there anyone on the who who uh does not cannot live with this okay i think we think we're good oh and if we're granting a waiver we have to grant the waiver right yeah but you don't have to vote on it now we'll just bring it right into the decision okay okay let's uh let's see let's move on to comment number three okay page seven these are dpw comments and um calling for a technical review of the traffic study and and a recommendation that this be continued until the technical review is complete and i think i mean just going into this i think we we end at 10 so we're we have an hour left just over an hour left it's probably likely we're going to be continuing this anyways it's a big project so um what what do you need from the board marla in terms of the traffic study the technical review of the traffic study if the board agrees with staff and the director and bfj's recommendation to invoke a technical study we do need to do a vote yeah okay i'm i make a motion that we invoke technical review for the traffic study for lots 13 and 15 second can we can we have a just a discussion on this point i just was a bit confused by the sort of the scope of the review so this would be the time to have a discussion because it's been seconded so um go ahead and well so if you look at the paragraph that is on the screen the technical review is being requested to review the driveway locations a pedestrian crossing um which was required by the board in the permit that issued just a couple of days ago as well as a review of curb cuts that were reviewed extensively at the preliminary plat level in which haven't moved um you know the the curb cuts into the project are related to the locations of the buildings the architecture of the buildings and the entire site plan that's at final plat they were reviewed by the previous director of public works who didn't have any concern with them i think that there's another issue raised where the technical review is being requested because it's been said that we have not indicated that a traffic signal and pedestrian crossing is warranted but our traffic study specifically does say that a traffic signal and crosswalk is warranted our application says that we'll be building the crosswalk uh and the traffic signal both of which were approved in the permit sd-21-25 that issued on march 8th just a few days ago that you guys signed so it's a little bit confusing i think what exactly we're having a third party traffic engineer review uh you know the the summit multifamily project that you guys had us in here for a couple weeks ago we updated the entire traffic study uh all of the intersection analyses and capacity analyses were run for the full buildout of the master plan which included these units at that point in time the director of public works didn't feel the need to invoke a technical review of any of those conclusions uh and the crosswalk is particularly concerning because the crosswalk was required by the director of public works in the exact location that is now being proposed and where we're invoking a third party review to look at whether that crosswalk is warranted and so just on march you're not actually addressing the condition of that lot 10 and 11 final plot um with the cross with the pedestrian crossing location i think that that's the gist of that comment but sorry to interrupt your flow well so i guess i'm just i i think maybe we just wanted to get a little bit of clarification in terms of you know the the permit said that we'll put a crosswalk on the road in a specific location reviewed by the administrative officer prior to issuance of the zoning permit which we intend to do the road network was approved including the curb cuts to this project via a permit that issued seven days ago and so i think we're just a little bit trying to figure out you know what exactly is it that we're reviewing um you know and if the third party review is meant to look at the intersection capacity analyses of the traffic study to prove out that there's sufficient uh capacity in the roadways and at the adjacent intersections you know we're happy to have that review done and i think rogers work stands for itself he's never been wrong yet um but i think reviewing the crosswalk and curb cut locations are what we're sort of looking for a little more clarity on arla so we're in a funny position right now as the board knows um our director of public works our previous director of public works was a traffic engineer our current director of public works is a environmental scientist stormwater expert and so we have contracted with bfj to do the role that our former director would have done which is a sort of high level quick no more than two hours review of traffic related issues for projects that have traffic um bfj in their quick two hour review said what it says in the paragraph immediately before the red the initial review on march fourth identified discrepancies between the applicants trip generation and was calculated in the it e um our current director in conjunction with the director of our the was it the operations what's adam's title anyway adam um looked at the sort of the not the driveway locations but the way that the the lanes and where where the choice was to to wide start the lanes um and how that driveway comes out after the lane widening has already started and said this looks weird have we looked at this in great detail um and so that's those are the two things that bfj felt like that they needed more time than our sort of like high level replacement for justin kind of review um and andrew's comment about the pedestrian crossing they submitted this application before the final plat decision was issued so they were unable and i think that this is anyway they were unable to incorporate the conditions of that approval that said move the pedestrian crossings lately so the pedestrian crossing is not what bfj would be looking at bfj would be looking at the way the widening is happening and the trip generation andrew do you have anything to i i think that you know what i would say is that that the curb cuts for this project were reviewed at preliminary plat and there are extensive comments here regarding sticking to preliminary plat and i can't think of anything more integral to this project than the location of the curb cut uh so while i appreciate that there's a new director of public works the old director of public works approved these locations and they haven't moved and it is a very big risk to the viability of the project to sort of open that again at this stage i don't think that there's any problem and maybe roger could speak to whether he feels that that's even a concern from his perspective as a professional traffic engineer i'm not sure that there's a risk there but i would you know ask for some consideration to be given to those locations that were confirmed previously and again i'm not talking we're not talking about the location of the curb cut or look talking about when the widening into three lanes starts relative to the curb cut so i don't roger do you have any thoughts on that you could share just what we're having the conversation okay so the widening from two lanes to three lanes begins and there's a bit of a taper in the width of the road and i presume the entrance the curb cut the entrance to the parking beneath the building is is the is the issue here uh i don't i professionally don't see that as a problem i would certainly welcome bfj's input or opinion and and we can but i i just don't see that as a an issue the fall two exiting lanes begins to the north after you after that will bend in the roadway and that's where the stacking will will occur primarily so if that's the case then then maybe there's no no issue with having another person look at it i think you know we maybe misunderstood the comment a little bit to be the the actual turnoff so if it's something that could be resolved uh you know with a slight adjustment of the road curvature that would seem to make sense so we're in the discussion we're having a discussion go ahead although i would also add that the roadway as configured here was just approved via the permit uh for st 21 25 and our plan is to construct that road prior to the construction of lap 13 and lap 15 as soon as this spring um and so you know there is uh there is that so we're in the discussion having a discussion after um a motion was made and seconded is what other comments do do board members have or questions before we um take a vote on whether to invoke a traffic study review hello hello i don't see any others i think it's having another go ahead mark oh i just gotta say i i don't have any need to have any further discussion i think you know Andrew's comments are valid but i think having another set of eyes to look at it given the circumstances within the city um is valid okay anyone anyone have anything else to add before we take a vote yeah to the extent that we approve i mean a little consistency here we just in another context had a discussion about being consistent with what was approved or required in the preliminary plat and then raise the point frank you're breaking up we can't hear you try turning off your video frank sometimes that just reduces the bandwidth can you hear me now yeah not very well did you switch the balance and telecom skit no it's it's it's Comcast but skit me because you know i i i just i am a little concerned about Andrew's point about things that were approved that preliminary plat not being subject to being revisited at this stage at this point so do you just for clarification to be clear are you agreeing with Andrew frank well yeah partially okay all right now you're breaking up again sorry i i i think that you know based on roger's perspective um you know and and i think a little bit more understanding of what the comment was actually related to i don't think we necessarily object to this i think that the other concern though is that what do you do with the permit that was just approved when we're now having a second set of eyes at it and we have an existing permit marlar what what how would you respond to that well if bfj you know thinks that the the design of the road is not i i guess we'd have to see what the results are um you know we would certainly honor the previous approval and try to find the best solution um you know and if that means kind of a handshake agreement with the applicant that this permit is going to modify that in some way and we're telling you that now so go ahead and start your construction in that way um you know it might get a lot i think i think we can handle it it's okay no worse than what we feel marlo do you do you just just real do you do you have any sense of what the turnaround time would be for them to take a look at this oh gosh they were ready to do it last friday okay i i just don't think it's that big of an issue not a way of a better understanding of it if it gives the the city a little bit more confidence i think we're okay with it yeah okay thanks for the jump on it so so all in favor of um the motion to invoke a technical study of traffic say i i i i opposed no the motion is carried okay great let's move on to question number comment number four and this is about roof space and um whether the space dedicated to the elevated ceiling for the space below would be better served as additional usable roof space um andrew what are your thoughts about this question or this comment sure we um so we had submitted to you guys that like some visuals uh side by side comparisons and things like that earlier in the day perfect um and we had a slide about this uh it was i believe 24 slide 24 has the two different uh configurations perfect um so you know i can sort of just give a high level overview i think you know comment four and five uh in particular i believe have sort of talked about the um you know the the the overall exterior amenities and landscaping uh the roof deck was one feature there are some at grade features that were discussed um and you know in the process of the final plat we've definitely uh sort of finalized the amenity features i think you know we went from a conceptual rendering a hand drawn sketch on the left to a full uh CAD drawing on the right um the project has you know evolved over the past couple of years but all of the all of the things that are happening have a reason so here as the staff comment pointed out the roof deck was adjusted so there were a couple adjustments made and you can see on the image on the left that the wings of the building used to extend a lot further into the u of the courtyard and we decided that you know that wasn't ideal because it was going to block a lot of sun and western light from getting in we reconfigured the sort of wings of the building we expanded those areas uh and then in an effort to sort of enhance an amenity which was the gym space for the units uh we put a second story vaulted ceiling in the gym so that you could have rope climb stations and wall ball stations and potentially even a rock climbing wall of some sort uh for the tenants to use and that had the result of sort of intruding into the rooftop amenity above so you can see that in the box that's on the right hand side and I can let the landscape architects are on the call and I think they can sort of speak to how we've used it um and sort of how they feel the amenity is is playing out but we feel really good about it yeah I think you know one of the things we felt like it's it's such a large roof area that we wanted to have the opportunity to kind of create outdoor rooms you know divided by architecture and planters and things so that you know a lot of different groups of residents could use it at the same time and not feel like they're kind of on display you know everywhere else so there's you know we've kind of created these little outdoor kitchens and the the extended roof of the gymnasium actually created an opportunity to kind of define space you know we have kind of in the center we have two kind of grilling stations with tables and chairs the gymnasium roof provides the opportunity if we want to put an awning you know building mounted that could cover these areas um off to the right it kind of creates this outdoor um living room so we have a tv mounted to the the building the gymnasium roof um you know so people could one group could meet over there and hang out and watch you know football game or something so we kind of welcomed the introduction of this um roof extending out because it really helped us kind of partition and divide up the space um rather than just having a big wide open roof space I have to be honest um when I saw this I thought it would create a little more cozy spaces it would divide it up yeah so I I can see where you're coming from and I had that same thought I'm just glad we're not talking about a pool anymore but um us too any other comments from the board about this space and the comment I think it's pretty functional and nicely laid out okay Marla I think that um it sounds like we're gonna support their design okay unless anyone disagrees okay um and then number five is a comment it seems that between preliminary or sketch and preliminary and now there have been some changes in the amenities outdoors and and you spoke to what time what can happen over time Evan but um I'm wondering what other comments you might have about staff comment number five so we you know this comment essentially is dealing with uh two separate open spaces so there were essentially you know there were essentially uh you know I'm trying to think five potentially areas on the site that we had conceptual landscape renderings for initially you know one was the four-way intersection uh one was the sort of leasing office pavilion area below the roof deck and the roof deck uh and then you had three areas on lot 15 this food truck parking area a sort of patio in the front of the building and then a boardwalk feature along the front facade of building 15 that we had originally contemplated and so this this these these comments dealing with two of those areas you know I think the comment mentions viewing things in context I think that's that's important um you know overall we made improvements in other areas that aren't noted uh where the where the sort of removal of the deck on the front of lot 15 is certainly a real commentary we also expanded the size of the terrace at lot 13 and we included a cafe uh which you guys approved the neighborhood commercial use for at the last hearing that wasn't included at preliminary plat um and so you know there's been gives and takes uh in the project you know a little bit more information I think um on the the deck on the front of lot 15 you know we have in our original submission and I think that I had a slide in the in the packet about it we had thought that the front of lot 15 was going to be half underground and so there wasn't going to be a full height door coming out of that and heading in you know toward kennedy drive and so when you look at that deck you can see how the sort of deck is not allowing for access from underneath the deck sort of out to the walking path and as we sort of got into the grading it turned out that that that deck would have had to be 10 feet in the air you know with a full height ceiling and door into the parking garage level underneath which just made the deck much less uh appealing to be that sort of high off the ground and then you know you had all kinds of access issues with ramps for ADA access and how this thing was kind of sticking out so far um and so we sort of reworked that design to allow for this sort of more ways I public you know sort of park area um and and I think that was sort of where we headed in in this direction it was sort of a change to the topography in the way that we thought made the most sense to use the space um but why don't we let uh maybe Jeff wants to speak to sort of the design of these yeah I mean this was um also you know responding to changes in the architecture and um also we had a more developed um stormwater system that took up a lot more space um than we originally thought it would um so we were actually able to just provide an at grade sidewalk along the the face of the building um I guess that's the west west face um so we didn't really need to do the raised boardwalk like we we thought we had to before um we did still provide kind of a picnic area it's just more of a an area kind of on the walkway out to kennedy um and I think it helps too Andrew if they look at the building elevations for this area because I think that kind of explains it better there's there's the shot where I sort of was conveying how it used to be underground so you can see how there's a full height door there instead of that sort of weird intersection of the grade uh are you talking about the architectural elevations yeah yeah okay yeah I believe those are I think that that's on slide nine eight or nine okay let's try the next one nine there you go is that where you're really Jeff yeah so you can see you know we were providing this this elevated um deck um up at the main main floor um but it just became you know like accessibility and traversing from the grade of the the ground below up to that deck and it just became kind of a a real um challenge and took up a lot of space and there was a ton of ramping and and things so we decided that it would just be better to have an at grade um area for people um to kind of picnic and and hang out rather than trying to come out of the upper level and and work your way down so I have a question and I hesitate to bring this up but um when we were talking about the rooftop the outdoor kitchens and whatever will that amenity be available to only the people in that building or to everyone in the six buildings that rooftop uh courtyard is sized um and it will only be available to lots 13 and 15 because the ownership structure because of the financing required okay all right thank you so that's that's why you know well there's a decent amount of space up there what we've also tried to do is provide a commensurate amount of outside uh amenities for all of the buildings but then also have indoor amenities that are specific to the buildings okay thank you thank you so going back to go ahead well so I think in in the other area uh you know I just want to point out that while we're on this slide that there was some feedback about the uh architecture uh for the central tower on this and and we're definitely open to that uh conversation uh you know while we're looking at it so you know we understand that the deck did add some architectural interest here and we're certainly looking to enhance that ground floor entry uh carry the tower down like it does on the right add some storefront and make that into a nicer entry I think that was just an oversight um but I think if you go back in the slide to um I think it'd be slide 31 you can sort of see the rendering here uh and we've also talked today about you know the potential to enlarge this um you know the sort of seating area with the seat wall and the two tables that you see I think there is some space to make that a little bit bigger yeah and when we talked about that yeah and I think you know it was maybe an oversight we um meant to have uh grills built in down there so um I think that could be added in as well uh this is Frank I will comment uh go back to the if you could go back to the deck a little that I don't know if we have to see it because I think everybody's seen it it's obviously a nice architectural feature is there any is there anything is there any reason for the removal that deck other than cost any practical reason any safety reason anything other than cost for removal that deck well yes so like as we were explaining that the the deck in the previous iteration was off of a community room uh so it would have had a sort of more of a use than it does currently off of a we work area home office area uh the this architectural rendering right so so this architectural rendering was not accurate to the grading conditions as we understood them at the time as it turns out it was correct but if you look at the image that we had shown previously which I think is uh slide 28 the grading plan very much had this as an at grade deck not something elevated 10 feet in the air and then the challenge that was presented when we discovered that it was 10 feet in the air is that there needs to be handicap access off of the deck down to grade uh and then for any inter levels between the deck and it just became a whole bunch of ramps and complication uh and challenges and so we thought that it would be best served with an at grade facility that was accessible to everybody um and the architecture could certainly be remedied well well you can say the architecture will certainly be remedied but have you presented a remedy I mean it sounds to me like the answer to the question is there anything other than cost the answer is no it costs too much money to put all those right can I can I have a excuse me can I had a quick comment on that I will say as as these projects are want to do the stormwater design did grow in this area and the the deck as was previously shown in the concept sketches was extending well out into the to the stormwater treatment area and I think at the very very least it would have had been trimmed back considerably in order to provide you know access you know to the uh to the stormwater areas for for maintenance and and just for for treatment of the volumes that we have here so and and just just to add to that I Frank I actually think that there is an aesthetic concern that is not related to cost which is you know putting in all those ramps I don't think really adds to the aesthetic of it and I think even in its original iteration it had it had some problems with the design because you're essentially creating this deck deck right outside people's bedroom windows and you know I'll be honest I was never a huge fan of it it was one of the reasons why it's cutting room floor it just never really made a lot of sense what we were trying to do was create something of interest out there and I think we've achieved that to some degree but I think to Andrew's comment that it can be improved or remedied you know if if there are suggestions from the development review board or staff as to you know how they would like to see you know more greats more kind of brick detail there you know we're happy to do so um and there's also a decent amount of land you know it wasn't just a cost thing in the grand scheme of these buildings that deck is is not a huge factor in the cost I'd say it's nothing but it wasn't a huge factor yeah I think also you know the ease of accessibility it's much easier for residents to go down the elevator to the garage level and exit to use these these areas then you know trying to put in ramps wherever we can fit them and you know like Scott said the stormwater area would basically make that whole deck on the left side you know I mean couldn't even build it so with the ramps I think it makes sense to me that like ramps take up space right so it would be space that wouldn't be otherwise used for open space or common space that could be used by residents but our original comment here was you know it's just smaller and you have more units with less outdoor space um so if if you know I and I don't know that the board is necessarily settled in their minds on this but um if we were to assume that an at-grade feature was better can it be brought back up to be the size that it was previously proposed I think so yeah maybe not the you know 100 the exact footage but you know we did look at today that we could enlarge the size of it and I think you know that's a valid point and we certainly can propose an alternative that expands the size you know in the context of the comment I I think it's worth pointing out that for the reductions in these areas there have been increases in other areas there's been a substantial increase in the interior amenity spaces in the two buildings to accommodate for the additional units and so we have invested you know a significant amount of effort in ensuring that the buildings are properly amenitized and we can go through those changes one of them yeah one other comment that came up earlier was um a comment about grills in that location and while I understand it's an outdoor space I'm not sure it's you know the best place to be out there grilling and you know if we're going to add grills I'd probably prefer to have them over by the the food court as there is a nice kind of pavilion over there this area I think is well it is an amenity space for the residents I also think it's kind of a nice place for people that are walking down the street on the sidewalk community rec path for them to pause and sit on benches as opposed to you know bringing your hot dogs and hamburgers over and grilling them at the the new apartment building that went up it just seems like it's a very different setting than sort of a private place to grill with your friends if you're a resident of the building and we can look at that on slide 26 has the other half of this comment on it um it's probably worth turning to right so we talked about um we talked about this a little bit prior to the hearing as well and so you know what we had discussed was the potential to elongate the patio a little bit toward the parking garage driveway and add the grills back into that sort of wider space gotta love the food truck I love that I think the concern with you know that changes this I mean maybe Jeff can you just talk about sort of you know that I think there's a limit to how far we can push that to keep those trees the four trees that are there alive which are are intentional yeah I mean we also um this was also uh an area that changed a little bit when we got into the fine grading of this area um you know Scott and I were kind of trying to work out there's kind of when you drive in um off of two brothers you go up kind of a slope and we wanted this whole area to be kind of level and be kind of a threshold that is adjacent to the leasing office also a level area for a food truck to pull up and we wanted to provide more shade you know from the west so we put trees around the west and the south thinking that you know when this would be used would be mid to late afternoon and you know would provide a little bit more shade and separation from the the entry drive to the garage below so so it's really just responding to refinement of the grading and the site plan and and everything that has to kind of work together so at this point do any members of the board have any concerns or are you satisfied that the plan is presented for final plat works well the driver of of all these changes is a desire for 30 more units right now this area didn't change at all as far as the building I mean we have the same space to work with yeah I think there's a misunderstanding of what happened when we gain units because the buildings didn't really grow at all we just came up with a different unit mix that worked better and was actually more sought after by the the market it wasn't that we expanded the building in the green space in the amenity space and we also didn't expand the parking the parking lot in the pie differently exactly and right right there were more one bedroom units and studio units in the current plans than there were a preliminary plan and that's why there are more units in the buildings not because the buildings are enlarged in any appreciable man they may be a foot or two bigger you know here and there but you know that was the intention of the first slide in the packet was to show the two site plans side by side which are very much you know in line with each other okay and to the point though to your question Don I think we are acknowledging that we need to adjust these plans a little bit and so I think we would submit an updated plan for the front of lot 15 as well as an updated plan for this area with the barbecue grills added back in and an expansion of the size to accommodate the requests in this comment great now are the grills going to be gas grills or charcoal they would be gas and built in okay nice okay good thanks or any comments before we move on no I'm comfortable with the the proposed technical layout from from the preliminary conceptual one okay and Dan Quinn are you all with us still I'm good with it okay good all right good all right let's move on to comment number six the deficiencies in the lighting plan that need to be addressed what are your thoughts about that Andrew okay so we had provided an analysis which looked just at the statistical area of the parking lot you know there's a limit of like three foot candles per whatever it is on the site we looked at the parking lot exclusively which is where all of the lights are and it was at 1.2 you know not three so we're happy to expand it we'll correct the plan we'll expand the statistical area to the whole site but you know we're confident it will comply because it complied on a you know a smaller area with more lighting okay I think that when I looked at this I saw one that showed like the storm pond I didn't see one that showed just the parking areas I saw the opposite it was like two spread out it showed like yeah he had numbers all over the place but then in the little chart at the right he had like identified areas that he didn't mark on the plan so okay maybe that plan just needs to be a little cleanup then exactly we'll we'll get that thing tuned up and resubmit it all right and we'll also swap out the fixture with the uplight the fd1 or whatever it was thank you verify that okay moving on to comment number seven I'm going to read this one staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the plans to provide the features specifically called out at preliminary plat above as well as to modify the buildings to be consistent with those represented at preliminary plat in order to demonstrate compliance with these criteria Andrew there's quite a bit in this comment you know to sort of look at and I think you know if you could scroll up a little bit I think this also there's a list of some sort of changes and stuff that had occurred in the plans as well you know and we can go through those I think you know one by one they're not I think overall this sort of comes down to you know are we true to what we represented as the concept at preliminary plat and have we you know endeavored to achieve the concept in a way that the board is comfortable with we feel really strongly that we have I think that you can look at the particular things that are noted here a reduction in glazing is one that's mentioned we had our architect who's on the call look at that I think the reduction in glazing was about two percent on building 15 and it was about 20 square feet or point zero zero one percent on building 13 so there is a reduction in glazing I but it is pretty minor in the overall scheme of the size of the buildings you know the sliding doors are still in the plan they're not so it's on a record as the proper amounts it was point one three percent on lot 13 and two point three nine percent on lot 15 so those those are the amounts that we're actually talking about here I think you know I think the sort of we can go through the list if the board wants to go through the list you know we can talk about each individual element I think there's a lot up there there's certainly a lot of design choices that we made from you know mentioned here from the type of cornice treatment to the type of window header the architect is on the call what I can say is that those choices were very much intentional they were for the design of the building they were made by the architect in in console with the ownership team and you know they were always made with the intent of keeping the buildings in line with what we proposed so I think maybe you know we had given some some sort of side-by-side comparisons for architecture in the slides and maybe it makes sense to just flip through flip through those in the packet that we'd submitted starting with I guess it's number six page six all right just a sec and the you know Tim the architect is on the call and can answer questions you know with regard to specifics if those are out there but I think you know what you can see in looking at this there's two different softwares one was I think Sketchup and the other one is Revit so there's sort of a difference built into how they model and how they show but I think in looking at this and then looking at the next slide you can sort of see that we've we've remained pretty true to the character of the architecture you know the Juliet balconies are still there they're double doors instead of triples this the stair towers are there you know you can see it at the right hand side of the plan we actually added one that wasn't there previously you know the glazing along the storefront is there there's a lot that we've talked about with the parking garage screening and glazing so as part of the sort of refining of the project we discovered that the parking garages really want to be tempered so they don't want to be open to the outdoors because of the sort of implications of needing to heat all of the pipes and all of the sprinkler pipes and mechanical systems that are in those floors you know unit bathroom lines and sort of exposure for having frozen pipes and tenants units and so what happened was the openings to the garage got closed off and there was a lot of concern you know with how we were going to cover and screen the cars and how we were going to block the light pollution and we just thought that screening them you know enclosing them was a good solution and we recognized the finding about the metal screens and the decorative grates and so we've simply put those decorative grates back in the plan on top of the brick you know so you won't be able to see through them to cars but they're still there sort of as a way to break up the facade similarly we've used these brick insets that are called out on the plans which essentially is a square where the brick is running in a different direction you know where a window might you know to kind of give it a look or a texture that's a bit different and we've really you know we've tried to preserve the towers at the corners if you flip through you know to the next slide you can see you know sort of different elevations and how they've you know maintained we talked about 15 already but certainly we're looking at and we will provide you with an updated elevation. I'm just going to zoom into what you're talking about with the garages I guess this is not probably as good as the one that was originally submitted in terms of the application the packaged elevations are by red like page 36 and 37 yeah so our our package doesn't have these comparison preliminary and final just the proposed right okay so there's these decorative screens glued on yeah I want to say oh you know I know where I put it I put all the building 13 stuff together including the floor plans and then I put all the building 15 stuff together oh one more so this is what faces Kennedy Drive right and so this you got to think about this one this is split into two pieces the right hand side is the right hand side of the building this is a match line on the left it goes continues over here and this is the far left hand side of the building yeah and so so we're looking at you know this big blank wall we're looking at the change from having sills and headers on the windows we're looking at this being a frame thing and this being a compared to as they were showing you know these windows windows had headers they were groups three they had big um more sort of massive um cornices and then these were actual openings and down at the bottom so on again on the on the windows and on the cornices those were design choices so that they were aesthetic choices thoughtfully made aesthetic choices and I get that you know it's subjective to someone so was to take it a little bit more of a modern design and the architect thought it worked better this way and we agreed with them but yeah the garage you know Andrew explained that before that there are no openings now so it is it is a change there have you talked to the fire chief about the garage yes I believe we've had several meetings code renew meetings with the fire chief about the and the fire yeah and the fire chief has our dd package um they should have it reviewed I haven't been able to contact them yet to talk about the review but when everything for the garage has been set up in a way that as Andrew mentioned previously in your cold climate and the necessary to provide utilities throughout the building it's beneficial from a maintenance standpoint to make sure the garages are tempered we also have radon detectors inside of that facility so therefore we do have venting in the garage to handle that but the best way to keep things tempered is to keep it enclosed with minimal venting as needed for the radon detection or carbon monoxide sensor that would release if need be that keeps all their pipes and everything from freezing which could cause a maintenance nightmare should that happen in your climate which is typically cold very cold for a longer period time of the year than most of the rest of the country so in regards to the architectural features you know the headers and the trim around the windows we change it to a board and baton style um there's still trim work around the windows I think you know when you talk about the different levels of frosting that a design can have that is one but there's still a shadow line so to speak around those windows that kind of address what a trim feature does as a header or a seal on a window um we've varied the materials to aid in I think it was talked about you know the Kennedy drive elevation we varied the materials we kind of staggered and stepped them to kind of give a unique relief and view or aesthetic to the facade instead of being a flat blank canvas which I think was one of the comments in your preliminary plat issue is to read the reason why we have the breakup of the masonry at that lowest level where the garage is was to kind of not make that a single plane so we tried to again like Andrew said hold true to the original concepts not void it but address it in a different manner as we've gone through again as Evan mentioned previously two years of a pandemic and design and trying to keep and hold true to the original intent of the aesthetic and try to help build something for this community that would really enhance it and kind of be a statement seems like you know from Marla's feedback that you know the lot 15 that elevation the Kennedy drive elevation is the sort of primary focus um of the feedback you know we certainly we talked about what we could do for that blank wall on the left hand side it's you know mechanical space and bathroom space from a floor plan perspective there is an opportunity to potentially add some small transom windows or something in there to help break that up we also talked about planting some really big trees in front you know as big as is reasonable with the landscape budget that we have maybe some four four and a half inch caliper trees that would really help kind of take off quickly and screen that you know there's an opportunity I don't know what the sign you know ordinance would allow but to put some sort of signage or something in that location as well so you know and we previously acknowledged that we will present an improvement to that central tower feature bringing it down to grade and adding some storefront and in the front of the building and you know I think in terms of the metal grates I my assumption is that the sketch up model just makes them look a lot better than the Revit one does but I think you know we can provide a detail as to what those metal grates are I don't think they're meant to look like they do in the Revit model I think it's just a indication that there'll be a material there it's not meant to look like the material if that makes sense so we can provide a you know a spec on what that material is and the size of it at the locations that are called out okay I said that the comments are mostly about the lot 15 west elevation I just want I just had Delilah pull this up because the point that I wanted to make here is that these changes have been made on all the facades it's not the a lot 11 west elevation is the biggest so it shows the most examples but I think that staff was kind of noting that these changes have been made on all the facades okay let's uh let's regroup here um yeah don can I offer a couple comments sure mark so in one it's more one is more of a practical comment if you're going from an open garage to an enclosed garage um obviously you're gonna have to have some serious exhaust fans going that get really loud where are those going and where's sort of the exhaust because you know those those things are not quiet and they have to run quite frequently yeah so on yeah I'm building 13 I think they're the exhaust fans that we have are located on the north side which faces the parking lot there might be one on the south side side that faces two brothers drive I didn't go back and look at the plan specifically but they will not be running all the time they're actuated based on a sensor um so it would really depend on their runability their noise their frequency would depend on the amount of buildup of carbon monoxide or radon um as the detectors kind of sense it so okay and if radon is an issue there I would say I don't know how often they would run carbon monoxide you know there is you know an exchange and I mean that's kind of how the mechanical systems are built there isn't a clean air exchange that will typically happen periodically um so I don't doubt that the carbon monoxide sensors shouldn't go off too often but the variation of when they occur when they run all that I would have to dig deeper into the mechanical design to answer that question okay okay excuse me won't you know whether there's a radon issue before before you told them um not well yes you can find out through the US yes I think if if radon is something in your ish is a standard problem in your area um but this is a HUD project and a HUD project automatically requires radon detection spite you having a radon issue or not so that's really where that design has come from it's not I don't really know if there's a radon issue in this specific site but you know it's a HUD requirement so we did provide radon detection as required by that okay there's there's ledge on this site so it makes sense you can proactive on it anyway yeah yeah yeah so the other thing I just want to comment on is that you know between preliminary and final I know that different software rendering engines present things differently but you know there it is a valid comment that the the preliminary elevations have a different feel to them than the the proposed you know um elevations uh I think that you know whatever you call it the term you use sort of the frosting on the cake um I think you know there's a little bit lacking in this one I don't I don't think the building itself is unattractive and I'm I actually think and especially if you look at the renderings the the juliet balcony mesh design does have sort of like a modern feel that goes in line with these buildings compared to sort of the more traditional picket style juliet balcony that I think was in the preliminary but I think it's just like the windows themselves feel like they're they're more like just punched into you know blank walls than having some you know casings and trim around them that really have you know I think if you had that and you had a little more umph to it it wouldn't feel you know like it's kind of like this field with some windows in it as opposed to the preliminary which definitely had like the headers and films in them so I just encourage you to sort of take a look at that because I think you're close I think between preliminary and final it's not that much of a huge difference but I think that that general feel definitely did change from the two okay any other comments or questions related to number seven okay let's move on to number eight and this is so what's the resolution is the resolution to direct them to go back and do a little work on this mark what do you think I honestly would like I mean especially if this is done in rabbit you know I think you know make exchange the one window it applies it across the blanket and I think that I would like to see a little more attention to the window opening so that they are more a little more in line with the preliminary um you know the little you know little detail around them because right now it's just it's they they just don't they just doesn't feel like there is anything it feels like it's just a punched opening within the field of the siding I like that it kind of works now you like what it's worth I think I think it's okay the way it stands Frank did you say something yeah so I like headers you like what headers on built on windows particularly on buildings as massive as this okay it's the difference between just massive and something that looks like a little more sculptural okay all right we can take a look we can take a look at it um there is trim work around each window it's just it's the same color as the material that's next to it so it doesn't pop as much which is more of a modernistic look but we can take a look at it thank you yeah in my comment for aesthetic as you know an architect with an opinion as we all know that we intend to have those um it you know and it's because we were presented with the preliminary to this you know as Dan said it's fine it is actually not unattractive but I think if you were to look at something I'd like to see that you know given some attention okay let's move on to number eight this is um staff therefore considers that the has not provided I think there's a word missing the applicant has not provided a special treatment in this area either via site layout architecture landscaping and the objective of the board's preliminary platforming has not been addressed so we've kind of covered that haven't we Marla no this is a different facade than we've really looked at okay so this this took me a minute to figure out what we meant it preliminary plat as well but this is a long two brothers drive on lot 13 um and what we're noting here is the board had a specific finding about the transition along this facade because the grade was changing so it was a weird place where you had a lot of blank wall um because it was kind of half underground and so the site plant and so they said well you can't do anything really great with the building because it's half underground and half not but we'd like you to really do something with the site plan um the site plan actually has a gap in it in this area so it feels to me like they didn't meet that preliminary plat condition because they don't even show what they're doing Andrew so uh so I think that you know if you wanted to just pull up I think it's page 33 of the packet that we submitted um I'm sorry I don't have all the page numbers of your packet memorized but um it just shows a rendering of this facade uh you know we spent I would say a a decent amount of time on this uh on this facade and I think that you know if you look at the slide on page 33 um we can sort of walk through all of the different elements that we used so you can't see it you know the rendering isn't focused on the sort of uh angle but just for some reference I mean after preliminary plat we added the large raised uh cafe patio that you see can you orient the board to where what part of the thing they're looking at here right so this is the four-way intersection the corner of lot 13 uh facing the four-way intersection so the summit project that showed you a similar rendering looking the other direction at the summit building across the street uh but this is if you're standing on lot 10 on summit's corner looking at the corner of lot 13 at the four-way intersection what you would see I'm I'm just gonna give them an overview to orient them and then I'll go back to your slide Andrew so you're standing let me just go to this page here here right and looking that way right there yeah okay so I'll go back so the before you go the preliminary plot condition was about this facade here oh that didn't show up there it is okay so now we'll go back to the one that you had so yeah so backing up I mean the landscaping plans do have a gap in them right here I think there is landscaping there it's just not uh visible on the plan so we're we're gonna address that and that'll get you know forwarded to you uh in an update the you know what I was going to say was that you know essentially on this side if you look down on the lower left sort of over that blue uh Volkswagen you can see a sort of storefront canopy uh we added that storefront canopy there's glazing in that area and a big door into the common hallway actually a window into the pet spa where there's like some kind of mosaic tiles and stuff on the wall like a really cool wave looking mosaic that is planned on that wall so looking through that storefront you're going to be looking at this beautiful mosaic tile thing and the pet wash we added the roof over the top of it we've got the metal grates treating the brick openings and then we added the patio and cafe to that facade as well which includes the raised cement seating area that you're seeing including that retaining wall all of which has landscaping surrounding it trees surrounding it um you know treating this facade with with all sorts of of changes and you know updates and refinements so I think largely maybe we did hit the mark on this maybe the gaps in the plans are an oversight and we can update those and that would be sort of just just to add to that description too so that that cafe that we added that you guys just recently approved for the neighborhood commercial use is a two-story volume and so you have a cafe level on the first level that's open to the public and then above it kind of a mezzanine wrap around you have those free workspaces so it's you know you can sit in there and have a quiet time upstairs with your computer and do work from home or you can sit down and have you know more public you know a cup of coffee with friends or you know charcuterie or whatever you want to do but it really animates that corner and because it's a two-story volume it'll be a really cool kind of jewelry box to look into nice nice and we will provide the landscape plans for that gap so that that can be reviewed and if they need supplement we'll supplement them to ensure there's all kinds of plants in there okay I'm looking at the I just wanted to I'm sorry I just wanted to say that there the plants are called out the match line it's just the part of the street got cut off and I can just slide that over but yeah there's planting all along that that edge and lawn in front of it okay so I'm looking at the clock it's almost 10 o'clock I think this is probably a good place to start all stop although I will note that the next two comments the first one is we need civil engineering drawings and the next comment is we need a landscaping plan so unless we need to talk about either of those can you get those to us yep okay yeah I can do that thanks and then we'll pick up when we meet again um uh with this and your other proposals so um thank you for your patience um and I would entertain a motion to continue the hearing Dawn do you want to give any public the opportunity to comment well do we do that before we um close the here or before we finished reviewing all the comments um sometimes yeah okay because you know they've sat here okay thank you um so are there any members of the public who want to comment at this point uh are there are there any online not seeing any alilah okay all right okay thank you for your patience and um I would entertain continuing to April 5th just to continue that conversation um you are already full on April 5th I'm sorry okay but we can do April 19th okay so I'll make them I think I can incorporate some new stuff but um I also want to be just aware of I guess I guess I'm still living the feedback I got from the board a couple years ago which is finish what we have open before we start new stuff is that still the way the board wants to approach development review in general what do you mean by that well when I so I have stuff on my desk for months um like I have I have your next three meetings sitting on my desk ready to go so I can either on April 19th um schedule some of that new stuff or I can make room for this to be continued and generally I've been could I just I've been generally living the feedback that I got from the board a few years ago which is like let's finish one thing before we start a new thing um but you know it also feels kind of crappy to tell people who have a new project we're not going to hear you for two months I don't know it's it's a tough call Evan started to say something Evan yeah I was you know don't make your uh your schedule around my plans but I am out of town for the the 19th and if at all possible I would greatly appreciate having the opportunity to be present for that even if it's remote I'm not going to have the ability to be in front of a computer so so Marla what does May 5th look like our fourth or whatever that one that we did previously yeah May 4th is good um because then I can and that gives us an opportunity to address some of the things sitting on your desk yeah it will and it also give us an opportunity to work with Andrew and Evan um to maybe clear some stuff up rather than just finishing um I know it's after 10 o'clock and I'm sorry but I'm going to ask this question anyway sometimes Andrew and Evan have like a burning question that they really really want to get to before we close for the night do you want to give them that opportunity sure go for it guys you're muted I think yeah I think probably the uh it would be the next agenda item so I don't know if we're planning on there is one more agenda item it's still us I uh but uh just and that's probably a pretty quick question but you might have to warn the next hearing before I can ask it or whatever you know swear open it or whatnot okay so no burning questions on this one then okay so May 4th then all right we appreciate you throwing up the opportunity though Marla I'll make a motion that we continue uh preliminary plaid application SD 2205 to 25 Kennedy Drive to May 4th I'll second that up any discussion all in favor of continuing this hearing to what May 4th did you say May 4th yeah May 4th say aye hi hi and it's falling asleep um any any nays okay the motion is carried so we will see you back here on May 4th okay so do you want to thank you thank you okay so if we're we do you either need to continue the site the related site plan application we can't we have to continue it to a date certain um and you have to decide whether you're going to entertain Andrew Andrew's burning question go ahead Andrew or you need to open it first open it we have to open what the next agenda item number seven okay all right how do we do that it's very late I'm so sorry how how do we open it Marla well so you read the description then you ask who's here and then you swear them in all right um the next item agenda site plan application sp 22 008 and conditional use application cu 2201 of a brine farm road LLC to construct a 52 space commercial parking lot on an existing 4.3 acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants on the adjoining multifamily residential lots at 255 Kennedy Drive let's make it brief go ahead Andrew I do you want to square them in I do I'm sorry I'm sorry the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury I do all right okay so this question was uh just about the next step for this and what the easiest solution is to the sort of problem we uh if you wanted to scroll down to like a site plan of the use of the project I think you guys all are aware that part of our parking is on an adjacent lot there were a number of reasons for that we talked about it extensively a preliminary plat in order to permit it we need a conditional use approval I think there was an oversight on on our part and the issue that never came up at preliminary plat which is that if you are looking at this picture right below where it says lot 13 area 2.1 acres if you sort of drew a line from that corner of the lot line where the hand is if you draw that line straight down the page to the sidewalk basically down the middle of the travel lane of the parking lot the little triangle that you're getting right there to the left of the purple and to the right of the solid black is in the r12 district um which doesn't allow for commercial parking so that like 40 square feet or whatever it is is you know the parking wouldn't be technically allowed I guess I'm just wondering if the easiest solution is to move the lot 13 lot line uh or Marla had said that having a master plan amendment to expand the master plan I don't think we have a reference I just want to know which one to do so we'll just get it started oh thanks for clarifying that Andrew I think this is really illustrates um you know why the plans should show the zoning district boundaries because when we looked at it in the office we thought the line encompassed much more of the parking area we thought it was um like that much uh so you know that's that's a big difference if you want I think that line that I had drawn is after the 50 foot adjust the board is allowed to grant okay so well that leaves that little wedge that's a big solution that's a big difference because then you only have what like portions of three parking spaces in that wouldn't be allowed so maybe the solution is just I hate I know you're gonna hate this but I'm gonna say maybe just give her to those three parking spaces until such time as you have a building on lot 17 and we could add them to lot 17 on the other side I presume somewhere right like off that I mean that's really the fastest way to skin this onion and well the travel lane is okay then in your perspective I guess the board would have to make a determination on that and um maybe that's something we can discuss at the next meeting is you know the commercial parking is a prohibited use in the r12 zoning district but would a travel lane to serve commercial parking be a prohibited use okay so we can look at that at our the next time we review this um I think and are we I think continuing this to the same may may 4th day yeah that makes sense okay okay then I'll make a motion we continue site plan application sp2208 and conditional use application cu2201 of a brian farm road to may 4th thanks mark and I'll second that uh any discussion okay all in favor of the motion say aye aye aye aye opposed no the motion is carry we will see you on may 4th thanks so much thanks for your patience thank you thank you everyone have a good night all right board can we uh marley can we do the minutes next time yeah I'm getting so nervous about the january ones but yeah it's just that it's late I know and I and I never save you room for minutes and that is my fault well you got a lot of pressure on my understanding I even had comments on them oh all right save them yes so we don't need to vote to close do we no you do not okay thanks for your patience everyone we'll see you in two oh three weeks yeah yeah take care happy spring good night good night all right recording stopped